4 ms·

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 techno

by 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.
owenversteeg 2y ago
It seems that your entire account history is dedicated to producing low-quality, low-information comments in favor of nuclear energy. This makes it all the more ironic when you then accuse me and others of being "driven by ideology" despite the second sentence of my comment mentioning how I was in favor of nuclear power for many years. Most of your comment is information-free, but I will respond to the single point you made. You mention the production, maintenance, and disposal of solar panels also require labor. Yes, obviously. Do you not realize that nuclear energy is far more labor-intensive per watt for each of those, or do you simply not care? My argument is simple: labor costs will dominate for both battery-solar and nuclear; labor costs per watt are significantly higher for nuclear; thus as the cost of labor increases with time, nuclear fission will be increasingly unaffordable. If you want to debate that, please come armed with relevant facts, not vague statements and unrelated tangents.
- Herz 2y ago
  I honestly write about nuclear power because I find the discussions around the topic interesting. It is by no means a primary topic in my everyday life, though, quite the contrary. Having said that, I don't understand what you can be interested in and what it adds to the discussion how I spend my free time, you are invited to argue in context if you want to argue on the merits. Also because I don't think that wasting time looking at my profile is much better. First of all I would like to see some data, I know as far as nuclear is concerned, operating and maintenance costs are only a fraction of the costs in the bill, which in some charts is 10 to 25 percent usually. So even if labor costs were double, there would not be a doubling of prices. Just as if the price of uranium triples, the impact is very small. The staff needed according to this report is 1.5 people/Mw on small plants (the older ones), 1 for large plants, up to 0.7 people for large plants with multiple reactors. And SMRs will serve to lower this number even further. Although the number is highly variable since we are talking about so many different design types, and that especially as more reactors are installed fewer people per Mw are needed. But as you can see the trend is quite negative, both in terms of normal reactors already in operation and future prospects. https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1193_prn.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1193_prn.p... Do you have any data about solar? And I would like to emphasize that solar alone is not enough, so the staff needed to store some of the energy would also need to be considered (battery?). Otherwise we have to considers nuclear + renewable (my ideal mix), but at that point there would be nothing to argue about probably, since for me it's not a renewable vs. nuclear war, but I consider them both necessary. Finally, just for intellectual honesty, it is worth underlining that one MW of nuclear power cannot in any way be considered on par with one MW of solar power, due to intermittency. I think it is a necessary premise to be able to make any type of comparison between the two. I am not here to consider nuclear energy the best or flawless source of energy, on the contrary I recognize its limits and problems. I am simply here to defend it against those who want to exclude it to decarbonize. Because I am convinced that there is a lot, too much, wishful thinking around renewables. And that this is the first obstacle to being able to decarbonize.

by Herz 2y ago

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.

owenversteeg 2y ago

It seems that your entire account history is dedicated to producing low-quality, low-information comments in favor of nuclear energy. This makes it all the more ironic when you then accuse me and others of being "driven by ideology" despite the second sentence of my comment mentioning how I was in favor of nuclear power for many years. Most of your comment is information-free, but I will respond to the single point you made. You mention the production, maintenance, and disposal of solar panels also require labor. Yes, obviously. Do you not realize that nuclear energy is far more labor-intensive per watt for each of those, or do you simply not care? My argument is simple: labor costs will dominate for both battery-solar and nuclear; labor costs per watt are significantly higher for nuclear; thus as the cost of labor increases with time, nuclear fission will be increasingly unaffordable. If you want to debate that, please come armed with relevant facts, not vague statements and unrelated tangents.

Herz 2y ago
I honestly write about nuclear power because I find the discussions around the topic interesting. It is by no means a primary topic in my everyday life, though, quite the contrary. Having said that, I don't understand what you can be interested in and what it adds to the discussion how I spend my free time, you are invited to argue in context if you want to argue on the merits. Also because I don't think that wasting time looking at my profile is much better. First of all I would like to see some data, I know as far as nuclear is concerned, operating and maintenance costs are only a fraction of the costs in the bill, which in some charts is 10 to 25 percent usually. So even if labor costs were double, there would not be a doubling of prices. Just as if the price of uranium triples, the impact is very small. The staff needed according to this report is 1.5 people/Mw on small plants (the older ones), 1 for large plants, up to 0.7 people for large plants with multiple reactors. And SMRs will serve to lower this number even further. Although the number is highly variable since we are talking about so many different design types, and that especially as more reactors are installed fewer people per Mw are needed. But as you can see the trend is quite negative, both in terms of normal reactors already in operation and future prospects. https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1193_prn.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1193_prn.p... Do you have any data about solar? And I would like to emphasize that solar alone is not enough, so the staff needed to store some of the energy would also need to be considered (battery?). Otherwise we have to considers nuclear + renewable (my ideal mix), but at that point there would be nothing to argue about probably, since for me it's not a renewable vs. nuclear war, but I consider them both necessary. Finally, just for intellectual honesty, it is worth underlining that one MW of nuclear power cannot in any way be considered on par with one MW of solar power, due to intermittency. I think it is a necessary premise to be able to make any type of comparison between the two. I am not here to consider nuclear energy the best or flawless source of energy, on the contrary I recognize its limits and problems. I am simply here to defend it against those who want to exclude it to decarbonize. Because I am convinced that there is a lot, too much, wishful thinking around renewables. And that this is the first obstacle to being able to decarbonize.