3 ms·

20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. Today

20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. Today solar & wind are the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushes nuclear as a distraction.

adventured 2y ago
Replacement isn't remotely close to good enough. We need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Nuclear is the only viable path for that. We can do more than one thing at a time, we have the resources.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Yes, we need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Solar is the only way we're going to get it. We're adding solar at a 1TW / year rate. We're adding nuclear at a rate of ~30 GW / year.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    So why is Microsoft spending billions to restart three mile island rather than just installing some solar panels?
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Because with IRA massively lowering the costs restarting a plant might actually be feasible. The problem is that new built nuclear power costs tens of billions.
    - epistasis 2y ago
      Isn't Microsoft also buying an awful lot of solar and wind and storage? From a single web search just now: - 400MW of solar in Illinois and Texas, Feb 10 2025 Reuters https://archive.is/5x9VA https://archive.is/5x9VA - 20MW of Wisconsin solar, October 2024 https://nationalgridrenewables.com/press-release/national-grid-renewables-signs-power-purchase-agreement-with-microsoft/ https://nationalgridrenewables.com/press-release/national-gr... - 400MW of Texas solar, Apr 8 2024 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/08/microsoft-signs-two-large-solar-power-purchase-agreements/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/08/microsoft-signs-two-l... and that's just the first three hits, there are so many more. TMI won't come online for years, it's planned for 2028, but we will have to see. It was shut down in 2019 because it couldn't compete with gas prices. Microsoft is buying at inflated prices to subsidize clean energy, but solar is also clean energy and when backed by batteries it is price competitive with gas. The news was because "whoa Microsoft is paying for nuclear" not because "whoa nuclear makes a lot of sense." There's only so many uneconomic nuclear reactors to start back up.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      Is TMI up and running? On the other side: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/microsoft-qcells-strike-massive-supply-deal-us-made-solar-panels-2024-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/micros...
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    I'm honestly baffled by the persistent irrationality of nuclear supporters. This is a solved problem. The investment required to build grid storage for renewables, the TCO, the scalability, the capacity, and the build time, are all objectively better than nuclear. So what's the real story? What is this obsession with an outdated last-century technology really about?
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      People think it is cool. Spicy rocks make heat. Which was followed by climate change denying conservatives who found their position untenable embracing nuclear power being able to create a culture war issue in debates about climate change. All in the name of preventing the disruption of their fossil assets by stymying renewables. Peter Dutton in Australia which now lost is the perfect example of this with his ”coal to nuclear” plan leading to massively increased emissions for decades to come.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Any large group is composed of different motives; here are a couple of possible ones: - Renewables are not, or not nearly as much, big profits for big business. They don't require the capital investment of fossil fuels or nuclear, and therefore they don't have the large moats of those businesses. - Anti-liberalism (or reactionaryism): Destroying liberalism is an openly stated goal for which many will sacrifice singificant wealth and cause significant harm. Nuclear is counter to anti-nuclear liberal campaigners of yesteryear (I think conservatives often have little idea of changes since the Cold War era; they still talk about 'Communists', etc.)
- pjc50 2y ago
  State capacity is a real problem. Often struggling to do even one thing. There's many places where companies are ready to go on renewables but the grid approval isn't. People overlook how long nuclear takes to build. Hinkley Point C is approaching a decade.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  This seems to be working backward from having decided that we must handout untold trillions to the comparatively insignificant nuclear industry. In 2024 we, as in globally, completed about 5 GW of new built nuclear. Let’s compare to renewables: - 600 GW solar PV added [1] - 117 GW wind power [2] - ~100 GW battery storage Even when adjusting for TWh the disparity is absolutely enormous. We’re talking a ~50x differences and it is only getting larger as renewables continue to scale. But somehow the only technology which is ”scalable” is new built nuclear power. [1]: https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-world-installed-600-gw-of-solar-in-2024-could-be-installing-1-tw-per-year-by-2030 https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-w... [2]: https://www.gwec.net/gwec-news/wind-industry-installs-record-capacity-in-2024-despite-policy-instability https://www.gwec.net/gwec-news/wind-industry-installs-record...
  - natmaka 2y ago
    When it comes to building nuclear plants China is, by far, the pack leader. However its results are dwarfed by the results of its renewables projects: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest&country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
HideousKojima 2y ago
>20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. The histories of pretty much every green party in the western world and their anti-nuclear activism suggests otherwise.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Reminder that anti-nuclear activism started against nuclear weapons and nuclear dumping, and then after Chernobyl the realization that it was possible to mess up agriculture across a continent from the failure of a single plant. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 Greenpeace spent years campaigning against dumping waste at sea. In a reasonably free market, which doesn't exist for electricity, solar would win handily.. but this is after decades of subsidized development and incremental improvement by Chinese wafer factories.
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    Anti-nuclear power activism started before Chernobyl, see New Zealand banning nuclear powered ships at their ports in 1984 for one of many examples.
  - CurtHagenlocher 2y ago
    In the United States, anti-nuclear activism predates both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance for two examples.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      Indeed, however it was deemed way more convincing by more and more people after each nuclear accident.
- jayd16 2y ago
  You ever notice how "green parties" are somehow so incredibly effective against nuclear and not effective against fossil fuels? Why do you think that is? Somehow I'm not convinced its the activism holding nuclear back.
croes 2y ago
Nuclear energy was never cheap, it was always heavily subsidized. Just ask Joe Kaeser the former CEO of Siemens. He said no nuclear power plant was ever profitable
- Mawr 2y ago
  Profit is tied to the subsidies, so that statement by the CEO is meaningless. When you say nuclear was never cheap, what are you comparing it to? The impossible to compete with subsidization of coal plants? How can you compete with plants that are allowed to dump toxic radioactive waste into the atmosphere that kills hundreds of thousands annually, but your plants have to go through regulatory hell to prove they're 99.99999999% safe before even being approved?
  - croes 2y ago
    Cheap isn’t a comparison. If you include the negative side effects coal isn’t cheap either.

adventured 2y ago

Replacement isn't remotely close to good enough. We need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Nuclear is the only viable path for that. We can do more than one thing at a time, we have the resources.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
Yes, we need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Solar is the only way we're going to get it. We're adding solar at a 1TW / year rate. We're adding nuclear at a rate of ~30 GW / year.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  So why is Microsoft spending billions to restart three mile island rather than just installing some solar panels?
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Because with IRA massively lowering the costs restarting a plant might actually be feasible. The problem is that new built nuclear power costs tens of billions.
  - epistasis 2y ago
    Isn't Microsoft also buying an awful lot of solar and wind and storage? From a single web search just now: - 400MW of solar in Illinois and Texas, Feb 10 2025 Reuters https://archive.is/5x9VA https://archive.is/5x9VA - 20MW of Wisconsin solar, October 2024 https://nationalgridrenewables.com/press-release/national-grid-renewables-signs-power-purchase-agreement-with-microsoft/ https://nationalgridrenewables.com/press-release/national-gr... - 400MW of Texas solar, Apr 8 2024 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/08/microsoft-signs-two-large-solar-power-purchase-agreements/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/08/microsoft-signs-two-l... and that's just the first three hits, there are so many more. TMI won't come online for years, it's planned for 2028, but we will have to see. It was shut down in 2019 because it couldn't compete with gas prices. Microsoft is buying at inflated prices to subsidize clean energy, but solar is also clean energy and when backed by batteries it is price competitive with gas. The news was because "whoa Microsoft is paying for nuclear" not because "whoa nuclear makes a lot of sense." There's only so many uneconomic nuclear reactors to start back up.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    Is TMI up and running? On the other side: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/microsoft-qcells-strike-massive-supply-deal-us-made-solar-panels-2024-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/micros...
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  I'm honestly baffled by the persistent irrationality of nuclear supporters. This is a solved problem. The investment required to build grid storage for renewables, the TCO, the scalability, the capacity, and the build time, are all objectively better than nuclear. So what's the real story? What is this obsession with an outdated last-century technology really about?
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    People think it is cool. Spicy rocks make heat. Which was followed by climate change denying conservatives who found their position untenable embracing nuclear power being able to create a culture war issue in debates about climate change. All in the name of preventing the disruption of their fossil assets by stymying renewables. Peter Dutton in Australia which now lost is the perfect example of this with his ”coal to nuclear” plan leading to massively increased emissions for decades to come.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Any large group is composed of different motives; here are a couple of possible ones: - Renewables are not, or not nearly as much, big profits for big business. They don't require the capital investment of fossil fuels or nuclear, and therefore they don't have the large moats of those businesses. - Anti-liberalism (or reactionaryism): Destroying liberalism is an openly stated goal for which many will sacrifice singificant wealth and cause significant harm. Nuclear is counter to anti-nuclear liberal campaigners of yesteryear (I think conservatives often have little idea of changes since the Cold War era; they still talk about 'Communists', etc.)
pjc50 2y ago
State capacity is a real problem. Often struggling to do even one thing. There's many places where companies are ready to go on renewables but the grid approval isn't. People overlook how long nuclear takes to build. Hinkley Point C is approaching a decade.
ViewTrick1002 2y ago
This seems to be working backward from having decided that we must handout untold trillions to the comparatively insignificant nuclear industry. In 2024 we, as in globally, completed about 5 GW of new built nuclear. Let’s compare to renewables: - 600 GW solar PV added [1] - 117 GW wind power [2] - ~100 GW battery storage Even when adjusting for TWh the disparity is absolutely enormous. We’re talking a ~50x differences and it is only getting larger as renewables continue to scale. But somehow the only technology which is ”scalable” is new built nuclear power. [1]: https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-world-installed-600-gw-of-solar-in-2024-could-be-installing-1-tw-per-year-by-2030 https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-w... [2]: https://www.gwec.net/gwec-news/wind-industry-installs-record-capacity-in-2024-despite-policy-instability https://www.gwec.net/gwec-news/wind-industry-installs-record...
- natmaka 2y ago
  When it comes to building nuclear plants China is, by far, the pack leader. However its results are dwarfed by the results of its renewables projects: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest&country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

HideousKojima 2y ago

>20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. The histories of pretty much every green party in the western world and their anti-nuclear activism suggests otherwise.

pjc50 2y ago
Reminder that anti-nuclear activism started against nuclear weapons and nuclear dumping, and then after Chernobyl the realization that it was possible to mess up agriculture across a continent from the failure of a single plant. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 Greenpeace spent years campaigning against dumping waste at sea. In a reasonably free market, which doesn't exist for electricity, solar would win handily.. but this is after decades of subsidized development and incremental improvement by Chinese wafer factories.
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  Anti-nuclear power activism started before Chernobyl, see New Zealand banning nuclear powered ships at their ports in 1984 for one of many examples.
- CurtHagenlocher 2y ago
  In the United States, anti-nuclear activism predates both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance for two examples.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    Indeed, however it was deemed way more convincing by more and more people after each nuclear accident.
jayd16 2y ago
You ever notice how "green parties" are somehow so incredibly effective against nuclear and not effective against fossil fuels? Why do you think that is? Somehow I'm not convinced its the activism holding nuclear back.

croes 2y ago

Nuclear energy was never cheap, it was always heavily subsidized. Just ask Joe Kaeser the former CEO of Siemens. He said no nuclear power plant was ever profitable

Mawr 2y ago
Profit is tied to the subsidies, so that statement by the CEO is meaningless. When you say nuclear was never cheap, what are you comparing it to? The impossible to compete with subsidization of coal plants? How can you compete with plants that are allowed to dump toxic radioactive waste into the atmosphere that kills hundreds of thousands annually, but your plants have to go through regulatory hell to prove they're 99.99999999% safe before even being approved?
- croes 2y ago
  Cheap isn’t a comparison. If you include the negative side effects coal isn’t cheap either.