4 ms·

I'm also a proponent of nuclear. And I agree that nuclear is not competitive with solar. But we haven't really invested in nuclear for more than 4 decades now

I'm also a proponent of nuclear. And I agree that nuclear is not competitive with solar. But we haven't really invested in nuclear for more than 4 decades now. Nuclear is just a technology. There is no reason to think nuclear capital costs need to be forever locked at the current levels. China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants (judging by the cost of the Karachi units 2-3 at $9.5 BN [1] vs the Vogtle units 3-4 at $36.8 BN [2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

kjs3 1y ago
China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants Well, yes. When consider 'health and safety' as a 'down on the priority list' requirement, there are any number of cost cutting opportunities available to you.
pstuart 1y ago
Bespoke behemoth power plants may have the advantage size in the ability to generate power but they seem to be impossible to bring in on schedule and under budget. Small Modular Reactors should upend that hegemony through mass production but so far still can't compete. SMRs would be perfect for converting every single existing coal fired plant and allow our power generation to go carbon free in record time. I'm pro-renewables but believe we need as many energy options as possible.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Feel free to place an SMR in your neighborhood on a flatbed truck guarded only by one part-time security guard.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    I wasn't suggesting that approach, but yes, security will always be a concern.
patapong 1y ago
I see it as an issue of path dependency - we had the option to invest in nuclear but did not. Instead we invested in solar, wind and battery. Because of this, the latter is now the better alternative, and it makes more sense to further capitalize on that path rather than "reviving" a previous path for untold billions and tens of years.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
We invested massively in nuclear power in recent decades? Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto, Flamanville were the west ensuring nuclear investment while at the same time investing in the nascent renewable sector. In total something like a ~$100-200B investment in nuclear technology. The nuclear investment evidently did not pan out. How much more should we have spent? Should we just push through no matter the cost even though we have cheaper alternatives?
- credit_guy 1y ago
  I don't think you are trolling, as I see you answered along these lines before. But how exactly is "the West" reaping the benefits of scale, or climbing the learning curve, from 5 completely disparate projects, one of which failed? China is building more than that every single year, and has been doing that for a decade. > Should we just push through no matter the cost even though we have cheaper alternatives? This is a false dichotomy. I am not saying we should not build solar, or wind. And I am not even saying we should divert resources to nuclear. It should be the private sector. Are you saying even the private sector should not invest in nuclear? Why? Don't you think people are smart enough to decide for themselves what do to with their money? If Bill Gates wants to invest his money in Terrapower, why do you think this is a problem? He invests a lot of money in renewables too.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Nuclear power has had a negative learning curve since its inception. How many hundreds of billions in subsidies to "climb it"? Personally I think nuclear costs are closely aligned with the Baumol effect. [0] It is construction and does not become more efficient while wages rise as an economy develops. Therefore there is a small timespan to build nuclear power with acceptable costs right when the economy is advanced enough to manage the technology but wages haven't caught up yet. Like they have done in the west. > Are you saying even the private sector should not invest in nuclear? Why? The private sector can do what it wants. But that is not what is happening in the west, the few construction projects that get greenlit do it on the base of absolutely massive subsidies. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

kjs3 1y ago

China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants Well, yes. When consider 'health and safety' as a 'down on the priority list' requirement, there are any number of cost cutting opportunities available to you.

pstuart 1y ago

Bespoke behemoth power plants may have the advantage size in the ability to generate power but they seem to be impossible to bring in on schedule and under budget. Small Modular Reactors should upend that hegemony through mass production but so far still can't compete. SMRs would be perfect for converting every single existing coal fired plant and allow our power generation to go carbon free in record time. I'm pro-renewables but believe we need as many energy options as possible.

burnt-resistor 1y ago
Feel free to place an SMR in your neighborhood on a flatbed truck guarded only by one part-time security guard.
- pstuart 1y ago
  I wasn't suggesting that approach, but yes, security will always be a concern.

patapong 1y ago

I see it as an issue of path dependency - we had the option to invest in nuclear but did not. Instead we invested in solar, wind and battery. Because of this, the latter is now the better alternative, and it makes more sense to further capitalize on that path rather than "reviving" a previous path for untold billions and tens of years.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

We invested massively in nuclear power in recent decades? Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto, Flamanville were the west ensuring nuclear investment while at the same time investing in the nascent renewable sector. In total something like a ~$100-200B investment in nuclear technology. The nuclear investment evidently did not pan out. How much more should we have spent? Should we just push through no matter the cost even though we have cheaper alternatives?

credit_guy 1y ago
I don't think you are trolling, as I see you answered along these lines before. But how exactly is "the West" reaping the benefits of scale, or climbing the learning curve, from 5 completely disparate projects, one of which failed? China is building more than that every single year, and has been doing that for a decade. > Should we just push through no matter the cost even though we have cheaper alternatives? This is a false dichotomy. I am not saying we should not build solar, or wind. And I am not even saying we should divert resources to nuclear. It should be the private sector. Are you saying even the private sector should not invest in nuclear? Why? Don't you think people are smart enough to decide for themselves what do to with their money? If Bill Gates wants to invest his money in Terrapower, why do you think this is a problem? He invests a lot of money in renewables too.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  Nuclear power has had a negative learning curve since its inception. How many hundreds of billions in subsidies to "climb it"? Personally I think nuclear costs are closely aligned with the Baumol effect. [0] It is construction and does not become more efficient while wages rise as an economy develops. Therefore there is a small timespan to build nuclear power with acceptable costs right when the economy is advanced enough to manage the technology but wages haven't caught up yet. Like they have done in the west. > Are you saying even the private sector should not invest in nuclear? Why? The private sector can do what it wants. But that is not what is happening in the west, the few construction projects that get greenlit do it on the base of absolutely massive subsidies. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect