20 ms·

Make nuclear cost-competitive and people will start building it.

notepad0x90 1y ago
I thought it was cost-competitive with something on the scale of mega-dams and takes about as long to finish too. Except unlike dams, you don't disrupt river flow and cause water-rights disputes (and potentially wars).
- janice1999 1y ago
  > Except unlike dams, you don't disrupt river flow and cause water-rights disputes (and potentially wars). The water requirements of nuclear power stations cooling systems can cause significant issues. The discharge of heated water back into rivers and the sea is also a major problem.
  - tomrod 1y ago
    How major? Would not a temporary lake be sufficient to dissipate heat?
  - cyberax 1y ago
    The largest nuclear power plant in the US (Palo Verde) is cooled by evaporating treated wastewater. Water is water and you get about 0.3kWh of electricity for each evaporated kg of water.
- marcosdumay 1y ago
  The unit economics of dams get more and more competitive when their size increase. So, hell no, nuclear is not competitive with mega-dams. It's not even competitive with small dams.
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    You mean the ROI? I'm talking about the cost-to-build.
colechristensen 1y ago
Nuclear is cost competitive if you have a reliable cadence of building plants and if folks get out of the way of location permits and waste storage and people can actually make decisions about them without endless debates and lawsuits. The problem is one-off designs and the decades long gap between project inception and when investment returns start coming in. As opposed to solar where I could order a few panels and accessories online and start producing energy within a week. Obviously larger solar projects take more planning but if you've got a roof, a credit card, and an electrician on hand you can start producing electricity or expand your production in a very short time achieving break even in a few years.
zahlman 1y ago
It was cost-competitive before it faced ridiculously unfair regulations due to being so easy to fear-monger about.

I thought it was cost-competitive with something on the scale of mega-dams and takes about as long to finish too. Except unlike dams, you don't disrupt river flow and cause water-rights disputes (and potentially wars).

janice1999 1y ago
> Except unlike dams, you don't disrupt river flow and cause water-rights disputes (and potentially wars). The water requirements of nuclear power stations cooling systems can cause significant issues. The discharge of heated water back into rivers and the sea is also a major problem.
- tomrod 1y ago
  How major? Would not a temporary lake be sufficient to dissipate heat?
- cyberax 1y ago
  The largest nuclear power plant in the US (Palo Verde) is cooled by evaporating treated wastewater. Water is water and you get about 0.3kWh of electricity for each evaporated kg of water.
marcosdumay 1y ago
The unit economics of dams get more and more competitive when their size increase. So, hell no, nuclear is not competitive with mega-dams. It's not even competitive with small dams.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  You mean the ROI? I'm talking about the cost-to-build.

colechristensen 1y ago

Nuclear is cost competitive if you have a reliable cadence of building plants and if folks get out of the way of location permits and waste storage and people can actually make decisions about them without endless debates and lawsuits. The problem is one-off designs and the decades long gap between project inception and when investment returns start coming in. As opposed to solar where I could order a few panels and accessories online and start producing energy within a week. Obviously larger solar projects take more planning but if you've got a roof, a credit card, and an electrician on hand you can start producing electricity or expand your production in a very short time achieving break even in a few years.

zahlman 1y ago

It was cost-competitive before it faced ridiculously unfair regulations due to being so easy to fear-monger about.