4 ms·

> Wouldn't this be a major example of why Nuclear is NOT the future? Not at all. Nobody has really put forth "too cheap to meter" as a rationale for nuclear fo

> Wouldn't this be a major example of why Nuclear is NOT the future? Not at all. Nobody has really put forth "too cheap to meter" as a rationale for nuclear for 50 years or more. The issue is that nuclear is currently the only reliable base load generation technology that doesn't produce carbon (except perhaps hydro for reasonable definitions of "reliable"). The other top technologies either produce carbon (natural gas and coal) or are unreliable (solar and wind). I actually don't believe nuclear is "the future" because I think renewables + battery storage will be more economical going forward and less politically dicey. But France is currently the envy of the world for their energy generation save for some countries with unique environments that allow for a lot of carbon-free generation (e.g. Norway with hydro and Iceland with geothermal).

briandear 2y ago
Why isn’t wind and solar politically dicey? Nuclear is only politically dicey due to ignorance. I’d rather one nuclear plant than having the landscape covered with huge windmills — windmills made out of materials that aren’t recyclable. Solar is even worse. Nuclear doesn’t affect wildlife like wind and solar.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Spending $20B for $1B worth of generating capacity is and always should be politically dicey.
- dmoo 2y ago
  Until it does…
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Nuclear elicits outrage from customers forced to pay for it because it's so expensive. How do you propose muting them politics?
- kelnos 2y ago
  I agree that the safety fears and waste disposal issues around nuclear are overwrought, but still: I would much prefer solar and wind farms (even with the downsides you mention) over the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe. Even if the probability of something like that is 0.0000000001% or whatever, the consequences are so severe that it just doesn't seem worth it when there's a good-enough alternative. Also consider that nuclear is expensive (both in capex and opex)! The whole "too cheap to meter" nonsense from the 1950s never came to fruition. I get that opinions differ on this (clearly you have a different take), but that's fine; reasonable people can disagree. (To be clear, I don't believe solar/wind is the be-all, end-all. Base load generation is still a problem there, and neither source is reliable or consistent in the way that something like nuclear is.)
Herz 2y ago
Isn't it a bit whishful thinking to think that storage will come down in price and nuclear won't? Beyond that, leaving out storage costs, what are the technologies that can cover the world's storage? And in what quantities? Because if I think of lithium, wouldn't it be an environmental disaster to extract and recycle all the materials involved? In general, I don't understand why basically nuclear is to be replaced.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  > Isn't it a bit wishful thinking to think that storage will come down in price and nuclear won't? It's been true for 50 years, assuming it will be true for another decade or two is not wishful thinking. > Beyond that, leaving out storage costs, what are the technologies that can cover the world's storage? And in what quantities? Batteries for short term storage and pumped hydro for long term storage. > Because if I think of lithium, wouldn't it be an environmental disaster to extract and recycle all the materials involved? No. > In general, I don't understand why basically nuclear is to be replaced. It's inevitable that the cheapest solution will win. Not the best, but the cheapest.
  - Herz 2y ago
    > It's been true for 50 years, assuming it will be true for another decade or two is not wishful thinking. Well it's one thing though to use the storage for a cell phones and some cars, another to keep all the industries and homes going on. Do you have any data about what you claim? For example in italy of hydro, nothing has been built for decades, everything that could be used has been used. If we want to go further, it's necessary to destroy valleys. Your arguments do not go beyond whishful thinking... At least you need some data.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 2y ago
      > Well it's one thing though to use the storage for a cell phones and some cars, another to keep all the industries and homes going on. Not really. If all vehicles on the road where 100% PEV’s your looking at ~250 TWh in batteries. 1/5 of that would be ~50TWh. Global electricity demand is about 70 TWh per day. You don’t need 70 TWh worth of storage if daily production is > daily demand. It all comes down to which is cheaper, extra storage or extra generating capacity. However ~25 TWh of storage is likely sufficient for a grid equally stable as what we have today. (100% EV’s would increase that 70TWh/day but that’s offset by charging them when power is cheap.)
guerby 2y ago
Note: nuclear near rivers is prone to the same "reliability" issues as hydro.
throw0101c 2y ago
> Not at all. Nobody has really put forth "too cheap to meter" as a rationale for nuclear for 50 years or more. A history of the phrase, which was originally said in 1954 (seventy years ago): > Only a few days later, Strauss was a guest on Meet the Press. When the reporters asked him about the quotation and the viability of "commercial power from atomic piles," Strauss replied that he expected his children and grandchildren would have power "too cheap to be metered, just as we have water today that's too cheap to be metered."[4] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter It was never meant to be taken as $0: For a long time water was paid for in a flat rate, and one could certainly envisage where electricity was the same: the power company would pick some kind of median/average to charge folks.. Of course most folks have metered water/sewage nowadays, and so metered electricity is less strange.
Georgelemental 2y ago
> (except perhaps hydro for reasonable definitions of "reliable"). And geothermal, as you mention below. But, like hydro, it only works in certain geographic areas

briandear 2y ago

Why isn’t wind and solar politically dicey? Nuclear is only politically dicey due to ignorance. I’d rather one nuclear plant than having the landscape covered with huge windmills — windmills made out of materials that aren’t recyclable. Solar is even worse. Nuclear doesn’t affect wildlife like wind and solar.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
Spending $20B for $1B worth of generating capacity is and always should be politically dicey.
dmoo 2y ago
Until it does…
pfdietz 2y ago
Nuclear elicits outrage from customers forced to pay for it because it's so expensive. How do you propose muting them politics?
kelnos 2y ago
I agree that the safety fears and waste disposal issues around nuclear are overwrought, but still: I would much prefer solar and wind farms (even with the downsides you mention) over the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe. Even if the probability of something like that is 0.0000000001% or whatever, the consequences are so severe that it just doesn't seem worth it when there's a good-enough alternative. Also consider that nuclear is expensive (both in capex and opex)! The whole "too cheap to meter" nonsense from the 1950s never came to fruition. I get that opinions differ on this (clearly you have a different take), but that's fine; reasonable people can disagree. (To be clear, I don't believe solar/wind is the be-all, end-all. Base load generation is still a problem there, and neither source is reliable or consistent in the way that something like nuclear is.)

Herz 2y ago

Isn't it a bit whishful thinking to think that storage will come down in price and nuclear won't? Beyond that, leaving out storage costs, what are the technologies that can cover the world's storage? And in what quantities? Because if I think of lithium, wouldn't it be an environmental disaster to extract and recycle all the materials involved? In general, I don't understand why basically nuclear is to be replaced.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
> Isn't it a bit wishful thinking to think that storage will come down in price and nuclear won't? It's been true for 50 years, assuming it will be true for another decade or two is not wishful thinking. > Beyond that, leaving out storage costs, what are the technologies that can cover the world's storage? And in what quantities? Batteries for short term storage and pumped hydro for long term storage. > Because if I think of lithium, wouldn't it be an environmental disaster to extract and recycle all the materials involved? No. > In general, I don't understand why basically nuclear is to be replaced. It's inevitable that the cheapest solution will win. Not the best, but the cheapest.
- Herz 2y ago
  > It's been true for 50 years, assuming it will be true for another decade or two is not wishful thinking. Well it's one thing though to use the storage for a cell phones and some cars, another to keep all the industries and homes going on. Do you have any data about what you claim? For example in italy of hydro, nothing has been built for decades, everything that could be used has been used. If we want to go further, it's necessary to destroy valleys. Your arguments do not go beyond whishful thinking... At least you need some data.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 2y ago
    > Well it's one thing though to use the storage for a cell phones and some cars, another to keep all the industries and homes going on. Not really. If all vehicles on the road where 100% PEV’s your looking at ~250 TWh in batteries. 1/5 of that would be ~50TWh. Global electricity demand is about 70 TWh per day. You don’t need 70 TWh worth of storage if daily production is > daily demand. It all comes down to which is cheaper, extra storage or extra generating capacity. However ~25 TWh of storage is likely sufficient for a grid equally stable as what we have today. (100% EV’s would increase that 70TWh/day but that’s offset by charging them when power is cheap.)

guerby 2y ago

Note: nuclear near rivers is prone to the same "reliability" issues as hydro.

throw0101c 2y ago

> Not at all. Nobody has really put forth "too cheap to meter" as a rationale for nuclear for 50 years or more. A history of the phrase, which was originally said in 1954 (seventy years ago): > Only a few days later, Strauss was a guest on Meet the Press. When the reporters asked him about the quotation and the viability of "commercial power from atomic piles," Strauss replied that he expected his children and grandchildren would have power "too cheap to be metered, just as we have water today that's too cheap to be metered."[4] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter It was never meant to be taken as $0: For a long time water was paid for in a flat rate, and one could certainly envisage where electricity was the same: the power company would pick some kind of median/average to charge folks.. Of course most folks have metered water/sewage nowadays, and so metered electricity is less strange.

Georgelemental 2y ago

> (except perhaps hydro for reasonable definitions of "reliable"). And geothermal, as you mention below. But, like hydro, it only works in certain geographic areas