5 ms·
You're talking about building new, now, with very expensive nuclear and very cheap and performant solar. Not entirely a good faith argument given the Op's sent
by subscribed 4mo ago
You're talking about building new, now, with very expensive nuclear and very cheap and performant solar.
Not entirely a good faith argument given the Op's sentiment about the wasted past.
Or, let me rephrase, how much fossils have been burned to date because nuclear got basically snuffed? We can probably express an answer in Celsius.
- bjourne 4mo agoAh, the nuclear Dolchstoßlegende. Since the mid 1980's nuclear construction basically came to a grinding halt, due to cost overruns and delays. It has never recovered and never will. Economics, not a Greenpeace conspiracy, killed new nuclear and also will kill current nuclear. It's not much to cry about that inefficient stuff gets replaced with more efficient stuff.
- throwthrowuknow 4mo agoAsk why it suddenly got so expensive and why delays were introduced. Hint, it happened more in some countries than others.
- bjourne 4mo agoHint, being snarky on HN is not as cool as you think. Nuclear "became expensive" because state subsidies declined, labor costs increased, and environmental regulations across all industries tightened.
- Moldoteck 4mo agothis is nonsense. Take german plants - zero subsidies for operation, plants were built mostly by private sector. In France - no CFD's for existing units, plants were constructed by govt for about 150bn. In comparison Germany spent on EEG subsidies double of that and you can see the result in emissions...
- bjourne 4mo agoReally? Which private sector built nuclear power plants in East Germany? In West Germany most plants were constructed by state-controlled enterprises and there were no expectation of them to ever reach profitability.
- Moldoteck 4mo agoit wasn't fully state controlled enterprises in the west - state was a partial owner. For example PreussenElektra, when it built plants was a publicly traded company and during Grohnde state mostly divested from it. Plants not only reached profitability but were cheapest firm power in german merit order bringing huge profits to the owners
- bjourne 4mo agoAccording to Wikipedia, PreussenElektra was a subsidiary of VEBA, a state owned energy company. You have to cite your sources here because I don't want to have to rebut made-up stuff. I do note that you have changed your argument from "plants were built mostly by private sector" to "it wasn't fully state controlled enterprises in the west". Closer to the truth, but still incorrect.
- Moldoteck 4mo agoI stand corrected. VEBA was state owned at that time. On the other hand RWE was 50/50 private-municipality owned in the same period. Still, no CFDs were given to them. So it's not about state reducing subsidies. Nor was it about environment regulations. The high costs of recent western projects are more related to depleted supply chain and poor designs of the plants. We'll get a chance soon to observe how Canada and Korea will build in Europe. Both have much better supply chain and both want to build (Czechia- apr and Romania -candu). If both will have the same cost blows as flamanville then it's clearly related to EU itself. If not- then the problem was EDF incompetence specifically here and Westinghouse incompetence in US
- 4mo ago
- Mawr 4mo agoYeah, the efficient coal plants displaced the inefficient nuclear ones. Efficiency all the way! Climate change? Pollution? Nah, who cares, efficiency!
- remarkEon 4mo agoThis is a mischaracterization of what happened. The economics got bad because of regulatory pressures, and regulatory pressures increased because of anti-nuclear sentiment, and … … Anti-nuclear sentiment is directly downstream from organized campaigns by organizations like Greenpeace, yes, but also left-aligned political parties that, for reasons I still don’t fully understand, decided make killing nuclear their entire reason for existing.
- herewulf 4mo agoThe fossil fuel industry quietly funneled money to these groups to discredit nuclear which competes with gas/coal for base load. Solar/wind only partially compete because at times they produce nothing so the grid still needs base load (usually "natural" gas these days). Thanks for all the extra greenhouse gases, Greenpeace!
- bjourne 4mo agoPlain false. The "economics" never got bad. They were always bad to begin with, hidden under layers of government subsidies.
- nazgul17 4mo agoIsn't this a consequence of Linear No-threshold, a model that most policy is based on, that says that the bad health consequences of radioactivity are linear wrt the amount of radiation, and that there is no threshold whatsoever under which the radiation is harmless? A model that is not based on science, given we know that cells have repair mechanisms? Jesus, even bananas are somewhat radioactive, so why are they being sold if any radiation is bad? Thankfully, it seems the winds are changing in the US, where LNT is being replaced by science based models by regulatory bodies. I hope the rest of the world swiftly follows. The amount of deaths and damage and suffering and money that could have been avoided is mind boggling. If I imagine an alternate history where starting 70 years ago (even just some of) the money invested on fossil fuels or used to subsidize them had been directed to nuclear, and what the state of science today could be, what the state of the air could be, the number of floods, tornadoes, lung cancers that could have been avoided, forced displacements that could have been avoided and subsequent depressions and suicides (see Fukushima), my blood boils. It truly is a mistake of disproportionate scale, and a matching shame.
- Filligree 4mo agoWhat does the linear no-threshold model say about air pollution from coal plants, anyway?
- int_19h 4mo agoAnd yet China is building new nuclear plants just as fast as it's building solar and wind. It's almost as if the "grinding halt" was political in nature.
- lukan 4mo agoSource needed, a quick search if mine showed very different numbers: "China aims to reach 110 gigawatts (GWe) of nuclear capacity by 2030." "China installed over 430 GW of renewables in 2025" In other words china installed last year alone 5x the energy capacity in solar and wind, what the are planning to have in 2030 https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
- SJC_Hacker 4mo ago110 GW at a 90% capacity factor vs 430 GW at maybe 20% capacity factor
- lukan 4mo ago430 GW a year on 20% (which it is not, as china has lots of desserts with no clouds) would still be a way bigger number than 110 GW that are planned to be reached in a few years.
- SJC_Hacker 4mo agoYeah my bd, the capacity factor was mor like 15% for solar PV (utility scale), according to their own data https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/china-builds-more-utility-scale-solar-as-competition-with-coal-ramps-up/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/china-bui...
- lukan 4mo agoThen here I might stand corrected, but it does not change the basic equation nore the invalidation of the claim above, that china is building nuclear like it builds solar and wind. It does not. Not even close.