3 ms·
> 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?
by 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 agoI 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 agoCouldn'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 agoAnyone who cares about numbers isn't going to form their opinions reading HN in 2024, the debate for them has been settled since the 1980s. We're in a 40 year run where people who can invest in nuclear reactors are better off than people who do not. If there is anything to talk about seriously it hasn't come up on HN in the last few years. The last time something happened that moved the needle on whether there was any real policy question by the numbers was probably Chernobyl.
- actionfromafar 2y agoI wonder though how much is it that nuclear was helping economically, and how much was it that an already strong economy could afford to splurge on nuclear?