10 ms·

> "but what about a gorillion turbines and solar panels" It's a good thing to have a diverse portfolio of energy solutions to help avoid single points of failu

> "but what about a gorillion turbines and solar panels" It's a good thing to have a diverse portfolio of energy solutions to help avoid single points of failure in the network. Especially as something like solar continues to become more and more efficient.

fraboniface 2y ago
I don't really understand this argument. How are dozens of nuclear power plants a single point of failure? Because of the uranium mining and processing? Then we can invest in fast reactors, which consume 100x less and require less R&D than renewables have benefited from in the last decades. Or seawater uranium, another 100x in reserves, distributed all around the world.
- robryan 2y ago
  The problem is more our lack of ability to build them quickly and in a cost effective way. An investment in solar will much more reliably and quickly turn into a certain amount of power generation. Hopefully this changes once every nuclear project isn't some complex bespoke thing that is likely to be late and over budget.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    And yet UAE a country without any technical knowlage built them in a cost effective way and quickly. In fact, any country that has built them in mass figured out how to do it cost effective and quickly. The reality is, its only not cost effective and quick when a country only builds a single reactor as a vanity project to keep the industry alive. No country that seriously tried to quickly increase production with nuclear has failed.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      The UAE spent $30B and a decade building one nuclear plant. The technical knowledge (and the design, and the construction) came from South Korea.
      - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
        The true costs are unknown. All we have is the announced figure and then two parties with an interest in showing low costs despite a 4 year delay saying "Yes sir, all went according to plan!!" Even though it obviously did not all go according to plan.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > How are dozens of nuclear power plants a single point of failure? https://www.wired.com/story/nuclear-power-plants-struggling-to-stay-cool/ https://www.wired.com/story/nuclear-power-plants-struggling-... "Amidst a slow-burning heat wave that has killed hundreds and sparked intense wildfires across Western Europe, and combined with already low water levels due to drought, the Rhône’s water has gotten too hot for the job. It’s no longer possible to cool reactors without expelling water downstream that’s so hot as to extinguish aquatic life. So a few weeks ago, Électricité de France (EDF) began powering down some reactors along the Rhône and a second major river in the south, the Garonne. That’s by now a familiar story: Similar shutdowns due to drought and heat occurred in 2018 and 2019. This summer’s cuts, combined with malfunctions and maintenance on other reactors, have helped reduce France’s nuclear power output by nearly 50 percent." France is about the best existing case for nuclear, incidentally.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Thats one of the shortcomings of using a river with variable flow over an ocean or large lake
    - Loughla 2y ago
      Ocean yes, but then that opens you up to hurricanes and/or tsunamis. Lakes can dry up. So that's no better than a river I would think. Either way, there are no fully safe and permanent sources of cooling water, is what I'm taking away from this.
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        Certain lakes aren’t going to dry up within human timescales. And disaster risk is present in a lot of places. Just something you take into account when you build it.
        addaon 2y ago
        > Certain lakes aren’t going to dry up within human timescales. Which ones? The North American Great Lakes, maybe? Anything else? The Aral Sea was the third largest lake in the world. Within the human time scale of the last six decades, it's lost 90% of its area.
- threeseed 2y ago
  And who is going to pay for all of this R&D and investment. The market doesn't want it, banks don't want to finance it, researchers aren't interested and startups can't afford to. You can't fight against market dynamics when you're talking about capital expenditure this high.
  - fraboniface 2y ago
    This has indeed been a big blocker, but the article is proof that the market now wants it. And there are plenty of new nuclear startups, as well as interested researchers. What was lacking so far was a real need energy-wise (in the absence of a high carbon tax) and regulatory stability/transparency. Edit: also, sodium fast reactors have existed for 20 years. The R&D has mostly already been done for that tech. But the lack of projects make it stuck to TRL 8.
datadeft 2y ago
Isn’t solar energy a SPOF? It goes to zero MW roughly every 12 hours at any given location on Earth where most people live due to the availability of the Sun’s light.
- hoherd 2y ago
  Maybe, but at what cost? There is no such thing as "solar fallout". Doesn't the SPOF come with the trade-off of incredibly low risk of causing long term high-mortality rates of all life in the surrounding area?
  - numpad0 2y ago
    Solars go first in any disasters and there's cleanup cost of destroyed panels, so there is such thing as solar fallout. They also don't decay unlike radioactive fallout.
    - dalyons 2y ago
      that... is not even close to comparable. A hurricane smashes a bunch of your local panels, you go and pick them up, and if they're too damaged throw them in landfill. Fukushima is going to cost between $470 billion and $660 billion to clean up. A solar "cleanup" would not even be a 10000th of that cost. Why even mention this?
      - numpad0 2y ago
        It is. They just don't take a lot of weather, so they're not more than disposable subsidy capture device if you live in places that storms and flying debris are normal. Solar panels are glasses painted with heavy metal stained glasses, so you can't leave the panels around, they have to be recovered. All moot points if they last indefinitely where you are, serious points if they don't.
- Ghaenergyyy 2y ago
  IF solar would be the only thing people do, yes. Thats just not the case. Solar is used together with wind and storage. And there are very little energy systems which rwould relia only on solar. More north you go, there is often water.
therealdkz 2y ago
[dead]

fraboniface 2y ago

I don't really understand this argument. How are dozens of nuclear power plants a single point of failure? Because of the uranium mining and processing? Then we can invest in fast reactors, which consume 100x less and require less R&D than renewables have benefited from in the last decades. Or seawater uranium, another 100x in reserves, distributed all around the world.

robryan 2y ago
The problem is more our lack of ability to build them quickly and in a cost effective way. An investment in solar will much more reliably and quickly turn into a certain amount of power generation. Hopefully this changes once every nuclear project isn't some complex bespoke thing that is likely to be late and over budget.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  And yet UAE a country without any technical knowlage built them in a cost effective way and quickly. In fact, any country that has built them in mass figured out how to do it cost effective and quickly. The reality is, its only not cost effective and quick when a country only builds a single reactor as a vanity project to keep the industry alive. No country that seriously tried to quickly increase production with nuclear has failed.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    The UAE spent $30B and a decade building one nuclear plant. The technical knowledge (and the design, and the construction) came from South Korea.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      The true costs are unknown. All we have is the announced figure and then two parties with an interest in showing low costs despite a 4 year delay saying "Yes sir, all went according to plan!!" Even though it obviously did not all go according to plan.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> How are dozens of nuclear power plants a single point of failure? https://www.wired.com/story/nuclear-power-plants-struggling-to-stay-cool/ https://www.wired.com/story/nuclear-power-plants-struggling-... "Amidst a slow-burning heat wave that has killed hundreds and sparked intense wildfires across Western Europe, and combined with already low water levels due to drought, the Rhône’s water has gotten too hot for the job. It’s no longer possible to cool reactors without expelling water downstream that’s so hot as to extinguish aquatic life. So a few weeks ago, Électricité de France (EDF) began powering down some reactors along the Rhône and a second major river in the south, the Garonne. That’s by now a familiar story: Similar shutdowns due to drought and heat occurred in 2018 and 2019. This summer’s cuts, combined with malfunctions and maintenance on other reactors, have helped reduce France’s nuclear power output by nearly 50 percent." France is about the best existing case for nuclear, incidentally.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Thats one of the shortcomings of using a river with variable flow over an ocean or large lake
  - Loughla 2y ago
    Ocean yes, but then that opens you up to hurricanes and/or tsunamis. Lakes can dry up. So that's no better than a river I would think. Either way, there are no fully safe and permanent sources of cooling water, is what I'm taking away from this.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Certain lakes aren’t going to dry up within human timescales. And disaster risk is present in a lot of places. Just something you take into account when you build it.
      - addaon 2y ago
        > Certain lakes aren’t going to dry up within human timescales. Which ones? The North American Great Lakes, maybe? Anything else? The Aral Sea was the third largest lake in the world. Within the human time scale of the last six decades, it's lost 90% of its area.
threeseed 2y ago
And who is going to pay for all of this R&D and investment. The market doesn't want it, banks don't want to finance it, researchers aren't interested and startups can't afford to. You can't fight against market dynamics when you're talking about capital expenditure this high.
- fraboniface 2y ago
  This has indeed been a big blocker, but the article is proof that the market now wants it. And there are plenty of new nuclear startups, as well as interested researchers. What was lacking so far was a real need energy-wise (in the absence of a high carbon tax) and regulatory stability/transparency. Edit: also, sodium fast reactors have existed for 20 years. The R&D has mostly already been done for that tech. But the lack of projects make it stuck to TRL 8.

datadeft 2y ago

Isn’t solar energy a SPOF? It goes to zero MW roughly every 12 hours at any given location on Earth where most people live due to the availability of the Sun’s light.

hoherd 2y ago
Maybe, but at what cost? There is no such thing as "solar fallout". Doesn't the SPOF come with the trade-off of incredibly low risk of causing long term high-mortality rates of all life in the surrounding area?
- numpad0 2y ago
  Solars go first in any disasters and there's cleanup cost of destroyed panels, so there is such thing as solar fallout. They also don't decay unlike radioactive fallout.
  - dalyons 2y ago
    that... is not even close to comparable. A hurricane smashes a bunch of your local panels, you go and pick them up, and if they're too damaged throw them in landfill. Fukushima is going to cost between $470 billion and $660 billion to clean up. A solar "cleanup" would not even be a 10000th of that cost. Why even mention this?
    - numpad0 2y ago
      It is. They just don't take a lot of weather, so they're not more than disposable subsidy capture device if you live in places that storms and flying debris are normal. Solar panels are glasses painted with heavy metal stained glasses, so you can't leave the panels around, they have to be recovered. All moot points if they last indefinitely where you are, serious points if they don't.
Ghaenergyyy 2y ago
IF solar would be the only thing people do, yes. Thats just not the case. Solar is used together with wind and storage. And there are very little energy systems which rwould relia only on solar. More north you go, there is often water.

therealdkz 2y ago

[dead]