3 ms·

Let me explain why fossil fuels are so politcally sticky in general. If you build oil wells that produce say 1Mbpd (million barrels per day) in oil then, depen

by jmyeet 8mo ago

Let me explain why fossil fuels are so politcally sticky in general. If you build oil wells that produce say 1Mbpd (million barrels per day) in oil then, depending on what area of the world you're in, the production declines. In the Permian Basin (fracking in the US), that decline rate is 15-20%. So, in a year you need to build 150-200kbpd of new wells just to maintain your current production. So why does this make fossil sticks politically sticky? Jobs. If you build a wind or solar farm it requires almost no maintenance and has no decline. Windmills need some maintenance. Power lines need some maintenance. Solar panels need to be cleaned. The last one can mostly be automated. But all of this requires a whole lot less work than drilling a bunch of new wells. And why is nuclear so politically problematic? Because of failure modes. And it's super-expensive. HNers like to wave away the worst disasters and pretend with basically no evidence that Chernobyl or Fukushima can't happen again. Fewer than 700 nuclear power plants have ever been built. Not one has been built without government subsidies. Nuclear defenders will focus on operationg costs and brush over capital costs for this reason. As a reminder, Chernobyl's absolute exclusion zone 40 years later is still 1000 square miles and Fukushima's clean up is likely to take a century and the cost will likely exceed $1 trillion. For one incident. I'm sorry but nuclear is not going anywhere. The future is solar.

LargoLasskhyfv 8mo ago
There is another model to consider, both cost- and operations-wise, when you zoom out. Submarines and Carriers of the US Navy, managed "Hyman Rickover style". They may have had mishaps, but not nuclear related. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover ) Problematic was the handling of their nuclear waste, but that got privatized at least partially, so don't do that. Let it stay military, administered and operated in the same successful "Rickover style". Maybe have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_Chin... , too. Also standardize on only a few, small modular models, and fuels. Not making every single one a special snowflake, needing its own special fuel. Their more compact size would also eliminate the bottleneck of forging the containment vessel, enabling shipyards to join in, for example. That's another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale to consider. Since being military, and well managed, they could also burn higher enriched fuel, utilising more of the precious stuff, instead of turning about 97.5% to 99% into waste. If this is deemed essential for the functioning of a nation, why privatize that? Why not make it military?

by jmyeet 8mo ago

LargoLasskhyfv 8mo ago

There is another model to consider, both cost- and operations-wise, when you zoom out. Submarines and Carriers of the US Navy, managed "Hyman Rickover style". They may have had mishaps, but not nuclear related. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover ) Problematic was the handling of their nuclear waste, but that got privatized at least partially, so don't do that. Let it stay military, administered and operated in the same successful "Rickover style". Maybe have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_Chin... , too. Also standardize on only a few, small modular models, and fuels. Not making every single one a special snowflake, needing its own special fuel. Their more compact size would also eliminate the bottleneck of forging the containment vessel, enabling shipyards to join in, for example. That's another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale to consider. Since being military, and well managed, they could also burn higher enriched fuel, utilising more of the precious stuff, instead of turning about 97.5% to 99% into waste. If this is deemed essential for the functioning of a nation, why privatize that? Why not make it military?