4 ms·

> many of the changes we are talking about don't even really cost us anything This is the part that seems to vary widely based on which warming alarmist you're

by pdonis 8mo ago

> many of the changes we are talking about don't even really cost us anything This is the part that seems to vary widely based on which warming alarmist you're talking to. Many of them are not saying there are things we could do that "don't even really cost us anything" that would deal with the problem--they're saying we need to devote a significant fraction of global GDP to CO2 mitigation. Things that "don't really cost us anything" are probably happening already anyway, because, well, they don't really cost us anything. Building a lot more nuclear power plants is the key thing that doesn't really seem to be happening right now, that would be an obvious way to eliminate a lot of CO2 emissions. But of course that does really cost us something. But it's probably the most cost effective thing we could do on a large scale.

legitster 8mo ago
> Building a lot more nuclear power plants is the key thing that doesn't really seem to be happening right now I mean, this is the clear and obvious one. Nuclear theoretically should be much, much cheaper than it is if it were not for the regulatory costs thrust upon it. It also harrows out people who are legitimately concerned from "moralist concern junkies". You'd think climate change being a global existential crisis would make people open to nuclear energy or more drastic measures like geo-engineering, but the frequency with which people refuse to compromise undercuts the their legitimacy.
- triceratops 8mo ago
  > Nuclear theoretically should be much, much cheaper than it is if it were not for the regulatory costs thrust upon it Solar and wind theoretically would also be much, much cheaper if not for the regulatory costs. [1] Everything is regulated and all regulations have costs. I'm not morally opposed to nuclear energy. Is there a comprehensive study on which specific safety regulations are unnecessary and the LCOE if they were removed? 1. https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-to-make-rooftop-solar-power-as https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-to-make-rooftop-solar-power-as
  - bryanlarsen 8mo ago
    You can do a thought experiment. A nuclear plant and a coal generator are very similar. They heat water to turn turbines to generate electricity. So best case scenario a nuclear plant costs the same as a coal plant, and has negligible operating costs in comparison. A coal plant costs $5B/GW to build, vs the > $20B/GW a nuclear plant costs. Those massive turbines are really expensive. OTOH solar + batteries is well under $1B / GW.
nradov 8mo ago
Among the large set of people who think we should take steps to reduce anthropogenic global warming there are at least two subsets who seem to oppose nuclear power. One is sort of pseudo-religious and believes that any disruption of the natural environment is a "sin" against Mother Nature. The other claims that nuclear power is too expensive and that we can solve the base load power problem more cheaply with battery storage, despite the lack of evidence that we'll be able to scale it up fast enough in the time available. And I have nothing against building more battery storage where it makes sense, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient by itself.
- bryanlarsen 8mo ago
  It's not a base load problem, it's an intermittency problem. Which you solve with dispatchable generation. Which nuclear is particularly ill suited for. > in the time available. Which also eliminates nuclear as an option; Ontario is building new nuclear power that is projected to become available in the late 2040's. After the inevitable delays that'll be the 2050's. Way too late. The solution is simple & cheap, though nobody wants to admit it. Use paid-for existing zero-carbon generation first (aka existing nuclear, hydro, etc), then add solar & wind to cover ~60% of needs, then add batteries to cover ~95% of needs, and then use natgas peakers to cover the last ~5%. Environmentalists don't like it because it's not 100% carbon free. Anti-environmentalists don't like it because it's 95% solar/wind/batteries. Economists and pragmatists should love it because it's the cheapest.

by pdonis 8mo ago

legitster 8mo ago

> Building a lot more nuclear power plants is the key thing that doesn't really seem to be happening right now I mean, this is the clear and obvious one. Nuclear theoretically should be much, much cheaper than it is if it were not for the regulatory costs thrust upon it. It also harrows out people who are legitimately concerned from "moralist concern junkies". You'd think climate change being a global existential crisis would make people open to nuclear energy or more drastic measures like geo-engineering, but the frequency with which people refuse to compromise undercuts the their legitimacy.

triceratops 8mo ago
> Nuclear theoretically should be much, much cheaper than it is if it were not for the regulatory costs thrust upon it Solar and wind theoretically would also be much, much cheaper if not for the regulatory costs. [1] Everything is regulated and all regulations have costs. I'm not morally opposed to nuclear energy. Is there a comprehensive study on which specific safety regulations are unnecessary and the LCOE if they were removed? 1. https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-to-make-rooftop-solar-power-as https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-to-make-rooftop-solar-power-as
- bryanlarsen 8mo ago
  You can do a thought experiment. A nuclear plant and a coal generator are very similar. They heat water to turn turbines to generate electricity. So best case scenario a nuclear plant costs the same as a coal plant, and has negligible operating costs in comparison. A coal plant costs $5B/GW to build, vs the > $20B/GW a nuclear plant costs. Those massive turbines are really expensive. OTOH solar + batteries is well under $1B / GW.

nradov 8mo ago

Among the large set of people who think we should take steps to reduce anthropogenic global warming there are at least two subsets who seem to oppose nuclear power. One is sort of pseudo-religious and believes that any disruption of the natural environment is a "sin" against Mother Nature. The other claims that nuclear power is too expensive and that we can solve the base load power problem more cheaply with battery storage, despite the lack of evidence that we'll be able to scale it up fast enough in the time available. And I have nothing against building more battery storage where it makes sense, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient by itself.

bryanlarsen 8mo ago
It's not a base load problem, it's an intermittency problem. Which you solve with dispatchable generation. Which nuclear is particularly ill suited for. > in the time available. Which also eliminates nuclear as an option; Ontario is building new nuclear power that is projected to become available in the late 2040's. After the inevitable delays that'll be the 2050's. Way too late. The solution is simple & cheap, though nobody wants to admit it. Use paid-for existing zero-carbon generation first (aka existing nuclear, hydro, etc), then add solar & wind to cover ~60% of needs, then add batteries to cover ~95% of needs, and then use natgas peakers to cover the last ~5%. Environmentalists don't like it because it's not 100% carbon free. Anti-environmentalists don't like it because it's 95% solar/wind/batteries. Economists and pragmatists should love it because it's the cheapest.