3 ms·

I think the enthusiasm comes from: * A contrarianism visa vis environmental crusades against nuclear power that presented it's dangers in a distorted fashion.

I think the enthusiasm comes from: * A contrarianism visa vis environmental crusades against nuclear power that presented it's dangers in a distorted fashion. * How nuclear on paper presents the possibility of limitless energy with little pollution. * Nuclear is the kind of big-tech solution that appeals to a lot of nerds. The problem is that nuclear failed independently from environmental crusades even if some of these were successful. Nuclear power requires vast investment and radiation has the problem that it can weaken anything. Meltdowns aren't the apocalypse environmentalists imply but they destroy permanently a huge store of investment and their commonness has tanked nuclear power independently from popular crusades but those with a stake in nuclear like point to "them hippies" to cover their own failures.

crote 1y ago
> Nuclear power requires vast investment In my opinion this is the strongest argument to take. Any argument about radiation or waste is going to be waved away as "scaremongering" and will be solved by innovations riiight aroung the corner - you won't change anyone's mind with that. On the other hand, the practical arguments are pretty cut-and-dry: the West is unable to build them fast enough to matter, and they are too expensive to compete with renewables on an open energy market. We already have the receipts for traditional reactors due to Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C, and Flamanville 3. Have we solved every single potential problem which needs solving for a 100% renewable grid? No, but we've got plenty of time to work out the edge cases during the transition. Perhaps some magical mass-produced micro nuclear peaker plants will help in that, perhaps they won't. Let's keep investing in tried-and-tested technology like solar, wind, hydro, and battery storage until the nuclear folks get their act together - no need to bet our entire future on a nuclear miracle which probably isn't going to happen anyways.
- qball 1y ago
  >and will be solved by innovations riiight aroung the corner Yes, this is what the solar/wind people keep claiming about energy storage. >the West is unable to build them fast enough No, the West is unwilling to build them fast enough. Then it chickens out, and the institutional knowledge to build the next plants are lost (so you lose the volume discount). Regaining and retaining the institutional knowledge to build things may be more expensive in the short term, but it should be done- the fact that a country is capable of building power infrastructure on a whim is vital for its national defense. This is the hidden cost of buying Chinese solar panels (because once you can't buy from China, or once China is unwilling to sell to you, you'll be paying for your own nuclear infrastructure regardless). And no, other countries' solar panels are not cheaper than nuclear; 'not knowing how to do it ourselves' cuts both ways.
  - joe_the_user 1y ago
    Energy storage is a solved problem - or rather has a multitude of well known solutions as well as up-and-coming ones. Energy storage isn't popular with grid operators because it requires a different kind of grid. US grid operators don't want to upgrade their operations for solar or for other problem 'cause their profit strategy is running their capital into the ground. Solar energy production in many countries is increasing exponentially but who knows idiocy US policy is going to mandate going forward.

crote 1y ago

> Nuclear power requires vast investment In my opinion this is the strongest argument to take. Any argument about radiation or waste is going to be waved away as "scaremongering" and will be solved by innovations riiight aroung the corner - you won't change anyone's mind with that. On the other hand, the practical arguments are pretty cut-and-dry: the West is unable to build them fast enough to matter, and they are too expensive to compete with renewables on an open energy market. We already have the receipts for traditional reactors due to Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C, and Flamanville 3. Have we solved every single potential problem which needs solving for a 100% renewable grid? No, but we've got plenty of time to work out the edge cases during the transition. Perhaps some magical mass-produced micro nuclear peaker plants will help in that, perhaps they won't. Let's keep investing in tried-and-tested technology like solar, wind, hydro, and battery storage until the nuclear folks get their act together - no need to bet our entire future on a nuclear miracle which probably isn't going to happen anyways.

qball 1y ago
>and will be solved by innovations riiight aroung the corner Yes, this is what the solar/wind people keep claiming about energy storage. >the West is unable to build them fast enough No, the West is unwilling to build them fast enough. Then it chickens out, and the institutional knowledge to build the next plants are lost (so you lose the volume discount). Regaining and retaining the institutional knowledge to build things may be more expensive in the short term, but it should be done- the fact that a country is capable of building power infrastructure on a whim is vital for its national defense. This is the hidden cost of buying Chinese solar panels (because once you can't buy from China, or once China is unwilling to sell to you, you'll be paying for your own nuclear infrastructure regardless). And no, other countries' solar panels are not cheaper than nuclear; 'not knowing how to do it ourselves' cuts both ways.
- joe_the_user 1y ago
  Energy storage is a solved problem - or rather has a multitude of well known solutions as well as up-and-coming ones. Energy storage isn't popular with grid operators because it requires a different kind of grid. US grid operators don't want to upgrade their operations for solar or for other problem 'cause their profit strategy is running their capital into the ground. Solar energy production in many countries is increasing exponentially but who knows idiocy US policy is going to mandate going forward.