6 ms·

The market has spoken. We need a shitload of reliable electricity and can't rely on the sun or wind.

leesec 2y ago
If the market is saying anything it's that solar and batteries will win out
candiddevmike 2y ago
Are you or the rest of America OK with a nuclear power plant being "in your backyard"? Maybe not literally, but any of the effects of it having problems.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Are you or the rest of America OK with a nuclear power plant being "in your backyard"? Economists have the term market failure for configurations in which groups of individuals making decisions predictably produces bad outcomes [1]. The last decades seem to imply that there is a broader social failure when high-frequency, echo chambered, outrage-based discussion results in suboptimal debate. This is true from our political media to social media to the quality of private policy debate in America. Nuclear power seems to exemplify that problem. If a public utility discusses nuclear power, every neighbour in the zip code will come out complaining about radiation. Even if their town is built on radioactive coal ash. Even if they live next to a missile silo, or near a port where our nuclear-powered fleet makes call. Private parties, on the other hand, can cut through the bullshit, which we usually see as bad, but plays a spoiler effect that maybe keeps the system from getting gridlocked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- eagerpace 2y ago
  If it means cheaper rates and better reliability, yeah, I am.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  I would be fine with it.
Retric 2y ago
Total construction of wind, solar, energy storage, and nuclear globally over the past decade is what the market is saying and it’s saying it very clearly. Individual participants making different bets is how the market decides what’s effective and what’s wasteful. But you can’t assume any subgroup is speaking for the total market, because they could be about to lose big. Nuclear could make a huge comeback in the coming decades, but until that happens we can only talk about the market in terms of what the market is actually doing.
- preisschild 2y ago
  It isn't. If you basically make it illegal by law through overregulation than thats not what the market is saying.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Regulations aren’t what’s driving nuclear to unprofitably. China which still builds nuclear and doesn’t give a fuck about US nuclear regulations is still brining solar and wind to market vastly faster.
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      but not bc nuclear is unprofitable. Nuclear there is 3-3.5bn/unit, dirt cheap. They just can't scale it faster due to stalling after fukushima events
      - Retric 2y ago
        Fucashma happened in 2011, their up over 4x since then with the total share of electricity from nuclear in China roughly doubled. It’s just nowhere close to the changes seen in renewable generation. China is already trying to use coal as a peaking generation something it’s terrible at. That’s something nuclear is even worse at and what’s ultimately limiting their nuclear ambitions. They slowed down the pass of nuclear construction despite nuclear only making up ~5% of their electricity supply it’s simply an issue with nuclear not regulations.
cosmic_quanta 2y ago
Not necessarily. The grid of the future needs a plurality of solutions, one of which is clean baseload (e.g. hydropower, nuclear fission, or fusion). However, don't discount renewables. Paired with energy storage -- which isn't only chemical batteries! --, intermittent generation can be extremely useful across vasts parts of North America.
- Kye 2y ago
  Flywheel energy storage is neat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage Add energy (speed) when available, use it to power things when not.
- Retric 2y ago
  Baseload is a term used to describe a downside not some inherent requirement of the grid. Up to 30% of electricity can be supplied by “baseload” sources without issue, but scaling past that runs into increasing problems. Hydro is described as peaking power because it can be ramped up and down 100%-0%-100% multiple times in a single day. Very useful for tracking changing demand and intermittent energy from solar/wind. Coal/Nuclear has issues doing the same due to thermal stress and heat loss when not in use. The energy used to get things back to working temperatures requires fuel which isn’t generating power, you also have ware issues from thermal cycling. Alternatively, you could keep things at operating temperatures but that’s again spending fuel without generating electricity. On top of this Nuclear runs into if you try and ramp down very low very quickly, wait a few hours a then try and ramp back up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison To be clear 100%-30%-100% can be fine 100% to 0% to 100% isn’t.
  - cosmic_quanta 2y ago
    You are right, I should have used the term "firm power" instead of "baseload"
    - Retric 2y ago
      “Dispatchable generation” may be a better fit for what you’re talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation “Firm power” is more about the type of relationship between energy generation and consumers than the actual technology being used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firm_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firm_service
grecy 2y ago
Sweet, these new reactors will be online in 10-15 years in the absolute best case. How cheap will wind, solar and batteries be then?
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  but ppl say wind+solar+batteries are already much cheaper. Why then pour money in nuclear? Unless things are a bit more complicated...
  - grecy 2y ago
    That was my point. There is no universe where starting in on a new nuke today makes financial sense. They just take too long, cost to much to build and run.
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      but big corpos are pouring money in it instead of pouring them in own renewable combo. So maybe they know something? And nuclear doesn't take much to run. EDF in France got 11bn profit last year and will beat it this year. And that's WITH govt limitation called arenh that forces them to sell 1/4 energy at lower price. EDF basically got f'd with foak builds in france,finland and uk, especially uk due to their overregulation and need for custom components but actually running nuclear is great business
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      In the Real World™, that turns out not to be the case. So your model of the real world needs updating.
      - grecy 2y ago
        2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia, and took decades to come online. China are currently building 27 reactors [1], and the average time is still 7 years for completion. [1] https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-c...
pfdietz 2y ago
The market has spoken and is saying the exact opposite.
unethical_ban 2y ago
Some, like me, welcome developments in solar, wind, battery and nuclear. They are all viable in their own way, and constantly improving.
tonyedgecombe 2y ago
The UK is planning on having gas peaker plants that will run for a maximum of two weeks a year. The plan is to use CCS to make them carbon neutral.
EasyMark 2y ago
I suspect we’ll get a split where the elites will get the dependable, expensive nuclear energy for their playthings like AI data centers (powered from nearby nuke reactors) and that we plebeians will get the solar/wind/best effort grid supplies as they are more economical right now.

If the market is saying anything it's that solar and batteries will win out

Are you or the rest of America OK with a nuclear power plant being "in your backyard"? Maybe not literally, but any of the effects of it having problems.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Are you or the rest of America OK with a nuclear power plant being "in your backyard"? Economists have the term market failure for configurations in which groups of individuals making decisions predictably produces bad outcomes [1]. The last decades seem to imply that there is a broader social failure when high-frequency, echo chambered, outrage-based discussion results in suboptimal debate. This is true from our political media to social media to the quality of private policy debate in America. Nuclear power seems to exemplify that problem. If a public utility discusses nuclear power, every neighbour in the zip code will come out complaining about radiation. Even if their town is built on radioactive coal ash. Even if they live next to a missile silo, or near a port where our nuclear-powered fleet makes call. Private parties, on the other hand, can cut through the bullshit, which we usually see as bad, but plays a spoiler effect that maybe keeps the system from getting gridlocked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eagerpace 2y ago
If it means cheaper rates and better reliability, yeah, I am.
EasyMark 2y ago
I would be fine with it.

Retric 2y ago

Total construction of wind, solar, energy storage, and nuclear globally over the past decade is what the market is saying and it’s saying it very clearly. Individual participants making different bets is how the market decides what’s effective and what’s wasteful. But you can’t assume any subgroup is speaking for the total market, because they could be about to lose big. Nuclear could make a huge comeback in the coming decades, but until that happens we can only talk about the market in terms of what the market is actually doing.

preisschild 2y ago
It isn't. If you basically make it illegal by law through overregulation than thats not what the market is saying.
- Retric 2y ago
  Regulations aren’t what’s driving nuclear to unprofitably. China which still builds nuclear and doesn’t give a fuck about US nuclear regulations is still brining solar and wind to market vastly faster.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    but not bc nuclear is unprofitable. Nuclear there is 3-3.5bn/unit, dirt cheap. They just can't scale it faster due to stalling after fukushima events
    - Retric 2y ago
      Fucashma happened in 2011, their up over 4x since then with the total share of electricity from nuclear in China roughly doubled. It’s just nowhere close to the changes seen in renewable generation. China is already trying to use coal as a peaking generation something it’s terrible at. That’s something nuclear is even worse at and what’s ultimately limiting their nuclear ambitions. They slowed down the pass of nuclear construction despite nuclear only making up ~5% of their electricity supply it’s simply an issue with nuclear not regulations.

cosmic_quanta 2y ago

Not necessarily. The grid of the future needs a plurality of solutions, one of which is clean baseload (e.g. hydropower, nuclear fission, or fusion). However, don't discount renewables. Paired with energy storage -- which isn't only chemical batteries! --, intermittent generation can be extremely useful across vasts parts of North America.

Kye 2y ago
Flywheel energy storage is neat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage Add energy (speed) when available, use it to power things when not.
Retric 2y ago
Baseload is a term used to describe a downside not some inherent requirement of the grid. Up to 30% of electricity can be supplied by “baseload” sources without issue, but scaling past that runs into increasing problems. Hydro is described as peaking power because it can be ramped up and down 100%-0%-100% multiple times in a single day. Very useful for tracking changing demand and intermittent energy from solar/wind. Coal/Nuclear has issues doing the same due to thermal stress and heat loss when not in use. The energy used to get things back to working temperatures requires fuel which isn’t generating power, you also have ware issues from thermal cycling. Alternatively, you could keep things at operating temperatures but that’s again spending fuel without generating electricity. On top of this Nuclear runs into if you try and ramp down very low very quickly, wait a few hours a then try and ramp back up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison To be clear 100%-30%-100% can be fine 100% to 0% to 100% isn’t.
- cosmic_quanta 2y ago
  You are right, I should have used the term "firm power" instead of "baseload"
  - Retric 2y ago
    “Dispatchable generation” may be a better fit for what you’re talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation “Firm power” is more about the type of relationship between energy generation and consumers than the actual technology being used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firm_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firm_service

grecy 2y ago

Sweet, these new reactors will be online in 10-15 years in the absolute best case. How cheap will wind, solar and batteries be then?

Moldoteck 2y ago
but ppl say wind+solar+batteries are already much cheaper. Why then pour money in nuclear? Unless things are a bit more complicated...
- grecy 2y ago
  That was my point. There is no universe where starting in on a new nuke today makes financial sense. They just take too long, cost to much to build and run.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    but big corpos are pouring money in it instead of pouring them in own renewable combo. So maybe they know something? And nuclear doesn't take much to run. EDF in France got 11bn profit last year and will beat it this year. And that's WITH govt limitation called arenh that forces them to sell 1/4 energy at lower price. EDF basically got f'd with foak builds in france,finland and uk, especially uk due to their overregulation and need for custom components but actually running nuclear is great business
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    In the Real World™, that turns out not to be the case. So your model of the real world needs updating.
    - grecy 2y ago
      2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia, and took decades to come online. China are currently building 27 reactors [1], and the average time is still 7 years for completion. [1] https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-c...

pfdietz 2y ago

The market has spoken and is saying the exact opposite.

unethical_ban 2y ago

Some, like me, welcome developments in solar, wind, battery and nuclear. They are all viable in their own way, and constantly improving.

tonyedgecombe 2y ago

The UK is planning on having gas peaker plants that will run for a maximum of two weeks a year. The plan is to use CCS to make them carbon neutral.

EasyMark 2y ago

I suspect we’ll get a split where the elites will get the dependable, expensive nuclear energy for their playthings like AI data centers (powered from nearby nuke reactors) and that we plebeians will get the solar/wind/best effort grid supplies as they are more economical right now.