4 ms·

This is interesting news, of course, but I find it hard to get excited about nuclear power from fission these days. Ten or twenty years ago, sure, but not today

This is interesting news, of course, but I find it hard to get excited about nuclear power from fission these days. Ten or twenty years ago, sure, but not today. As with all things, it comes down to the unstoppable power of change over time; the situation today is almost irrelevant. The unfortunate reality is that barring a breakthrough, the passage of time will not be kind to nuclear power. Technologists forget that the main input of nuclear power is not fissile material but rather men and women. This small plant will require 1,600 skilled laborers to build; before them came a small army of designers and regulators; after will come yet more skilled employees for its operation. A comparable solar plant more than double its size, on-line today, employed seven hundred in its construction. What will happen in ten years' time? The cost of solar power and batteries will continue to fall off a cliff - and the cost of labor will rise. The far more labor-intensive nuclear sadly cannot win.

Herz 2y ago
So, you confidently state that the cost of solar will continue to drop while the cost of nuclear will not. This prediction implies you can foresee future technological advancements and market trends with certainty. (funny) Let's consider the labor aspect. While it's true that solar panels require fewer workers during construction, the production, maintenance, and recycling of increasingly sophisticated solar panels also demand skilled labor. These panels rely on advanced materials and manufacturing processes that are continually evolving. Your argument seems to be driven by ideology rather than a comprehensive understanding of the energy landscape. Thankfully, companies invest in diverse research and development, ensuring a balanced approach to energy solutions. You might be one of those who embrace electric vehicles today, yet it's worth remembering that electric cars were once considered obsolete. They were revived through persistent belief and innovation, despite the dominance of internal combustion engines. This same principle of perseverance and innovation applies to nuclear energy and even to the solar panels you favor. Our current priority is to decarbonize, and nuclear power has already demonstrated its capability to significantly reduce carbon emissions. While your long-term prediction about solar might be accurate (or maybe not), we urgently need solutions for the immediate future, specifically by 2050. Nuclear energy has proven to be a reliable and substantial contributor to this goal. Dismissing nuclear energy outright suggests that your priority might not be decarbonization but rather an aversion to nuclear power itself. It's crucial to embrace a diversified energy strategy that includes nuclear as part of the solution.
- thelastgallon 2y ago
  Nuclear doesn't have a learning curve. Solar does: https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve
  - Herz 2y ago
    I would be curious to see this learning curve without all the subsidies that renewables received. These are impossible comparisons as the magnitude of hype and wishful thinking around these technologies is incomparable.
    - thelastgallon 2y ago
      Solar and Wind are cheaper unsubsidized. See page 17: https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... Also, nuclear gets subsidies. They are not on the hook for liability. Thanks to this policy, should a catastrophic accident happen at one of the 54 nuclear plants operating in the United States, the nuclear industry would be liable for the first $16.1 billion in damages and taxpayers would be on the hook to cover the remainder. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has already been reported to exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build: https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-power-subsidy/ https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
      - Herz 2y ago
        Using LCOE to look at the price of renewables is quite funny. Also, this report for nuclear use as metric the most expensive reactor in US > Also, nuclear gets subsidies. They are not on the hook for liability. The International Renewable Energy Agency tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% were fossil fuel subsidies. About 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear. Thats about more than 120 billions every year. 87 bilions only in EU. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A%202020%20report,oil%2C%20he%20adds https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A.... In EU its way more than 20% (in 2022 more than 50%), nuclear something like 1%. > Thanks to this policy, should a catastrophic accident happen at one of the 54 nuclear plants operating in the United States, the nuclear industry would be liable for the first $16.1 billion in damages and taxpayers would be on the hook to cover the remainder. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has already been reported to exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build: https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p... And? Dams have been shown to be much more dangerous than nuclear power, but I don't see any such thing existing. Don't associate political choices to technologies. Either way, it's less than what renewables get every year, which says a lot about the public perception of the costs of nuclear and renewable. As for the Fukushima "disaster," I do not minimize the costs, simply comparing the nuclear power of 60 years ago with the nuclear power in the article is intellectually dishonest. And I don't understand in which timeline it should be considered as a valid argument to be against modern and new nuclear technologies.

Herz 2y ago

So, you confidently state that the cost of solar will continue to drop while the cost of nuclear will not. This prediction implies you can foresee future technological advancements and market trends with certainty. (funny) Let's consider the labor aspect. While it's true that solar panels require fewer workers during construction, the production, maintenance, and recycling of increasingly sophisticated solar panels also demand skilled labor. These panels rely on advanced materials and manufacturing processes that are continually evolving. Your argument seems to be driven by ideology rather than a comprehensive understanding of the energy landscape. Thankfully, companies invest in diverse research and development, ensuring a balanced approach to energy solutions. You might be one of those who embrace electric vehicles today, yet it's worth remembering that electric cars were once considered obsolete. They were revived through persistent belief and innovation, despite the dominance of internal combustion engines. This same principle of perseverance and innovation applies to nuclear energy and even to the solar panels you favor. Our current priority is to decarbonize, and nuclear power has already demonstrated its capability to significantly reduce carbon emissions. While your long-term prediction about solar might be accurate (or maybe not), we urgently need solutions for the immediate future, specifically by 2050. Nuclear energy has proven to be a reliable and substantial contributor to this goal. Dismissing nuclear energy outright suggests that your priority might not be decarbonization but rather an aversion to nuclear power itself. It's crucial to embrace a diversified energy strategy that includes nuclear as part of the solution.

thelastgallon 2y ago
Nuclear doesn't have a learning curve. Solar does: https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve
- Herz 2y ago
  I would be curious to see this learning curve without all the subsidies that renewables received. These are impossible comparisons as the magnitude of hype and wishful thinking around these technologies is incomparable.
  - thelastgallon 2y ago
    Solar and Wind are cheaper unsubsidized. See page 17: https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... Also, nuclear gets subsidies. They are not on the hook for liability. Thanks to this policy, should a catastrophic accident happen at one of the 54 nuclear plants operating in the United States, the nuclear industry would be liable for the first $16.1 billion in damages and taxpayers would be on the hook to cover the remainder. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has already been reported to exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build: https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-power-subsidy/ https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
    - Herz 2y ago
      Using LCOE to look at the price of renewables is quite funny. Also, this report for nuclear use as metric the most expensive reactor in US > Also, nuclear gets subsidies. They are not on the hook for liability. The International Renewable Energy Agency tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% were fossil fuel subsidies. About 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear. Thats about more than 120 billions every year. 87 bilions only in EU. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A%202020%20report,oil%2C%20he%20adds https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A.... In EU its way more than 20% (in 2022 more than 50%), nuclear something like 1%. > Thanks to this policy, should a catastrophic accident happen at one of the 54 nuclear plants operating in the United States, the nuclear industry would be liable for the first $16.1 billion in damages and taxpayers would be on the hook to cover the remainder. The Fukushima nuclear disaster has already been reported to exceed $90 billion. The full value of the Price-Anderson nuclear subsidy is difficult to estimate, but if nuclear operators had to carry the full cost of insurance against a nuclear accident, the plants would most likely become uneconomic to build: https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p https://environmentamerica.org/updates/feds-extend-nuclear-p... And? Dams have been shown to be much more dangerous than nuclear power, but I don't see any such thing existing. Don't associate political choices to technologies. Either way, it's less than what renewables get every year, which says a lot about the public perception of the costs of nuclear and renewable. As for the Fukushima "disaster," I do not minimize the costs, simply comparing the nuclear power of 60 years ago with the nuclear power in the article is intellectually dishonest. And I don't understand in which timeline it should be considered as a valid argument to be against modern and new nuclear technologies.