4 ms·

Glad to see this crisis can result into a power plant 15-20 years from now. Or another Gigawatt solar + batteries this year.

leonidasrup 6mo ago
France installed 56 reactors in 15 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme... But it takes a real energy supply crisis (and probably many resulting deaths) to overcome NIMBY and anti-nuclear sentiment. In the current situation: in the U.S. there is currently just minor price hike, in Asia there is potential for real crisis (in few months), in Africa it will be really bad (crop production failures - famine).
stinkbeetle 6mo ago
I've been hearing "nuclear should have been done 15-20 years ago" for 30 years at this point. Coal was dead 20 years ago killed by solar and wind too, turns out that we'll be lucky if we have passed peak coal today! And peak carbon is still a fever dream. No, it's time for the anti-nuclear crowd to sit things out from now on. They've been continuously wrong for the past 50 years, the world should never have listened to any of them.
- Starman_Jones 6mo ago
  Nuclear is too expensive in ways that are effectively fixed costs. Solar is the cheapest form of power available on the market. I agree that we should have pushed nuclear 50, 40, 30, and 20 years ago, but now you’re asking the American people to pay more because something was the right call in the 90’s.
  - stinkbeetle 6mo ago
    Yes yes that was exactly the same thing said 20, 30, and probably 40 and 50 years ago too. Was wrong then too.
    - Starman_Jones 6mo ago
      No, it wasn’t. In 2008, I went to a lecture by a professor researching better PV cells, and it was, “here’s the benchmarks solar needs to beat to be cost competitive with nuclear, let alone oil or natural gas. As you can see, we’re nowhere close, but here’s what concepts we think can get us there.” Meanwhile, nuclear’s appeal is that it can scale incredibly well. It’s not cost competitive with oil or gas, and certainly not with solar, but it can put out a ton of energy. With the sudden need for more and more data centers, there’s now a market for that. But solar is cheaper, safer, and is ready to go now.
      - stinkbeetle 6mo ago
        Yes it was. I didn't say everybody said that, but the anti-nuclear / pro-carbon luddites sure did.
ForHackernews 6mo ago
Either or both would be a great improvement over burning more coal.
euroderf 6mo ago
The Dem platform could include 80% rebates for balcony solar. That'd put a dent in grid consumption stats.
tifkap 6mo ago
Correct. any nuclear power plant would take forever to build, and be to late to help. Meanwhile electric cars are here *now*, and solar + wind + batteries are not only much faster to implement, but also cheaper. Nuclear is to little, to late.

leonidasrup 6mo ago

France installed 56 reactors in 15 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme... But it takes a real energy supply crisis (and probably many resulting deaths) to overcome NIMBY and anti-nuclear sentiment. In the current situation: in the U.S. there is currently just minor price hike, in Asia there is potential for real crisis (in few months), in Africa it will be really bad (crop production failures - famine).

stinkbeetle 6mo ago

I've been hearing "nuclear should have been done 15-20 years ago" for 30 years at this point. Coal was dead 20 years ago killed by solar and wind too, turns out that we'll be lucky if we have passed peak coal today! And peak carbon is still a fever dream. No, it's time for the anti-nuclear crowd to sit things out from now on. They've been continuously wrong for the past 50 years, the world should never have listened to any of them.

Starman_Jones 6mo ago
Nuclear is too expensive in ways that are effectively fixed costs. Solar is the cheapest form of power available on the market. I agree that we should have pushed nuclear 50, 40, 30, and 20 years ago, but now you’re asking the American people to pay more because something was the right call in the 90’s.
- stinkbeetle 6mo ago
  Yes yes that was exactly the same thing said 20, 30, and probably 40 and 50 years ago too. Was wrong then too.
  - Starman_Jones 6mo ago
    No, it wasn’t. In 2008, I went to a lecture by a professor researching better PV cells, and it was, “here’s the benchmarks solar needs to beat to be cost competitive with nuclear, let alone oil or natural gas. As you can see, we’re nowhere close, but here’s what concepts we think can get us there.” Meanwhile, nuclear’s appeal is that it can scale incredibly well. It’s not cost competitive with oil or gas, and certainly not with solar, but it can put out a ton of energy. With the sudden need for more and more data centers, there’s now a market for that. But solar is cheaper, safer, and is ready to go now.
    - stinkbeetle 6mo ago
      Yes it was. I didn't say everybody said that, but the anti-nuclear / pro-carbon luddites sure did.

ForHackernews 6mo ago

Either or both would be a great improvement over burning more coal.

euroderf 6mo ago

The Dem platform could include 80% rebates for balcony solar. That'd put a dent in grid consumption stats.

tifkap 6mo ago

Correct. any nuclear power plant would take forever to build, and be to late to help. Meanwhile electric cars are here *now*, and solar + wind + batteries are not only much faster to implement, but also cheaper. Nuclear is to little, to late.