5 ms·

The progress on 'nuclear' is so slow, that the same investment in Batterie and renewable would actually help a lot more around the globe. We know how to build

The progress on 'nuclear' is so slow, that the same investment in Batterie and renewable would actually help a lot more around the globe. We know how to build nuclear, we don't do it because its too expensive. Other forms are so far away from being useful, that the current Storage + Renewable pricing is so crazy good, that whatever you do with nuclear will just not be able to compete. And the benefit? Every 3th world country and person can invest in small and big Storage + Renewable but they can't do the same with nuclear.

Moldoteck 9mo ago
we don't do it because we forgot to do it cheap. At 3bn/unit like GE's ABWR or chinese hualongs/cap's it's a steal. At 20+bn/unit it's not that fun.
- cperciva 9mo ago
  We didn't forget how to do it cheap. The ALARA (As Expensive As Reasonably Achievable) policy simply made it illegal to do it cheaply.
  - epistasis 9mo ago
    Since you say ALARA made things expensive, maybe you can tell me how you foresee cheaper designs without it? There's a lot of talk and some very shady science about getting rid of ALARA but nobody says what will change on the build that is causing the cost. Meanwhile China has adopted the same designs as in the West, without abandoning ALARA. Those who advocate for changing ALARA see to be mostly trying to shift the Overton window on the public opinion of radiation rather than trying to pursue engineering and cost goals. I hope I am wrong on that!
- epistasis 9mo ago
  There's the "we forgot" hypothesis, but I think a more realistic hypothesis is the "we got too rich" hypothesis. Construction productivity has stayed stagnant for more than half a century, while manufacturing productivity has sky rocketed and made us all fabulously wealthy compared to when the first nuclear reactors were built half a century ago. I don't trust China's public cost numbers as much as I trust their actual capital allocation on the grid. And I will trust GE's numbers once they have actually produced something at those numbers, as pre-build cost estimates for nuclear are not believable due to their extensive track record.
  - Moldoteck 9mo ago
    GE number is from japanese abwr. So chinese deployments are pretty realistic
graeme 9mo ago
>We know how to build nuclear, we don't do it because its too expensive. Refusing to build nuclear for decades makes it more expensive. If we start actually building reactors the cost will come down. >the current Storage + Renewable pricing is so crazy good, that whatever you do with nuclear will just not be able to compete. I would find this more persuasive if there were no new investment in carbon sources, but carbon sources have clearly remained competitive with batteries + solar, and global carbon emissions remain at an all time high. There's demand for baseload energy.
- croes 9mo ago
  Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build. And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy
  - ethmarks 9mo ago
    > Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build. Solar panels and wind turbines need maintenance too. And they have much shorter operational lives than nuclear power plants, meaning they'll need to be expensively replaced much more frequently. > And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy Could you please explain your objection to steam-based power? Is it purely aesthetic, or is there some inherent downside to steam turbines that I'm not aware of? Also, concentrated solar power systems that concentrate sunlight and use it to boil steam[1] are significantly more efficient than direct photovoltaics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
    - hvb2 9mo ago
      > Could you please explain your objection to steam-based power? My guess would be that you're taking energy that you burn, you then boil water, water then goes through a number of turbines, then to a generator and then you might have electricity. Every step in that process is not 100% efficient. Direct PV is, sunlight, cell that generates current, current gets transformed into whatever the grid needs. So it's fewer steps.
Rexxar 9mo ago
Nuclear + Batteries could be nice too because the reactors will be always working at optimal rate without having to start/stop them to adapt to demand and let the storage manage peaks and lows. So investment in one domain can help the other too.
- Fazebooking 9mo ago
  Can but investment in two things with the fundamental same topic can lead to diversation of funds. Only if the nuclear investors are completly different than renewable than that would be a good idea.
rayiner 9mo ago
The French transitioned the majority of their grid to nuclear back when I was a small child. Their electric prices are lower than Italy, Germany, or the UK. Of the big European countries, only Spain’s is lower.
- hvb2 9mo ago
  Yes, but all of that infra is aging and no one saved for the day when they need to be replaced. Given where France's national finances are... When that day comes, expect massive hike. They're essentially taking out a loan on the future
- ViewTrick1002 9mo ago
  They are also completely unable to build any new nuclear power as evidenced by Flamanville 3 being 13 years late on a 5 years project and 7x over budget. Their proposed EPR2 fleet requires 11 cents/kWh and interest free loans. Sum freely. With the first reactor coming online in 2038, if everything goes according to plan. New built nuclear power in 2026 just doesn't square with reality when the costs and timelines are factored in.

Moldoteck 9mo ago

we don't do it because we forgot to do it cheap. At 3bn/unit like GE's ABWR or chinese hualongs/cap's it's a steal. At 20+bn/unit it's not that fun.

cperciva 9mo ago
We didn't forget how to do it cheap. The ALARA (As Expensive As Reasonably Achievable) policy simply made it illegal to do it cheaply.
- epistasis 9mo ago
  Since you say ALARA made things expensive, maybe you can tell me how you foresee cheaper designs without it? There's a lot of talk and some very shady science about getting rid of ALARA but nobody says what will change on the build that is causing the cost. Meanwhile China has adopted the same designs as in the West, without abandoning ALARA. Those who advocate for changing ALARA see to be mostly trying to shift the Overton window on the public opinion of radiation rather than trying to pursue engineering and cost goals. I hope I am wrong on that!
epistasis 9mo ago
There's the "we forgot" hypothesis, but I think a more realistic hypothesis is the "we got too rich" hypothesis. Construction productivity has stayed stagnant for more than half a century, while manufacturing productivity has sky rocketed and made us all fabulously wealthy compared to when the first nuclear reactors were built half a century ago. I don't trust China's public cost numbers as much as I trust their actual capital allocation on the grid. And I will trust GE's numbers once they have actually produced something at those numbers, as pre-build cost estimates for nuclear are not believable due to their extensive track record.
- Moldoteck 9mo ago
  GE number is from japanese abwr. So chinese deployments are pretty realistic

graeme 9mo ago

>We know how to build nuclear, we don't do it because its too expensive. Refusing to build nuclear for decades makes it more expensive. If we start actually building reactors the cost will come down. >the current Storage + Renewable pricing is so crazy good, that whatever you do with nuclear will just not be able to compete. I would find this more persuasive if there were no new investment in carbon sources, but carbon sources have clearly remained competitive with batteries + solar, and global carbon emissions remain at an all time high. There's demand for baseload energy.

croes 9mo ago
Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build. And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy
- ethmarks 9mo ago
  > Nuclear is expensive even after the reactor is build. Solar panels and wind turbines need maintenance too. And they have much shorter operational lives than nuclear power plants, meaning they'll need to be expensively replaced much more frequently. > And I wouldn’t call it progress to still rely on steam machines for energy Could you please explain your objection to steam-based power? Is it purely aesthetic, or is there some inherent downside to steam turbines that I'm not aware of? Also, concentrated solar power systems that concentrate sunlight and use it to boil steam[1] are significantly more efficient than direct photovoltaics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
  - hvb2 9mo ago
    > Could you please explain your objection to steam-based power? My guess would be that you're taking energy that you burn, you then boil water, water then goes through a number of turbines, then to a generator and then you might have electricity. Every step in that process is not 100% efficient. Direct PV is, sunlight, cell that generates current, current gets transformed into whatever the grid needs. So it's fewer steps.

Rexxar 9mo ago

Nuclear + Batteries could be nice too because the reactors will be always working at optimal rate without having to start/stop them to adapt to demand and let the storage manage peaks and lows. So investment in one domain can help the other too.

Fazebooking 9mo ago
Can but investment in two things with the fundamental same topic can lead to diversation of funds. Only if the nuclear investors are completly different than renewable than that would be a good idea.

rayiner 9mo ago

The French transitioned the majority of their grid to nuclear back when I was a small child. Their electric prices are lower than Italy, Germany, or the UK. Of the big European countries, only Spain’s is lower.

hvb2 9mo ago
Yes, but all of that infra is aging and no one saved for the day when they need to be replaced. Given where France's national finances are... When that day comes, expect massive hike. They're essentially taking out a loan on the future
ViewTrick1002 9mo ago
They are also completely unable to build any new nuclear power as evidenced by Flamanville 3 being 13 years late on a 5 years project and 7x over budget. Their proposed EPR2 fleet requires 11 cents/kWh and interest free loans. Sum freely. With the first reactor coming online in 2038, if everything goes according to plan. New built nuclear power in 2026 just doesn't square with reality when the costs and timelines are factored in.