4 ms·

The book "How big things get done" [1] has tables listing the historical cost overruns of construction projects. It's worth keeping in mind that solar and wind

The book "How big things get done" [1] has tables listing the historical cost overruns of construction projects. It's worth keeping in mind that solar and wind farms start generating revenue as soon as the first panel or turbine is connected. This make financing much easier and derisks the whole project. Nuclear has to wait the whole ~10 years for the entire station to be finished before the investors get anything back. [1] https://biblio.co.uk/9780593239513:1681820911 https://biblio.co.uk/9780593239513:1681820911

energy123 1y ago
Social licensing risk is a big one that gets swept under the rug. While both solar and nuclear has to face off NIMBYs, once those NIMBYs are defeated then the solar project is in the clear basically forever. But nuclear has no such assurances that there won't be an irrational fear-based anti-nuclear craze like what happened in Germany which leads to early plant closures.
- metalman 1y ago
  irrational eh?, three mile Island, Chernoble, Fukeshema, litteral mountains of the most toxic and poisionous waste generated by all of the operational nukes, spead out, semi abandoned everywhere, go ahead rationalise it then
  - energy123 1y ago
    Well let's highlight one flaw in what you're saying which is the attempt to rhetorically package up Chernobyl with safer modern plants. Zero people are advocating for a Chernobyl replica to be built in 2025.
    - metalman 1y ago
      would those zero people, be the same ones detailing a viable nuclear waste disposal system that cleans up every last bit of nuclear waste sitting around, before the generation of more gets "splained" away into the future? and Chernoble is real, a real example that bad stuff happens, forever, when a nuke plant blows up,and applys to any large nuke plant proposed or in existance.....and that is a fact, there are failure modes that will cause meltdowns, we have incontrevertable evidence of mega, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, meteoer strikes, and human caused disasters in the forms of war,dam failures, sabotage, and just everyday stupidity.
      - energy123 1y ago
        Every power source has externalities. Solar and wind have embedded carbon, waste and land use. The mere existence of downsides does not automatically mean it's a bad idea. Fixating and nitpicking on these downsides as if they're highly pertinent to decision making is what's irrational. Nuclear has historically killed nearly zero people, it is as safe as renewables, especially modern designs.
        ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        Ignoring that the public is on the hook for any damages. Lets make the playing field equal and have all nuclear plants cover their entire accident liability with their own money rather than the tax purse.
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
      Please don't give the Project 2025/DOGE cost cut people ideas.
    - pydry 1y ago
      Fantastic. Lets kill off the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity liability cap then. If modern new plants are safe as houses as you say then there is NO problem relying upon ONLY sophisticated private insurers who know the risks well to cover any potential future Fukushima-level clean up costs (only ~$800 billion or so). Until the act is killed though, it's very easy to believe that it exists SOLELY because sophisticated private insurers would take one look at the risks of nuclear kaboom and the costs of cleanup in the event it happens and go "fuck THAT". Makes me feel really safe, knowing that as a taxpayer Im forced to be on the hook for all clean up costs over $300 million.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        > Makes me feel really safe, knowing that as a taxpayer Im forced to be on the hook for all clean up costs over $300 million. If it's any consolation, you're already on the hook for oil/gas cleanup, which is significantly more expensive. Texas has an estimated 1 Trillion dollars in damages from our Oil craze. Whoops... And, certainly the likes of Chevron won't be paying that.
        ZeroGravitas 1y ago
        That's roughly the same scale as Fukushima which has 81 Trillion Yen or .6 Trillion dollars as one estimate. Like the construction costs in the article the cleanup costs estimates rise over time.
        pydry 1y ago
        It just makes me feel even more like the carbon and nuclear industries are two coddled peas in a pod.
        const_cast 1y ago
        The difference is that nuclear has comparatively far less damage and has taken orders of magnitude less lives, however we treat it like it's radioactive. We have absolutely no issue drilling or fracking.

energy123 1y ago

Social licensing risk is a big one that gets swept under the rug. While both solar and nuclear has to face off NIMBYs, once those NIMBYs are defeated then the solar project is in the clear basically forever. But nuclear has no such assurances that there won't be an irrational fear-based anti-nuclear craze like what happened in Germany which leads to early plant closures.

metalman 1y ago
irrational eh?, three mile Island, Chernoble, Fukeshema, litteral mountains of the most toxic and poisionous waste generated by all of the operational nukes, spead out, semi abandoned everywhere, go ahead rationalise it then
- energy123 1y ago
  Well let's highlight one flaw in what you're saying which is the attempt to rhetorically package up Chernobyl with safer modern plants. Zero people are advocating for a Chernobyl replica to be built in 2025.
  - metalman 1y ago
    would those zero people, be the same ones detailing a viable nuclear waste disposal system that cleans up every last bit of nuclear waste sitting around, before the generation of more gets "splained" away into the future? and Chernoble is real, a real example that bad stuff happens, forever, when a nuke plant blows up,and applys to any large nuke plant proposed or in existance.....and that is a fact, there are failure modes that will cause meltdowns, we have incontrevertable evidence of mega, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, meteoer strikes, and human caused disasters in the forms of war,dam failures, sabotage, and just everyday stupidity.
    - energy123 1y ago
      Every power source has externalities. Solar and wind have embedded carbon, waste and land use. The mere existence of downsides does not automatically mean it's a bad idea. Fixating and nitpicking on these downsides as if they're highly pertinent to decision making is what's irrational. Nuclear has historically killed nearly zero people, it is as safe as renewables, especially modern designs.
      - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        Ignoring that the public is on the hook for any damages. Lets make the playing field equal and have all nuclear plants cover their entire accident liability with their own money rather than the tax purse.
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    Please don't give the Project 2025/DOGE cost cut people ideas.
  - pydry 1y ago
    Fantastic. Lets kill off the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity liability cap then. If modern new plants are safe as houses as you say then there is NO problem relying upon ONLY sophisticated private insurers who know the risks well to cover any potential future Fukushima-level clean up costs (only ~$800 billion or so). Until the act is killed though, it's very easy to believe that it exists SOLELY because sophisticated private insurers would take one look at the risks of nuclear kaboom and the costs of cleanup in the event it happens and go "fuck THAT". Makes me feel really safe, knowing that as a taxpayer Im forced to be on the hook for all clean up costs over $300 million.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      > Makes me feel really safe, knowing that as a taxpayer Im forced to be on the hook for all clean up costs over $300 million. If it's any consolation, you're already on the hook for oil/gas cleanup, which is significantly more expensive. Texas has an estimated 1 Trillion dollars in damages from our Oil craze. Whoops... And, certainly the likes of Chevron won't be paying that.
      - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
        That's roughly the same scale as Fukushima which has 81 Trillion Yen or .6 Trillion dollars as one estimate. Like the construction costs in the article the cleanup costs estimates rise over time.
      - pydry 1y ago
        It just makes me feel even more like the carbon and nuclear industries are two coddled peas in a pod.
        const_cast 1y ago
        The difference is that nuclear has comparatively far less damage and has taken orders of magnitude less lives, however we treat it like it's radioactive. We have absolutely no issue drilling or fracking.