3 ms·

Which is why I also added that the costs for storage are absolutely plummeting? What problem are you solving? The final bit of emergency reserves? > Solar and

Which is why I also added that the costs for storage are absolutely plummeting? What problem are you solving? The final bit of emergency reserves? > Solar and wind both have significant sovereignty issues. The entire solar supply chain is in China where they're heavily subsidizes so the PRC can corner the market -- and substantially all the rare earths in wind turbines come from China. This seems like hand wringing over a nothing burger? Compare the dynamics with fossil fuels: If the fossil fuel supply chain is disrupted we get an energy crisis within weeks. What happens if the renewable supply chain is disrupted? Well.... all existing installations keeps working for decades and in the meantime we need to figure out an alternative. After a couple of years our emergency reserves would start to work harder due to old installations aging out but the impact would be near zero. > Nuclear is only expensive because of the way it's built in the US, relying on the few locations made available (if any) to build basically fully customized installations. If we copy-pasted reactors onto sites that suit them it would be very competitive, don't take my word for it, Jigar Shah who headed the DOE loans program said the exact same thing during his term. Which is of course why all western reactors are struggling with cost. You do know that modular reactors has been a talking point for the nuclear industry since the 1950s? That is what the industry generally bounces to when large scale projects balloon in cost. They just never deliver. https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc... But somehow if we magically handout another trillion in tax money to the nuclear industry they will fix it this time!! > If we're being pedantic, nuclear is renewable too thanks to seawater extraction With the minor caveat that you can't even drive the pump from the electricity final electricity you get out due to the volumes involved. I love how the solution to horrifically expensive new built nuclear power is an even more economically infeasible technical solution. Or you know, just diversify renewable supply chains?

arcticbull 1y ago
> This seems like hand wringing over a nothing burger? Compare the dynamics with fossil fuels: I'm not comparing to fossil fuels, so it's not really relevant. > Or you know, just diversify renewable supply chains? That's happening about as fast as seawater extraction. There's good reasons why, at least for wind the extraction and processing of rare earths is an environmental catastrophe and only China is willing to pay the environmental price. Regardless fuel costs for nuclear plants are roughly zero, about $0.0015/kWh, and there is more than enough uranium on land. And of course reprocessing spent fuel is a totally viable solution; most of France's uranium is closed loop. The entirety of the cost is in building and financing, which can be solved with policy changes.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - arcticbull 1y ago
    > Nuclear power is irrelevant in our energy systems today. I dunno, it's been producing 20% of US power for decades. Same as renewables. Seems relevant. > For the nuclear supply chain we still have not been able to sanction the Russian industry. 12% come from Russia. [1] > So now suddenly we are hand wringing about rare earth extraction consequences. You seem to change topics faster than I can follow. I feel like environmental implications are relevant to discuss, and I think the topic is relevant. > You do know that the uranium supply is also extremely nasty? Sure, but you need very little of it due to energy density, and reprocessing is a viable alternative as demonstrated by France. They have a 96% recovery rate. [2] > And now suddenly seawater extraction did not matter? It didn't matter in my original post either which is why it's under "if we're being pedantic." [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu... [2] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-t...
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      > I dunno, it's been producing 20% of US power for decades. Same as renewables. Seems relevant. Which falls to 7.6% when counting the useful energy and not staring yourself blind on the electricity grid. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?stackMode=relative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked... Like I said, irrelevant compared to the fossil fuel supply chain supplying 80%. > 12% come from Russia. [1] Of course ignoring the intermediary steps in the supply chain which Russia controls ~50% of. But Kazakh uranium being processed in Russia is Kazakh! And this of course ignores that my main point was that Russia is the largest player in the global nuclear technological sector. Like I said. The evidence is that Europe despite over 3 years of war in Ukraine still has not been able to sanction any part of the Russian nuclear industry. > Sure, but you need very little of it due to energy density, and reprocessing is a viable alternative as demonstrated by France. [2] And now we again "solve" nuclear power by saying that reprocessing works. Despite reprocessing producing massive quantities of nasty byproducts and more expensive Uranium. Just make nuclear power even more horrifically expensive! No problem!
zozbot234 1y ago
> Which is why I also added that the costs for storage are absolutely plummeting? The only storage that matters at scale is pumped hydro, and the cost for that is not "plummeting" at all because it's built out. Battery storage is a toy, it won't cover a prolonged (can last multiple weeks over vast geography) winter-time dip in wind plus solar. The gap must be made up by either peaker natgas plants (which are costly, non-renewable and emit some carbon dioxide) or, more sensibly, nuclear baseload.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  > Battery storage is a toy, it won't cover a prolonged (can last multiple weeks over vast geography) winter-time dip in wind plus solar. I love how the talking point has switched from "storage can't even cover an hour" a couple of years ago to now apparently having trouble with "multiple weeks". How quickly reality shifts. When we're talking about emergency reserves, because that is what you are trying to paint as the end of the world, then who the fuck cares where it comes from? Having that problem means that close to 99% of our entire energy system is renewable. The final piece is trivial to solve with synfuels, biofuels, hydrogen or whatever when it is deemed necessary. In the US the ethanol produced used as a gasoline mix in etc. is enough to run the entire grid without any other energy source for 16 days. That is trivially repurposed as our car fleet is switched to BEVs. Or just use whatever aviation and the shipping industry settles on as they decarbonize. > or, more sensibly, nuclear baseload. This tells me you don't have the slightest clue how the grid works and are reasoning backwards from attempting to justify a trillion dollar handout to the nuclear industry. Take a look at France. They generally export quite large amounts of electricity. But whenever a cold spell hits that export flow is reversed to imports and they have to start up local fossil gas and coal based production. What they have done is that they have outsourced the management of their grid to their neighbors and rely on 35 GW of fossil based electricity production both inside France and their neighbors grids. Because their nuclear power produces too much when no one wants the electricity and too little when it is actually needed. Their neighbors are able to both absorb the cold spell which very likely hits them as well, their own grid as the French exports stops and they start exporting to France.
  - 1y ago

arcticbull 1y ago

> This seems like hand wringing over a nothing burger? Compare the dynamics with fossil fuels: I'm not comparing to fossil fuels, so it's not really relevant. > Or you know, just diversify renewable supply chains? That's happening about as fast as seawater extraction. There's good reasons why, at least for wind the extraction and processing of rare earths is an environmental catastrophe and only China is willing to pay the environmental price. Regardless fuel costs for nuclear plants are roughly zero, about $0.0015/kWh, and there is more than enough uranium on land. And of course reprocessing spent fuel is a totally viable solution; most of France's uranium is closed loop. The entirety of the cost is in building and financing, which can be solved with policy changes.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
[flagged]
- arcticbull 1y ago
  > Nuclear power is irrelevant in our energy systems today. I dunno, it's been producing 20% of US power for decades. Same as renewables. Seems relevant. > For the nuclear supply chain we still have not been able to sanction the Russian industry. 12% come from Russia. [1] > So now suddenly we are hand wringing about rare earth extraction consequences. You seem to change topics faster than I can follow. I feel like environmental implications are relevant to discuss, and I think the topic is relevant. > You do know that the uranium supply is also extremely nasty? Sure, but you need very little of it due to energy density, and reprocessing is a viable alternative as demonstrated by France. They have a 96% recovery rate. [2] > And now suddenly seawater extraction did not matter? It didn't matter in my original post either which is why it's under "if we're being pedantic." [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu... [2] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-t...
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    > I dunno, it's been producing 20% of US power for decades. Same as renewables. Seems relevant. Which falls to 7.6% when counting the useful energy and not staring yourself blind on the electricity grid. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?stackMode=relative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked... Like I said, irrelevant compared to the fossil fuel supply chain supplying 80%. > 12% come from Russia. [1] Of course ignoring the intermediary steps in the supply chain which Russia controls ~50% of. But Kazakh uranium being processed in Russia is Kazakh! And this of course ignores that my main point was that Russia is the largest player in the global nuclear technological sector. Like I said. The evidence is that Europe despite over 3 years of war in Ukraine still has not been able to sanction any part of the Russian nuclear industry. > Sure, but you need very little of it due to energy density, and reprocessing is a viable alternative as demonstrated by France. [2] And now we again "solve" nuclear power by saying that reprocessing works. Despite reprocessing producing massive quantities of nasty byproducts and more expensive Uranium. Just make nuclear power even more horrifically expensive! No problem!

zozbot234 1y ago

> Which is why I also added that the costs for storage are absolutely plummeting? The only storage that matters at scale is pumped hydro, and the cost for that is not "plummeting" at all because it's built out. Battery storage is a toy, it won't cover a prolonged (can last multiple weeks over vast geography) winter-time dip in wind plus solar. The gap must be made up by either peaker natgas plants (which are costly, non-renewable and emit some carbon dioxide) or, more sensibly, nuclear baseload.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
> Battery storage is a toy, it won't cover a prolonged (can last multiple weeks over vast geography) winter-time dip in wind plus solar. I love how the talking point has switched from "storage can't even cover an hour" a couple of years ago to now apparently having trouble with "multiple weeks". How quickly reality shifts. When we're talking about emergency reserves, because that is what you are trying to paint as the end of the world, then who the fuck cares where it comes from? Having that problem means that close to 99% of our entire energy system is renewable. The final piece is trivial to solve with synfuels, biofuels, hydrogen or whatever when it is deemed necessary. In the US the ethanol produced used as a gasoline mix in etc. is enough to run the entire grid without any other energy source for 16 days. That is trivially repurposed as our car fleet is switched to BEVs. Or just use whatever aviation and the shipping industry settles on as they decarbonize. > or, more sensibly, nuclear baseload. This tells me you don't have the slightest clue how the grid works and are reasoning backwards from attempting to justify a trillion dollar handout to the nuclear industry. Take a look at France. They generally export quite large amounts of electricity. But whenever a cold spell hits that export flow is reversed to imports and they have to start up local fossil gas and coal based production. What they have done is that they have outsourced the management of their grid to their neighbors and rely on 35 GW of fossil based electricity production both inside France and their neighbors grids. Because their nuclear power produces too much when no one wants the electricity and too little when it is actually needed. Their neighbors are able to both absorb the cold spell which very likely hits them as well, their own grid as the French exports stops and they start exporting to France.
- 1y ago