4 ms·

If you do not realize that labor is by far the largest cost in nuclear power then I am not sure you have done even elementary thinking or research on the subjec

If you do not realize that labor is by far the largest cost in nuclear power then I am not sure you have done even elementary thinking or research on the subject and we have nothing to discuss here. Obviously labor costs go beyond operating and maintenance. Have you considered design, regulatory, construction, legal costs (all mostly labor?) Similarly, if you do not realize that the labor associated with the design, construction and maintenance of solar is a fraction of that of nuclear I would be quite impressed at the depth to which you have buried your head in the sand. Do you truly believe that the operation of a solar panel (wipe clean occasionally) or a battery (swap for a new one if it dies) is comparable to that of a nuclear reactor? I suspect you have gone for the operation labor angle because it is the only one without obvious easily-Googleable figures showing the dramatic delta between battery-solar and nuclear. Amusingly, the figures are not easily Googleable because they are so small, but I will provide two for real-world solar plants. The Oberon solar plant near Odessa, Texas is 180MW and will employ 2 (two) FTE plus 2-3 seasonal local jobs for maintenance [1] and the also-named-Oberon battery-solar plant in California is 500MW and will employ a maximum of 10 employees at any time [2]. The labor to operate battery-solar plants is insignificant. [1] https://assets.comptroller.texas.gov/ch313/1276/ector-1276-oberon-app.pdf https://assets.comptroller.texas.gov/ch313/1276/ector-1276-o... [2] https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2021/2021-0053-att-c-findings-of-fact-and-statement-of-overriding-considerations-v2.pdf https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/board_decisions...

Herz 2y ago
I am sorry that your frustration is so great that you have to insult and make unnecessary comments. I do not intend to continue the discussion any further. Bye.
- owenversteeg 2y ago
  My "frustration is so great" because you litter this site with ideological flamewars, baiting comments, name-calling etc; every single one of your account's comments are on a single topic - nuclear energy - of which you seem to have strangely little knowledge. When someone disagrees with you, you call them a Marxist, accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, pure ideology, or call them a paid shill.
  - Herz 2y ago
    First of all, your arguments may be as valid as you like, but your insults and personal attacks, as far as I'm concerned, nullify your reasoning entirely. You can criticize my positions all you want, but I've never attacked you personally, whereas you have. That said, the pattern in all my discussions is very clear: those who criticize nuclear power often pick a single metric to argue against it, defending this metric to the extreme while completely ignoring the overall complexity of the issue. You are doing exactly the same thing, insisting that the number of workers required is somehow a definitive metric to demonstrate the inadequacy of nuclear power. You are probably correct that the number of personnel needed to maintain a photovoltaic plant is lower. However, this alone proves nothing beyond that specific point. If we aimed for a fully nuclear-powered economy, the numbers for electricity generation would indeed be what I've stated (between 1 and 0.7 people per MW). In addition, this number is hugely outsized for reasons of over-regulation, scalability, technology, etc. If nuclear power received at least one-tenth of the subsidies and from the flexibility of renewables, how would it rule out a landscape with new, less labor-intensive reactors? Most of the reactors in operation are very old, and technology changes come very late because of little investment and overregulation. Regarding total solar energy generation, one must consider the entire cost of a smart grid, personnel for storage, etc. Additionally, solar panels have a much shorter lifespan compared to nuclear power plants, and we're dealing with vastly different volumes and quantities of materials (assuming we want to recycle every panel). Furthermore, the solar industry is significantly less transparent than the nuclear industry, including the number of people required for panel production and their working conditions. ( https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ ) There are likely many other hidden costs that I haven't mentioned, which would further increase the prices and the number of required personnel. Therefore, if you want to continue debating on this basis, go ahead. However, I want to emphasize that even if renewables required more personnel than a nuclear power plant, the discussion would still be pointless for me. The number of people involved says very little about the technology itself or its future prospective. And again, my point is not to choose nuclear over renewable. But rather why do people like you prefer to rule it out when the IPCC itself calls it necessary for decarbonization? I want to decarbonize in a diversified way, focus on all available technologies, do you?

Herz 2y ago

I am sorry that your frustration is so great that you have to insult and make unnecessary comments. I do not intend to continue the discussion any further. Bye.

owenversteeg 2y ago
My "frustration is so great" because you litter this site with ideological flamewars, baiting comments, name-calling etc; every single one of your account's comments are on a single topic - nuclear energy - of which you seem to have strangely little knowledge. When someone disagrees with you, you call them a Marxist, accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, pure ideology, or call them a paid shill.
- Herz 2y ago
  First of all, your arguments may be as valid as you like, but your insults and personal attacks, as far as I'm concerned, nullify your reasoning entirely. You can criticize my positions all you want, but I've never attacked you personally, whereas you have. That said, the pattern in all my discussions is very clear: those who criticize nuclear power often pick a single metric to argue against it, defending this metric to the extreme while completely ignoring the overall complexity of the issue. You are doing exactly the same thing, insisting that the number of workers required is somehow a definitive metric to demonstrate the inadequacy of nuclear power. You are probably correct that the number of personnel needed to maintain a photovoltaic plant is lower. However, this alone proves nothing beyond that specific point. If we aimed for a fully nuclear-powered economy, the numbers for electricity generation would indeed be what I've stated (between 1 and 0.7 people per MW). In addition, this number is hugely outsized for reasons of over-regulation, scalability, technology, etc. If nuclear power received at least one-tenth of the subsidies and from the flexibility of renewables, how would it rule out a landscape with new, less labor-intensive reactors? Most of the reactors in operation are very old, and technology changes come very late because of little investment and overregulation. Regarding total solar energy generation, one must consider the entire cost of a smart grid, personnel for storage, etc. Additionally, solar panels have a much shorter lifespan compared to nuclear power plants, and we're dealing with vastly different volumes and quantities of materials (assuming we want to recycle every panel). Furthermore, the solar industry is significantly less transparent than the nuclear industry, including the number of people required for panel production and their working conditions. ( https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ ) There are likely many other hidden costs that I haven't mentioned, which would further increase the prices and the number of required personnel. Therefore, if you want to continue debating on this basis, go ahead. However, I want to emphasize that even if renewables required more personnel than a nuclear power plant, the discussion would still be pointless for me. The number of people involved says very little about the technology itself or its future prospective. And again, my point is not to choose nuclear over renewable. But rather why do people like you prefer to rule it out when the IPCC itself calls it necessary for decarbonization? I want to decarbonize in a diversified way, focus on all available technologies, do you?