3 ms·

The reason why people tend to get a bit cheerleadery about nuclear power is because it has some great PR and it resonates with them. It needs the PR because it

by pydry 6mo ago

The reason why people tend to get a bit cheerleadery about nuclear power is because it has some great PR and it resonates with them. It needs the PR because it is so unconscionably expensive. The public needs to be primed to consent to indirect and direct subsidies. The reason China, US, France, it is because it shares a skills base and supply chain with nukes. The reason Sweden, Poland, Iran, etc. build a few plants is because it shares a skills base and supply chain with a nuclear weapons program they might want in a hurry one day. It's always obvious for those countries who the existential threat is.

tim333 6mo ago
Yeah, apparently Hinkley may be partly to keep the nuclear weapon skills. (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...)
Moldoteck 6mo ago
very little supply chain is shared with weapons, dont spread nonsense. If you want weapons it's far cheaper to have just an enrichement facility exactly for that. And nuclear is cheap. Look at lazard estimate for existing fleet. Or open swiss data. Or even german data
- pydry 6mo ago
  Nuclear costs about 5x as much as solar and wind according to Lazard. This doesnt even include catastrophe insurance (taxpayers are on the hook in the event it goes boom and there's an $800 billion fukushima style cleanup fee). I dont think it was price or global warming that got Poland suddenly interested in 2023. They dont want to build a nuke today but if their existing nuclear umbrella suddenly gets yanked away...
  - Moldoteck 6mo ago
    You talk about new projects based on Vogtle costs. You need to look at the Lazard lcoe for existing fleet which didnt have such delays. Fukushima cleanup could have costed much less. Jp govt wanted it to be expensive. "They dont want to build a nuke today but if their existing nuclear umbrella suddenly gets yanked away..." - again, it's unrelated. If you want weapons you can have some secret enrichemnt facility for that. Much cheaper. Npp without enrichment are pointless anyway for weapons due to parasitic isotopes.

by pydry 6mo ago

tim333 6mo ago

Yeah, apparently Hinkley may be partly to keep the nuclear weapon skills. (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...)

Moldoteck 6mo ago

very little supply chain is shared with weapons, dont spread nonsense. If you want weapons it's far cheaper to have just an enrichement facility exactly for that. And nuclear is cheap. Look at lazard estimate for existing fleet. Or open swiss data. Or even german data

pydry 6mo ago
Nuclear costs about 5x as much as solar and wind according to Lazard. This doesnt even include catastrophe insurance (taxpayers are on the hook in the event it goes boom and there's an $800 billion fukushima style cleanup fee). I dont think it was price or global warming that got Poland suddenly interested in 2023. They dont want to build a nuke today but if their existing nuclear umbrella suddenly gets yanked away...
- Moldoteck 6mo ago
  You talk about new projects based on Vogtle costs. You need to look at the Lazard lcoe for existing fleet which didnt have such delays. Fukushima cleanup could have costed much less. Jp govt wanted it to be expensive. "They dont want to build a nuke today but if their existing nuclear umbrella suddenly gets yanked away..." - again, it's unrelated. If you want weapons you can have some secret enrichemnt facility for that. Much cheaper. Npp without enrichment are pointless anyway for weapons due to parasitic isotopes.