3 ms·

Agreed, you are talking about non-safety factors. I don’t think they necessitate the price levels we see; for example, look at how cheaply China can build react

Agreed, you are talking about non-safety factors. I don’t think they necessitate the price levels we see; for example, look at how cheaply China can build reactors. I think it’s quite clear that we pay a high safety / regulatory premium in the west for Nuclear. My point about safety is that we are over-indexing on regulation. We should reduce (not remove!) regulations on nuclear projects, this would make them more affordable. I don’t think this is a controversial point, if you look into post-mortems on why US projects overrun by billions you always see issues with last-minute adaptations requiring expensive re-certification of designs, ie purely regulatory (safety-motivated) friction.

bobthepanda 1y ago
The notable thing is that more or less China has kept ramping up solar and wind targets whereas nuclear has been much slower to grow. China's energy requirements are so large that this still represents an absolute number increase, but it's telling that even with as heavy handed an industrial policy's as China's that nuclear has not really lifted off. > Authorities have steadily downgraded plans for nuclear to dominate China's energy generation. At present, the goal is 18 per cent of generation by 2060. China installed 1GW of nuclear last year, compared to 300GW of solar and wind, Mr Buckley said. > https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewable-energy-boom-breaks-records/104086640 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewa...
- mirddes 1y ago
  it would be unwise to put all of ones eggs in someone else's basket. having as much wind solar and nuclear as possible will ensure humanity has a bright future. 18% seems like a good number. how much storage are they investing in?
  - bobthepanda 1y ago
    > "They're installing 1GW per month of pumped hydro storage," Mr Buckley said. Fun fact, pumped hydro was actually developed for nuclear originally in the 70s, since nuclear is a large source of power that is hard to ramp down during low demand periods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power...
    - eichin 1y ago
      Err, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlewood_Lake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlewood_Lake was completed in 1928 (for electrical demand regulation.) Much older than nuclear...
      - Retric 1y ago
        Which is kind of funny as they where storing energy from a hydroelectric power plant, so building a larger dam would have been way more energy efficient.
        bobthepanda 1y ago
        Connecticut isn’t very elevated so a dam at a higher level may not have been very practical.
      - bobthepanda 1y ago
        My bad. It's still notable that the sixth largest one in the world was still developed for nuclear plants.

bobthepanda 1y ago

The notable thing is that more or less China has kept ramping up solar and wind targets whereas nuclear has been much slower to grow. China's energy requirements are so large that this still represents an absolute number increase, but it's telling that even with as heavy handed an industrial policy's as China's that nuclear has not really lifted off. > Authorities have steadily downgraded plans for nuclear to dominate China's energy generation. At present, the goal is 18 per cent of generation by 2060. China installed 1GW of nuclear last year, compared to 300GW of solar and wind, Mr Buckley said. > https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewable-energy-boom-breaks-records/104086640 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewa...

mirddes 1y ago
it would be unwise to put all of ones eggs in someone else's basket. having as much wind solar and nuclear as possible will ensure humanity has a bright future. 18% seems like a good number. how much storage are they investing in?
- bobthepanda 1y ago
  > "They're installing 1GW per month of pumped hydro storage," Mr Buckley said. Fun fact, pumped hydro was actually developed for nuclear originally in the 70s, since nuclear is a large source of power that is hard to ramp down during low demand periods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power...
  - eichin 1y ago
    Err, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlewood_Lake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlewood_Lake was completed in 1928 (for electrical demand regulation.) Much older than nuclear...
    - Retric 1y ago
      Which is kind of funny as they where storing energy from a hydroelectric power plant, so building a larger dam would have been way more energy efficient.
      - bobthepanda 1y ago
        Connecticut isn’t very elevated so a dam at a higher level may not have been very practical.
    - bobthepanda 1y ago
      My bad. It's still notable that the sixth largest one in the world was still developed for nuclear plants.