7 ms·

A lot of ideologically-driven people here who are staunchly anti-nuclear no matter what. It's tiring.

by Sakos 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> lot of ideologically-driven people here who are staunchly anti-nuclear no matter what. It's tiring. As someone who is pro-nuclear, there are also a lot of pro-nuclear folks who are needlessly pessimistic on wind, solar and batteries.
- atomic128 2y ago
  Look at what Germany did to itself. How long will that damage take to repair? The anti-nuclear wind/solar proponents are dangerously wrong. We need to clearly explain why wind and solar are not enough, and why nuclear is complementary. We need to explain it so everyone can understand it. We must not allow what happened in Germany to happen elsewhere.
Kon5ole 2y ago
I have the same feeling but opposite. Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date, has entirely disproportionate downsides that have manifested repeatedly despite the most rigorous safety procedures found anywhere. The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable, yet some people here still seem to believe that nuclear is ‘cheap and safe’. I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  > I have the same feeling but opposite. The problem is that this is just a feeling. The bigger problem is that this feeling is still extremely widespread, completely contrary to the facts. For example... > Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Almost obscenely profitable, if you are allowed to run the plants. I ran the numbers for Hinkley Point C. At the rate they negotiated (14,8 Cents/kWh...or was it pence?) the profits are almost obscene. A modern EPR will generate 1040 TWh of electricity over its lifetime, assuming 80 years operation and 90% capacity factor. Assuming the EDF-negotiated price is 14,8 cents, that's a cool € 150 billion worth of electricity. But that's just one reactor, whereas HPC is two. So € 300 billion. Puts even the completely ridiculous cost overruns for those two reactors into perspective, doesn't it? China built their two EPRs for a total of $7.5 billion, and with the EPR2, EDF is pretty certain to get construction times and costs. Here's an explainer of the economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY The annual reports for one of the Swiss plants are online. They produce electricity for 3-5 cents. Profitably. In Switzerland. And they have expenses like...oh...a new administrative building in one year. Switzerland is not cheap. > has entirely disproportionate downsides What are those "entirely disproportionate downsides", in your opinion? If you subtract the effects of radiophobia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia > The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable, Yes, the evidence for nuclear is overwhelming und undeniable, yet some people go right ahead and deny it. > I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that. Agreed. I truly don't understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that nuclear is unsafe and uneconomic.
  - Kon5ole 2y ago
    >This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Not if you consider the full costs. Every official source you find only shows the costs that the operators have to pay, but the operators never pay the full cost. No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies. You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years. Let's assume that's about right and look further. It is currently estimated to cost over 40 billion to build. Now we're at 110 billion. The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion. Now we're at negative 90 billion. Negative 90 billion already while the plants are actually operational. But the waste has to be managed for longer than that. For centuries after the plants have been closed, in fact. So we're at negative what, 300, 400 billion over the lifetime of costs. This is also without considering any cost of operations. We assume here that 1000 people operating the plant work for free, never need any equipment, the plant never need maintenance, and the calculation still has a debt of several hundred billion. Now you might say wait, that makes no sense, then EDF (the operator) would be unprofitable and go bankrupt! Yes, and they did, a few years ago. France covered the bill of over 50 billion euros in debt and also the upcoming 20 or so more billions in repair and maintenance. EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance. Again, nuclear is not profitable. Now, since the costs are mostly covered by governments and future generations, short-sighted investors and quarterly earnings-focused companies will of course go along with the pretense that it is. Amazon is buying the subsidized unrealistic purchase price because that's what's going to be relevant to them. When the operator goes bankrupt because the costs turn out to be way more than they calculated with, it's not Amazon's problem. It's the US taxpayer's problem.
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      >> Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used > Not if you consider the full costs. Yes, in fact it is one of the few (maybe only?) electricity source that accounts for full costs. Fossil fuels deposit their waste in the atmosphere, renewables are heavily subsidized and their environmental damage generally isn't included either. > No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies. Citation needed. > You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years. Incorrect. That is one reactor of HPC. Both together would be € 300 billion if they continue to get the agreed price, which I don't think they will. > The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion Not only do you only take the output of just one reactor when there are two, you require that one reactor to finance all of Sellafield, a facility that serves the entire country. The UK has more than one reactor. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74eb21e5274a59fa715fc7/Table_of_past_and_present_UK_nuclear_reactors.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74eb21e5274... > Yes, and [EDF] did [go bankrupt], a few years ago. No they did not. The French state, which never owned less than 84% of EDF, bough the remaining 16% stake to simplify the planned nuclear expansion. > EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance. The opposite was true. EDF was and continues to be immensely profitable over the last few decades, despite being milked dry by the state, for example having to suffer such idiocies as having to sell 25% of their electricity at 4 cents/kWh to competitors and then often having to buy it back at market rates (ARENH). In 2022 those market rates were up to € 1/kWh, so they had to buy back their own electricity at 25x the price that they were required to sell it for. And the French government increased the ARENH quotas in that year. These kinds of insane accounting shenanigans, all on the back of reliable and highly profitable nuclear plants, were the primary reason that EDF had a € 10 billion loss in 2022, their first in over a decade, IIRC. > Again, nuclear is not profitable. Only if you can't add up the numbers. See above. And see, again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY

A lot of ideologically-driven people here who are staunchly anti-nuclear no matter what. It's tiring.

by Sakos 2y ago

A lot of ideologically-driven people here who are staunchly anti-nuclear no matter what. It's tiring.

> lot of ideologically-driven people here who are staunchly anti-nuclear no matter what. It's tiring. As someone who is pro-nuclear, there are also a lot of pro-nuclear folks who are needlessly pessimistic on wind, solar and batteries.

atomic128 2y ago
Look at what Germany did to itself. How long will that damage take to repair? The anti-nuclear wind/solar proponents are dangerously wrong. We need to clearly explain why wind and solar are not enough, and why nuclear is complementary. We need to explain it so everyone can understand it. We must not allow what happened in Germany to happen elsewhere.

Kon5ole 2y ago

I have the same feeling but opposite. Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date, has entirely disproportionate downsides that have manifested repeatedly despite the most rigorous safety procedures found anywhere. The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable, yet some people here still seem to believe that nuclear is ‘cheap and safe’. I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that.

mpweiher 2y ago
> I have the same feeling but opposite. The problem is that this is just a feeling. The bigger problem is that this feeling is still extremely widespread, completely contrary to the facts. For example... > Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Almost obscenely profitable, if you are allowed to run the plants. I ran the numbers for Hinkley Point C. At the rate they negotiated (14,8 Cents/kWh...or was it pence?) the profits are almost obscene. A modern EPR will generate 1040 TWh of electricity over its lifetime, assuming 80 years operation and 90% capacity factor. Assuming the EDF-negotiated price is 14,8 cents, that's a cool € 150 billion worth of electricity. But that's just one reactor, whereas HPC is two. So € 300 billion. Puts even the completely ridiculous cost overruns for those two reactors into perspective, doesn't it? China built their two EPRs for a total of $7.5 billion, and with the EPR2, EDF is pretty certain to get construction times and costs. Here's an explainer of the economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY The annual reports for one of the Swiss plants are online. They produce electricity for 3-5 cents. Profitably. In Switzerland. And they have expenses like...oh...a new administrative building in one year. Switzerland is not cheap. > has entirely disproportionate downsides What are those "entirely disproportionate downsides", in your opinion? If you subtract the effects of radiophobia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia > The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable, Yes, the evidence for nuclear is overwhelming und undeniable, yet some people go right ahead and deny it. > I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that. Agreed. I truly don't understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that nuclear is unsafe and uneconomic.
- Kon5ole 2y ago
  >This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Not if you consider the full costs. Every official source you find only shows the costs that the operators have to pay, but the operators never pay the full cost. No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies. You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years. Let's assume that's about right and look further. It is currently estimated to cost over 40 billion to build. Now we're at 110 billion. The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion. Now we're at negative 90 billion. Negative 90 billion already while the plants are actually operational. But the waste has to be managed for longer than that. For centuries after the plants have been closed, in fact. So we're at negative what, 300, 400 billion over the lifetime of costs. This is also without considering any cost of operations. We assume here that 1000 people operating the plant work for free, never need any equipment, the plant never need maintenance, and the calculation still has a debt of several hundred billion. Now you might say wait, that makes no sense, then EDF (the operator) would be unprofitable and go bankrupt! Yes, and they did, a few years ago. France covered the bill of over 50 billion euros in debt and also the upcoming 20 or so more billions in repair and maintenance. EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance. Again, nuclear is not profitable. Now, since the costs are mostly covered by governments and future generations, short-sighted investors and quarterly earnings-focused companies will of course go along with the pretense that it is. Amazon is buying the subsidized unrealistic purchase price because that's what's going to be relevant to them. When the operator goes bankrupt because the costs turn out to be way more than they calculated with, it's not Amazon's problem. It's the US taxpayer's problem.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    >> Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used > Not if you consider the full costs. Yes, in fact it is one of the few (maybe only?) electricity source that accounts for full costs. Fossil fuels deposit their waste in the atmosphere, renewables are heavily subsidized and their environmental damage generally isn't included either. > No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies. Citation needed. > You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years. Incorrect. That is one reactor of HPC. Both together would be € 300 billion if they continue to get the agreed price, which I don't think they will. > The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion Not only do you only take the output of just one reactor when there are two, you require that one reactor to finance all of Sellafield, a facility that serves the entire country. The UK has more than one reactor. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74eb21e5274a59fa715fc7/Table_of_past_and_present_UK_nuclear_reactors.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74eb21e5274... > Yes, and [EDF] did [go bankrupt], a few years ago. No they did not. The French state, which never owned less than 84% of EDF, bough the remaining 16% stake to simplify the planned nuclear expansion. > EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance. The opposite was true. EDF was and continues to be immensely profitable over the last few decades, despite being milked dry by the state, for example having to suffer such idiocies as having to sell 25% of their electricity at 4 cents/kWh to competitors and then often having to buy it back at market rates (ARENH). In 2022 those market rates were up to € 1/kWh, so they had to buy back their own electricity at 25x the price that they were required to sell it for. And the French government increased the ARENH quotas in that year. These kinds of insane accounting shenanigans, all on the back of reliable and highly profitable nuclear plants, were the primary reason that EDF had a € 10 billion loss in 2022, their first in over a decade, IIRC. > Again, nuclear is not profitable. Only if you can't add up the numbers. See above. And see, again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY