3 ms·

We don't do nuclear because it's expensive, and that's why it stays expensive. No economies of scale, minimal opportunities to iteratively improve designs. Sol

We don't do nuclear because it's expensive, and that's why it stays expensive. No economies of scale, minimal opportunities to iteratively improve designs. Solar was expensive until we started building a lot of it (often due to heavy subsidisation)

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
We tried tons of nuclear power. It peaked at 18% of the global electricity mix in the 90s. Comparatively solar sits at 5.5% today but is rapidly increasing. If 18% of the global electricity mix is not trying hard enough then the technology did not work out. The cost savings never materialized, it’s always been a case of negative learning by doing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
- Krssst 2y ago
  Nuclear power successfully decarbonized almost the entire French electricity grid. The only case I know of of a large industrialized country without heavy hydro resources managing to almost remove fossil fuels from electricity generation. Maybe it's expensive (still less than in Germany which chose NREs, coal and gas), but it's also the only solution proven to work.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    It is very intellectually boring to have the view that the only things which are possible is what we have already done. Meaning, with your own logic the French nuclear buildout was impossible since no one had done it before. It was possible. Just like renewables are today.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Krssst 2y ago
      It's not the only possible thing to do but the most surefire way of removing carbon from electrical grids.
      - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
        Spending 3-10x as much depending on if you compare with offshore wind or solar? Given the differences in cost investing nuclear power today prolongs our fight against climate change. For every dollar invested in nuclear power we get less effect and need to wait longer for the effect to materialize compared to renewables. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
        Krssst 2y ago
        Yet a grid scale replacement for coal/gas using NREs still failed to materialize in the last decade. NREs definitely help with decarbonizing (and pushing NREs is better than doing nothing), but for some reason countries deploying NREs never seem to retire almost all fossil fuel production from the grid.
        ViewTrick1002 2y ago
        It is simply economics. In most grids the renewable penetration has been low enough to not warrant any storage, or they have hydro to balance it in for example Portugals case. Now the battery revolution has begun and gas is being forced off the grids. https://theprogressplaybook.com/2024/06/20/gas-power-output-nearly-halves-in-california-in-one-year-as-batteries-steal-the-show/ https://theprogressplaybook.com/2024/06/20/gas-power-output-... We also need to understand that we are not aiming for perfection. We are aiming for good enough. If the emergency reserve for the extremely cold winter week in 2040 is fossil fuels that is good enough. We are talking 1% of our total consumption. As long as we can force it to transition to efuels or be replaced when those are the most pressing issues still to tackle.
MostlyStable 2y ago
And, importantly, we have chosen to make it expensive by mandating a level of safety that is orders of magnitude higher than for any other generation method.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Nuclear power plants still can’t insure themselves on the public markets. When the need for the insurance subsidy is removed then we can talk about it being as safe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

We tried tons of nuclear power. It peaked at 18% of the global electricity mix in the 90s. Comparatively solar sits at 5.5% today but is rapidly increasing. If 18% of the global electricity mix is not trying hard enough then the technology did not work out. The cost savings never materialized, it’s always been a case of negative learning by doing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

Krssst 2y ago
Nuclear power successfully decarbonized almost the entire French electricity grid. The only case I know of of a large industrialized country without heavy hydro resources managing to almost remove fossil fuels from electricity generation. Maybe it's expensive (still less than in Germany which chose NREs, coal and gas), but it's also the only solution proven to work.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  It is very intellectually boring to have the view that the only things which are possible is what we have already done. Meaning, with your own logic the French nuclear buildout was impossible since no one had done it before. It was possible. Just like renewables are today.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Krssst 2y ago
    It's not the only possible thing to do but the most surefire way of removing carbon from electrical grids.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Spending 3-10x as much depending on if you compare with offshore wind or solar? Given the differences in cost investing nuclear power today prolongs our fight against climate change. For every dollar invested in nuclear power we get less effect and need to wait longer for the effect to materialize compared to renewables. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
      - Krssst 2y ago
        Yet a grid scale replacement for coal/gas using NREs still failed to materialize in the last decade. NREs definitely help with decarbonizing (and pushing NREs is better than doing nothing), but for some reason countries deploying NREs never seem to retire almost all fossil fuel production from the grid.
        ViewTrick1002 2y ago
        It is simply economics. In most grids the renewable penetration has been low enough to not warrant any storage, or they have hydro to balance it in for example Portugals case. Now the battery revolution has begun and gas is being forced off the grids. https://theprogressplaybook.com/2024/06/20/gas-power-output-nearly-halves-in-california-in-one-year-as-batteries-steal-the-show/ https://theprogressplaybook.com/2024/06/20/gas-power-output-... We also need to understand that we are not aiming for perfection. We are aiming for good enough. If the emergency reserve for the extremely cold winter week in 2040 is fossil fuels that is good enough. We are talking 1% of our total consumption. As long as we can force it to transition to efuels or be replaced when those are the most pressing issues still to tackle.

MostlyStable 2y ago

And, importantly, we have chosen to make it expensive by mandating a level of safety that is orders of magnitude higher than for any other generation method.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Nuclear power plants still can’t insure themselves on the public markets. When the need for the insurance subsidy is removed then we can talk about it being as safe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...