3 ms·

The price is a function of regulations. It is self imposed, so a concerted effort here could reduce prices. Also, economics are not equal to climate/carbon. If

by m101 2y ago

The price is a function of regulations. It is self imposed, so a concerted effort here could reduce prices. Also, economics are not equal to climate/carbon. If we want to reduce climate change only nuclear is the way to go - not solar/battery. I don't think solar+battery is cost competitive if you were to replicate nuclear completely, but I've not looked at the numbers. Need to consider a nuclear plant may have a 60 year life whereas panels would be 20 at best and batteries probably less.

chgs 2y ago
You can’t mention price without including the externalities and the total cost of ownership. Regulations attempt to price those.
- m101 2y ago
  If regulations priced carbon externalities then solar would be more expensive than nuclear, but they don't. Edit: I can't reply so adding this for context around my comments on carbon intensity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    No it wouldn't. Even decade old solar was competitive with nuclear on a carbon per watt basis: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Pricing carbon would mostly drive fossil fuels from the grid (unsurprisingly). It might boost nuclear as a result but it would boost renewables far more.
    - m101 2y ago
      Ultimately it's about energy return on investment. Solar + battery requires plenty of materials and energy to put together. It also needs to work in the middle of winter for it to be a fair comparison. When you consider it in that way it favours nuclear. It also has a shorter lifespan than nuclear, so that should be included. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        Energy return on investment is pure crankery. It's a meaningless number that has basically no impact on any decision. And, if you take that crankery seriously, then renewables vastly outperform fossils and are speeding past nuclear on this metric too. It's basically impossible for energy tech to come down in price by magnitudes and not have increasing EROI as energy inputs cost money. This is predicted to continue. And despite this metric being great for renewables, you don't hear anyone crowing about it, because it's meaningless.
    - lmm 2y ago
      Solar has a great price per watt as long as you don't mind getting all of your watts on some days and none on others.
      - chgs 2y ago
        Depends on your location. Alaska is somewhat different to Hawaii
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    Probably not if you include the cost of decommissioning and dealing with nuclear waste (which is still an unsolved problem).
  - mltvc 2y ago
    Do you have any calculations to back this up? With which carbon price is this calculated?
svara 2y ago
> I don't think solar+battery is cost competitive if you were to replicate nuclear completely, but I've not looked at the numbers. Why are you commenting then? This is a complex, deeply researched topic. It's contentious enough already, no need to add more noise. "Looking at the numbers" is literally the one thing one needs to do in order to be able to add to this discussion.
- m101 2y ago
  I don't know the exact numbers but I know that's how it shakes out. This is not noise - it's just the truth. Here's something on carbon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment The problem with economic arguments is that externalities are not priced in. We don't price in the carbon of china solar manufacturing for example. The other problem of economic arguments is that regulations are expensive in nuclear, and it is orders of magnitude safer than next best alternatives. Which means: economic arguments miss the point when considered in the broader context.
  - svara 2y ago
    Couldn't disagree more. The point you're making boils down to saying that because it's complicated, we can't rely on reason and rather have to go with gut feeling. The fact is that state of the art research into this does very much consider those points you think aren't being considered, and has been doing so for decades. Here is a link to such research: https://op.europa.eu/s/zX4i https://op.europa.eu/s/zX4i This particular EU project started in 1995. You can easily find much more on Google, from US sources as well if you choose to mistrust EU publications. I'm not commenting with more details ("numbers") because I very much am not qualified to give a detailed, well-founded opinion on this that doesn't randomly leave out half the story. But I do know enough to tell you aren't either, that the way you are talking about this is way under-complex and totally misses the mark in terms of where the state of the art is. One specific way (possibly of many) in which it does so is in ignoring the absurd exponential learning curve that renewables + storage technology is on.
- roenxi 2y ago
jay_kyburz 2y ago
>The price is a function of regulations. It is self imposed, so a concerted effort here could reduce prices. In other words, if you cut corners you can make nuclear cheap.
- m101 2y ago
  It's not about cutting corners but regulating nuclear only to the extent that it is as safe as the next best alternative rather than orders of magnitude safer and until the point it is uneconomic. This is good for regulatory discussions and historical context: https://gordianknotbook.com/ https://gordianknotbook.com/
- zahlman 2y ago
  The regulations imposed on nuclear in many places are absurd and not justified by any actual risk incurred. Especially considering the implications if the same regulations were imposed on coal plants - see e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... .

by m101 2y ago

chgs 2y ago

You can’t mention price without including the externalities and the total cost of ownership. Regulations attempt to price those.

m101 2y ago
If regulations priced carbon externalities then solar would be more expensive than nuclear, but they don't. Edit: I can't reply so adding this for context around my comments on carbon intensity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  No it wouldn't. Even decade old solar was competitive with nuclear on a carbon per watt basis: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Pricing carbon would mostly drive fossil fuels from the grid (unsurprisingly). It might boost nuclear as a result but it would boost renewables far more.
  - m101 2y ago
    Ultimately it's about energy return on investment. Solar + battery requires plenty of materials and energy to put together. It also needs to work in the middle of winter for it to be a fair comparison. When you consider it in that way it favours nuclear. It also has a shorter lifespan than nuclear, so that should be included. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      Energy return on investment is pure crankery. It's a meaningless number that has basically no impact on any decision. And, if you take that crankery seriously, then renewables vastly outperform fossils and are speeding past nuclear on this metric too. It's basically impossible for energy tech to come down in price by magnitudes and not have increasing EROI as energy inputs cost money. This is predicted to continue. And despite this metric being great for renewables, you don't hear anyone crowing about it, because it's meaningless.
  - lmm 2y ago
    Solar has a great price per watt as long as you don't mind getting all of your watts on some days and none on others.
    - chgs 2y ago
      Depends on your location. Alaska is somewhat different to Hawaii
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Probably not if you include the cost of decommissioning and dealing with nuclear waste (which is still an unsolved problem).
- mltvc 2y ago
  Do you have any calculations to back this up? With which carbon price is this calculated?

svara 2y ago

> I don't think solar+battery is cost competitive if you were to replicate nuclear completely, but I've not looked at the numbers. Why are you commenting then? This is a complex, deeply researched topic. It's contentious enough already, no need to add more noise. "Looking at the numbers" is literally the one thing one needs to do in order to be able to add to this discussion.

m101 2y ago
I don't know the exact numbers but I know that's how it shakes out. This is not noise - it's just the truth. Here's something on carbon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment The problem with economic arguments is that externalities are not priced in. We don't price in the carbon of china solar manufacturing for example. The other problem of economic arguments is that regulations are expensive in nuclear, and it is orders of magnitude safer than next best alternatives. Which means: economic arguments miss the point when considered in the broader context.
- svara 2y ago
  Couldn't disagree more. The point you're making boils down to saying that because it's complicated, we can't rely on reason and rather have to go with gut feeling. The fact is that state of the art research into this does very much consider those points you think aren't being considered, and has been doing so for decades. Here is a link to such research: https://op.europa.eu/s/zX4i https://op.europa.eu/s/zX4i This particular EU project started in 1995. You can easily find much more on Google, from US sources as well if you choose to mistrust EU publications. I'm not commenting with more details ("numbers") because I very much am not qualified to give a detailed, well-founded opinion on this that doesn't randomly leave out half the story. But I do know enough to tell you aren't either, that the way you are talking about this is way under-complex and totally misses the mark in terms of where the state of the art is. One specific way (possibly of many) in which it does so is in ignoring the absurd exponential learning curve that renewables + storage technology is on.
roenxi 2y ago

jay_kyburz 2y ago

>The price is a function of regulations. It is self imposed, so a concerted effort here could reduce prices. In other words, if you cut corners you can make nuclear cheap.

m101 2y ago
It's not about cutting corners but regulating nuclear only to the extent that it is as safe as the next best alternative rather than orders of magnitude safer and until the point it is uneconomic. This is good for regulatory discussions and historical context: https://gordianknotbook.com/ https://gordianknotbook.com/
zahlman 2y ago
The regulations imposed on nuclear in many places are absurd and not justified by any actual risk incurred. Especially considering the implications if the same regulations were imposed on coal plants - see e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... .