3 ms·

We might be at the point today where solar and wind are more economically efficient than nuclear. That doesn't erase the tremendous damage that "environmentalis

We might be at the point today where solar and wind are more economically efficient than nuclear. That doesn't erase the tremendous damage that "environmentalist" groups have done by spouting FUD about nuclear power for decades, the primary result of which has been to keep us on coal.

scarmig 11y ago
Maybe this is just my Silicon Valley-centric, rarefied group, but I have genuinely never met a rabid environmentalist hell-bent on shutting down nuclear power. I know many environmentalists, including career activists. The worst they could be accused of is not making nuclear power their number one priority. But, abstractly at least, they all support increased nuclear power in principle. I know many people against nuclear power. They, however, don't have many political or scientific beliefs, and their intelligences lie elsewhere than scientific or conceptual thinking. None would identify as green or environmentalist. The biggest problems with nuclear power seems to be (a) the inertia of leftover regulations and bad vibes from the 60s-80s and (b) nuclear power is really, really expensive and requires a great deal of capital outlay and time to build and even to recover the energy costs of building it. People are also more sensitive to the worst case failure modes of a nuclear plant (which has happened like once in history) than they are to the failure modes of coal power (which are when they function like they're designed to).
- barney54 11y ago
  Rebuttal: http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear... Sierra Club and Greenpeace are two of the largest and well-funded environmental groups.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
I don't disagree, but at this point, its more of a historical footnote now that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear (similar to how Thorium was thrown under the bus in the 50s-70s by staff in the Navy).
- DennisP 11y ago
  Solar and wind with natural gas backup are cheaper than conventional nuclear. For solar and wind to run civilization without fossil backup, you need a lot of extra infrastructure. A couple years ago, one study looked at what it would take to run a certain section of the U.S. electric grid on 99% wind/solar. They had a computer try 10,000 combinations and picked the cheapest, which was to overproduce energy by a factor of three, and add a little storage. That's not just overcapacity, it's actually producing that much extra energy to make sure you always have enough to meet demand. On the nuclear side, molten salt reactors and factory-produced modular reactors have the potential to reduce costs quite a bit, if we can get the regulators up to speed.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > On the nuclear side, molten salt reactors and factory-produced modular reactors have the potential to reduce costs quite a bit, if we can get the regulators up to speed. MSRs, even module, require at least a decade of approval through the NRC. You won't see a new reactor online, modular or not, for at least 15-20 years, by which point solar, wind, and utility scale battery storage will have slaughtered nuclear. How do you compete against a tech that can be deployed in weeks or months? And that has no licensing time? Nor requires $1-2 billion just to start.
    - DennisP 11y ago
      Hence my comment about fixing our regulatory process. Canada for example is much more streamlined, which is why Terrestrial Energy is starting out there.

scarmig 11y ago

Maybe this is just my Silicon Valley-centric, rarefied group, but I have genuinely never met a rabid environmentalist hell-bent on shutting down nuclear power. I know many environmentalists, including career activists. The worst they could be accused of is not making nuclear power their number one priority. But, abstractly at least, they all support increased nuclear power in principle. I know many people against nuclear power. They, however, don't have many political or scientific beliefs, and their intelligences lie elsewhere than scientific or conceptual thinking. None would identify as green or environmentalist. The biggest problems with nuclear power seems to be (a) the inertia of leftover regulations and bad vibes from the 60s-80s and (b) nuclear power is really, really expensive and requires a great deal of capital outlay and time to build and even to recover the energy costs of building it. People are also more sensitive to the worst case failure modes of a nuclear plant (which has happened like once in history) than they are to the failure modes of coal power (which are when they function like they're designed to).

barney54 11y ago
Rebuttal: http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear... Sierra Club and Greenpeace are two of the largest and well-funded environmental groups.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

I don't disagree, but at this point, its more of a historical footnote now that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear (similar to how Thorium was thrown under the bus in the 50s-70s by staff in the Navy).

DennisP 11y ago
Solar and wind with natural gas backup are cheaper than conventional nuclear. For solar and wind to run civilization without fossil backup, you need a lot of extra infrastructure. A couple years ago, one study looked at what it would take to run a certain section of the U.S. electric grid on 99% wind/solar. They had a computer try 10,000 combinations and picked the cheapest, which was to overproduce energy by a factor of three, and add a little storage. That's not just overcapacity, it's actually producing that much extra energy to make sure you always have enough to meet demand. On the nuclear side, molten salt reactors and factory-produced modular reactors have the potential to reduce costs quite a bit, if we can get the regulators up to speed.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > On the nuclear side, molten salt reactors and factory-produced modular reactors have the potential to reduce costs quite a bit, if we can get the regulators up to speed. MSRs, even module, require at least a decade of approval through the NRC. You won't see a new reactor online, modular or not, for at least 15-20 years, by which point solar, wind, and utility scale battery storage will have slaughtered nuclear. How do you compete against a tech that can be deployed in weeks or months? And that has no licensing time? Nor requires $1-2 billion just to start.
  - DennisP 11y ago
    Hence my comment about fixing our regulatory process. Canada for example is much more streamlined, which is why Terrestrial Energy is starting out there.