3 ms·

Reminder that we have enough nuclear fuel to power all of humanity with zero emissions for hundreds of years. Anyone who’s talking about this issue and not push

by Dig1t 1y ago

Reminder that we have enough nuclear fuel to power all of humanity with zero emissions for hundreds of years. Anyone who’s talking about this issue and not pushing nuclear is likely trying to use it as a political tool instead of actually trying to solve the problem.

dwood_dev 1y ago
Eh. Not really anymore. Except at extreme latitudes, solar + battery now beats Nuclear on year round cost and especially on time to installation. It's only going to get more stark as time passes.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Most people pushing nuclear are trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years and delay implementation of cheaper solutions. If we committed to building out nuclear today, we'd get our first one online in about 20 years. We need about 1000 of them in the US, which would take a lot longer than 20 years.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Most people pushing nuclear are trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years and delay implementation of cheaper solutions. This claim explains a lot about our previous interactions. It's also the polar opposite of my experience. I have never heard a single advocate of nuclear advocating for fossil fuels, and I certainly don't do it myself. I've also never heard them speak against solar (and again I also don't do this). It's purely about defending nuclear from fear-mongering and trying to make it possible faster, rather than being crushed under ridiculous and unjustified regulations.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Nuclear in 2025 is not cost competitive for two major reasons unrelated to regulations. 1. It relies on a ridiculously expensive massive steam turbine 2. It's a major infrastructure project, which the USA seems incapable of building without massive cost over run. Yes, there are other reasons why nuclear is slow and expensive, but those two can't be fixed with a magic wand getting rid of nuclear regulations Also, there's an easy way to minimize regalatory bother: just build an already approved design, like thr AP1000.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > Nuclear in 2025 is not cost competitive for two major reasons unrelated to regulations. And yet Canada was able to build them decades ago, along with many other poorer countries.
- Dig1t 1y ago
  >If we committed to building out nuclear today, we'd get our first one online in about 20 years. Only true because of the regulatory burden imposed by the government on their construction, there's nothing about the design or construction of the plants which takes that long. Look at China, it takes them about 6 years to build a nuclear power plant. Politicians have been using climate change as a political tool for decades, if they had started pushing the construction of these plants back when they first started talking about the issue we could have been bringing enough power plants online by now to already have solved the problem.
- belorn 1y ago
  In Sweden when the green party met the conservatives in a debate over replacing existing oil power plant with a nuclear power plant, the green leader said something like this: "The oil burning power plant is a natural part of the reserve energy plan, and replacing it with nuclear would be way too expensive." After that debate, the green party (in combination with their other coalition parties) has now green lit the construction of a new natural gas power plant, as part of the strategy of using wind and solar during optimal weather conditions and fossil fuels in poor weather conditions. This strategy goes under the long-term plan of using green hydrogen in the future. Currently there exist a experiment of using green hydrogen for steel production, which has yet to become economical viable, and experts in the field of green hydrogen is predicting around ~50 years until green hydrogen may become economical viable for electricity production. Until then the plan is to continue expanding the fleet of fossil fuel burning power plants. To me its very obvious who is trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years. It is those that fund, approve and build new ones. The people responsible for those decisions are responsible for the fossil fuels that will get burned, and in turn delaying implementation of non-fossil fueled solutions.
kibwen 1y ago
I'm all for nuclear, specifically nuclear fusion, specifically the great big fusion reactor in the sky that bathes the Earth in more free energy in a day than we as a planet use in a year.
filloooo 1y ago
The west can't seem to build and operate new reactors cheaply. France's nuclear electricity isn't even that cheap and they were all built decades ago.

by Dig1t 1y ago

dwood_dev 1y ago

Eh. Not really anymore. Except at extreme latitudes, solar + battery now beats Nuclear on year round cost and especially on time to installation. It's only going to get more stark as time passes.

bryanlarsen 1y ago

Most people pushing nuclear are trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years and delay implementation of cheaper solutions. If we committed to building out nuclear today, we'd get our first one online in about 20 years. We need about 1000 of them in the US, which would take a lot longer than 20 years.

zahlman 1y ago
> Most people pushing nuclear are trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years and delay implementation of cheaper solutions. This claim explains a lot about our previous interactions. It's also the polar opposite of my experience. I have never heard a single advocate of nuclear advocating for fossil fuels, and I certainly don't do it myself. I've also never heard them speak against solar (and again I also don't do this). It's purely about defending nuclear from fear-mongering and trying to make it possible faster, rather than being crushed under ridiculous and unjustified regulations.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Nuclear in 2025 is not cost competitive for two major reasons unrelated to regulations. 1. It relies on a ridiculously expensive massive steam turbine 2. It's a major infrastructure project, which the USA seems incapable of building without massive cost over run. Yes, there are other reasons why nuclear is slow and expensive, but those two can't be fixed with a magic wand getting rid of nuclear regulations Also, there's an easy way to minimize regalatory bother: just build an already approved design, like thr AP1000.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Nuclear in 2025 is not cost competitive for two major reasons unrelated to regulations. And yet Canada was able to build them decades ago, along with many other poorer countries.
Dig1t 1y ago
>If we committed to building out nuclear today, we'd get our first one online in about 20 years. Only true because of the regulatory burden imposed by the government on their construction, there's nothing about the design or construction of the plants which takes that long. Look at China, it takes them about 6 years to build a nuclear power plant. Politicians have been using climate change as a political tool for decades, if they had started pushing the construction of these plants back when they first started talking about the issue we could have been bringing enough power plants online by now to already have solved the problem.
belorn 1y ago
In Sweden when the green party met the conservatives in a debate over replacing existing oil power plant with a nuclear power plant, the green leader said something like this: "The oil burning power plant is a natural part of the reserve energy plan, and replacing it with nuclear would be way too expensive." After that debate, the green party (in combination with their other coalition parties) has now green lit the construction of a new natural gas power plant, as part of the strategy of using wind and solar during optimal weather conditions and fossil fuels in poor weather conditions. This strategy goes under the long-term plan of using green hydrogen in the future. Currently there exist a experiment of using green hydrogen for steel production, which has yet to become economical viable, and experts in the field of green hydrogen is predicting around ~50 years until green hydrogen may become economical viable for electricity production. Until then the plan is to continue expanding the fleet of fossil fuel burning power plants. To me its very obvious who is trying to sell fossil fuels for another 50 or so years. It is those that fund, approve and build new ones. The people responsible for those decisions are responsible for the fossil fuels that will get burned, and in turn delaying implementation of non-fossil fueled solutions.

kibwen 1y ago

I'm all for nuclear, specifically nuclear fusion, specifically the great big fusion reactor in the sky that bathes the Earth in more free energy in a day than we as a planet use in a year.

filloooo 1y ago

The west can't seem to build and operate new reactors cheaply. France's nuclear electricity isn't even that cheap and they were all built decades ago.