4 ms·

Build more nuclear power plants since wind and solar do not provide dispatchable baseload and batteries don’t scale enough. No other technology comes even clos

Build more nuclear power plants since wind and solar do not provide dispatchable baseload and batteries don’t scale enough. No other technology comes even close to the energy density of nuclear power.

BLKNSLVR 2y ago
I don't think I'm anti-nuclear power. The only thing that works against nuclear, in my opinion, is the time it takes to build. A lot of solar and wind and battery can be built in the decade (if not more) that it seems to take a nuclear power station to be built. Having said that, given the increasing power demands of civilization, why not both in parallel?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- goda90 2y ago
  Why does it take time to build though? Is it a technical reason, or economic and regulatory reasons? If the latter, we could probably go faster if as a society we prioritized it.
  - namaria 2y ago
    I think nuclear power should be expanded. I don't think nuclear power centrals should be rushed.
  - plufz 2y ago
    I have heard the argument that the standard nuclear plant have the inefficiencies of any large building project, like building a big bridge. You never get the optimizations of mass production that you get in a factory that produces tens of thousands of solar panels or lots of wind turbines. I guess that is what SMR is trying to solve. I don’t know how that is going.
  - vimy 2y ago
    50 years ago France build more than 50 reactors in a decade.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      This is not pertinent, for many reasons: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Nuclear is seriously unfriendly stuff. Just read up on all the lessons (and coverups) the US nuclear industry learned about making nuclear fuels. The metals involvsd are toxic AF and unforgiving of any stupidity. We have a ton of regulations around this because businesses of the past just dumped things like mildly radioactive tailings to blow around in the wind.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Japan's average build time is apparently 5 years[0]. It depends on the regulatory environment and the expertise available. [0] https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...
h0l0cube 2y ago
Baseload power comes at the expense of renewable power, the latter of which is much cheaper, much faster, and less riskier to deploy than nuclear. Peaking gas plants are much quicker to build than nuclear and should tide us over until grid storage (of all kinds) catches up – which looks to be around 1-2 decades at current scaling and about the lead time for a nuclear power plant
watersb 2y ago
> No other technology comes even close to the energy density of nuclear power. The dollar density is also huge. Trying to get new reactor design actually deployed in the US is brutally expensive. And figuring in the cost of nuclear waste disposal kills the project. All other means of grid power generation are able to externalize expenses. Our society, for better or worse, won't let anything "nuclear" get away with that.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > Trying to get new reactor design actually deployed in the US is brutally expensive I heard that might be a regulatory problem more than anything. Doesn't change the reality, but it's US-specific.
energy123 2y ago
You don't need dispatchable baseload and batteries do scale enough. If nuclear was cost competitive, I'd support it, but it's just not. Look at how much renewables China is building vs. nuclear, if you think this opinion is somehow political in nature, it's not.

BLKNSLVR 2y ago

I don't think I'm anti-nuclear power. The only thing that works against nuclear, in my opinion, is the time it takes to build. A lot of solar and wind and battery can be built in the decade (if not more) that it seems to take a nuclear power station to be built. Having said that, given the increasing power demands of civilization, why not both in parallel?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
goda90 2y ago
Why does it take time to build though? Is it a technical reason, or economic and regulatory reasons? If the latter, we could probably go faster if as a society we prioritized it.
- namaria 2y ago
  I think nuclear power should be expanded. I don't think nuclear power centrals should be rushed.
- plufz 2y ago
  I have heard the argument that the standard nuclear plant have the inefficiencies of any large building project, like building a big bridge. You never get the optimizations of mass production that you get in a factory that produces tens of thousands of solar panels or lots of wind turbines. I guess that is what SMR is trying to solve. I don’t know how that is going.
- vimy 2y ago
  50 years ago France build more than 50 reactors in a decade.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    This is not pertinent, for many reasons: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
- pixl97 2y ago
  Nuclear is seriously unfriendly stuff. Just read up on all the lessons (and coverups) the US nuclear industry learned about making nuclear fuels. The metals involvsd are toxic AF and unforgiving of any stupidity. We have a ton of regulations around this because businesses of the past just dumped things like mildly radioactive tailings to blow around in the wind.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Japan's average build time is apparently 5 years[0]. It depends on the regulatory environment and the expertise available. [0] https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...

h0l0cube 2y ago

Baseload power comes at the expense of renewable power, the latter of which is much cheaper, much faster, and less riskier to deploy than nuclear. Peaking gas plants are much quicker to build than nuclear and should tide us over until grid storage (of all kinds) catches up – which looks to be around 1-2 decades at current scaling and about the lead time for a nuclear power plant

watersb 2y ago

> No other technology comes even close to the energy density of nuclear power. The dollar density is also huge. Trying to get new reactor design actually deployed in the US is brutally expensive. And figuring in the cost of nuclear waste disposal kills the project. All other means of grid power generation are able to externalize expenses. Our society, for better or worse, won't let anything "nuclear" get away with that.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> Trying to get new reactor design actually deployed in the US is brutally expensive I heard that might be a regulatory problem more than anything. Doesn't change the reality, but it's US-specific.

energy123 2y ago

You don't need dispatchable baseload and batteries do scale enough. If nuclear was cost competitive, I'd support it, but it's just not. Look at how much renewables China is building vs. nuclear, if you think this opinion is somehow political in nature, it's not.