7 ms·

Similarly, Chernobyl Nuclear power plant continued operating until 2000, 14 years after the incident. Shutting down functioning reactors with no issues in an e

by sofixa 2y ago

Similarly, Chernobyl Nuclear power plant continued operating until 2000, 14 years after the incident. Shutting down functioning reactors with no issues in an era where electricity consumption is growing on multiple fronts is wasteful, especially while there is no grid scale storage available and we need to decarbonise. Adding more reactors, as expensive as it is, will pay for itself over their lifetime (we have reactors today operating for 70 years and scheduled to operate past that, meanwhile solar panels and wind turbines have much shorter lifespans).

eesmith 2y ago
> and we need to decarbonise It won't be used to decarbonize our economy. It will be used to further the profits of Big Tech, who are already preventing coal power plants from shutting down, in their desire to feed their data centers. (Eg, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-meta-omaha-data-centers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-me... ) This will make it harder for other sectors to switch away from fossil fuels, by raising the price of fossil-free electricity relative to planet-killing sources. As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. Their other deals with small modular reactor companies will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life, and make it available and affordable.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    > Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. No, it isn't. Tax corporate profits at rates we did in the 1950s, use the taxes and regulations to decarbonize, similar to how we used taxes to electrify and provide phone service. If we build out 20% new non-fossil energy sources, and all of its goes to data centers, then we haven't decarbonized our economy in any ecologically meaningful way. > will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life And if it doesn't, we are 10-15 years later with even more CO2 in the air. This is a Hail Mary by companies afraid to suffer from the consequences of their pollution.
ViewTrick1002 2y ago
You can do the same calculation for renewables. There is nothing stopping us from building wind turbines with 70 year lifespans. With the current crop of renewables you can reinvest the profit 2-3 times over the lira of a nuclear power plant. Maybe you have heard of calculating interest and how much more value money now has rather than in 90 years adding 20 years to your 70 year lifespan. Or when being able to reinvest your profits every 10-20 years. Touting the “long lifespan” is simply an admission that nuclear powers economics are horrific.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > There is nothing stopping us from building wind turbines with 70 year lifespans. Why don't we then? And what about the associated storage needed to replicate what a nuclear power plant does? And note, 70 years as of now, many as scheduled to go up to 90-100 years. > Touting the “long lifespan” is simply an admission that nuclear powers economics are horrific. Long term, not horrific. > Maybe you have heard of calculating interest and how much more value money now has rather than in 90 years adding 20 years to your 70 year lifespan. Or when being able to reinvest your profits every 10-20 years Exactly, paying an obscene amount of money now means that in 90 years' time, that money is much cheaper compared if you had to spend it in 90 years, or every 20 years to replace your renewables and storage parks.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Because it is economic insanity to rely on your asset to have an economical life across 70+ years. Then some storage boogeyman. Do check out California. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ A recent study found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid, due to both options requiring flexibility to meet the grid load. > The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... > Exactly, paying an obscene amount of money now means that in 90 years' time, that money is much cheaper compared if you had to spend it in 90 years, or every 20 years to replace your renewables and storage parks. Great that you admit to having zero economic knowledge. That is the exact reverse of how it works. Money now are worth way more than money in the future, even when adjusting for inflation etc. Thus the need for short cycles and the huge risk premiums that get added when going above 10-20 years. Here’s some reading for you: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp

by sofixa 2y ago

eesmith 2y ago

> and we need to decarbonise It won't be used to decarbonize our economy. It will be used to further the profits of Big Tech, who are already preventing coal power plants from shutting down, in their desire to feed their data centers. (Eg, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-meta-omaha-data-centers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/08/google-me... ) This will make it harder for other sectors to switch away from fossil fuels, by raising the price of fossil-free electricity relative to planet-killing sources. As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area.

sofixa 2y ago
> As this article points out, Microsoft is willing to pay twice normal rates for the area, which means none of the TMI electricity will help decarbonize the local area Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. Their other deals with small modular reactor companies will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life, and make it available and affordable.
- eesmith 2y ago
  > Microsoft's new electrical consumption being carbon free is a good start. No, it isn't. Tax corporate profits at rates we did in the 1950s, use the taxes and regulations to decarbonize, similar to how we used taxes to electrify and provide phone service. If we build out 20% new non-fossil energy sources, and all of its goes to data centers, then we haven't decarbonized our economy in any ecologically meaningful way. > will also give them money that will hopefully bring this tech to life And if it doesn't, we are 10-15 years later with even more CO2 in the air. This is a Hail Mary by companies afraid to suffer from the consequences of their pollution.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

You can do the same calculation for renewables. There is nothing stopping us from building wind turbines with 70 year lifespans. With the current crop of renewables you can reinvest the profit 2-3 times over the lira of a nuclear power plant. Maybe you have heard of calculating interest and how much more value money now has rather than in 90 years adding 20 years to your 70 year lifespan. Or when being able to reinvest your profits every 10-20 years. Touting the “long lifespan” is simply an admission that nuclear powers economics are horrific.

sofixa 2y ago
> There is nothing stopping us from building wind turbines with 70 year lifespans. Why don't we then? And what about the associated storage needed to replicate what a nuclear power plant does? And note, 70 years as of now, many as scheduled to go up to 90-100 years. > Touting the “long lifespan” is simply an admission that nuclear powers economics are horrific. Long term, not horrific. > Maybe you have heard of calculating interest and how much more value money now has rather than in 90 years adding 20 years to your 70 year lifespan. Or when being able to reinvest your profits every 10-20 years Exactly, paying an obscene amount of money now means that in 90 years' time, that money is much cheaper compared if you had to spend it in 90 years, or every 20 years to replace your renewables and storage parks.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Because it is economic insanity to rely on your asset to have an economical life across 70+ years. Then some storage boogeyman. Do check out California. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ A recent study found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid, due to both options requiring flexibility to meet the grid load. > The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... > Exactly, paying an obscene amount of money now means that in 90 years' time, that money is much cheaper compared if you had to spend it in 90 years, or every 20 years to replace your renewables and storage parks. Great that you admit to having zero economic knowledge. That is the exact reverse of how it works. Money now are worth way more than money in the future, even when adjusting for inflation etc. Thus the need for short cycles and the huge risk premiums that get added when going above 10-20 years. Here’s some reading for you: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp