4 ms·

> Maybe nuclear will make a comeback once the now installed wind/solar plants reach end of life and need replacement, but before that it is just too slow and un

> Maybe nuclear will make a comeback once the now installed wind/solar plants reach end of life and need replacement, but before that it is just too slow and uncertain to be effective tool (with our current engineering/construction capability!) to combat climate change imho. If we do not start working on brining nuclear power online now it will not be ready when the current generation of renewables needs replacement. We will also require wast amounts of power just to undo the damage we have already done. Capturing CO2 is practically a must if we don't want the permafrost to melt and release the up to 1,700 billion metric tons of carbon stored there. Will we have enough renewables to run our society and extract the required CO2? Maybe, will nuclear help while using 1/1000 land yes. Does it matter if nuclear takes 15-20 years to build? No, it does not matter. When it's built it will help out.

zokier 3y ago
> Does it matter if nuclear takes 15-20 years to build? No, it does not matter. When it's built it will help out. It matters because every dollar put into nuclear is dollar away from something else. Sure it would be great to have more resources put into nuclear power, and even more so into fusion power. But right now we are at a situation where that can not happen at the cost of things that have more immediate impact. That is simply the nature of having existential crisis at our hands right now, not in some far future.
- ttfkam 3y ago
  How about every dollar put into the social and economic fallout of large swaths of Florida and Louisiana falling underwater? That sounds like a pretty significant opportunity cost to me.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    False dichotomy; nuclear currently costs about the same as the combination of PV with enough Li-Ion batteries that it kinda looks the same from a "baseload?" perspective, and Li-Ion is the most expensive of the various options currently vaguely near the right scale for storage in that kind of timeframe. From the "everything else except baseload?" perspective, PV can also be one of the cheapest power sources around. Also, because it's a global problem, the solution has to be something that everyone wants to have, and that everyone wants everyone else to have too, which means we have to care that what powers Iran is green and also Iran will care about not triggering another airstrike from Israel fearing it's a secret atomic bomb project. PV in particular is also useful for being a continuous roll-out, so even if it worked out at exactly the same cost/joule as nuclear and taking exactly as long to reach the same final total average power output, getting the first joules sooner displaces more of the existing CO2 emissions.
    - ttfkam 3y ago
      Yes, we are talking about base load. We have about a football field's worth of spent fuel sitting in casks and pools. That's not per reactor; that's in total in the US since we started running nuclear power stations. In fast neutron reactors, this could power all of the US electrical needs for 150 years without requiring any new sources of uranium (no mines, no seawater extraction, nothing!) AND would eliminate the need for 100,000+ year geological storage. Far more compact than batteries, wouldn't compete with other large scale transitions that need batteries like electric cars, and would work even during either a week-long blizzard, tornado, or hurricane. Batteries offset the power needs from dusk to dawn, but most solar farms do not build capacity for extended (multi-day to week) outages. A single tornado let alone a hurricane could wipe out gigawatts of solar or wind capacity. Containment domes on nuclear reactors by contrast wouldn't even blink at these kinds of natural disasters. We need solar. We need wind. We need geothermal. We need hydro. And we need nuclear to completely eliminate most fossil fuels from our energy cycle. We need some of all. Diversification in energy sources is a good thing. I strongly disagree that everyone needs the same solution. Some nations are extremely rich in wind while others are mostly devoid of it. Nations like Iceland have a ridiculous surplus of energy due to geothermal resources. Some nations have easy access to hydro while most don't. New Zealand could probably power twenty New Zealands on wind alone. Even in the US we see this in play. The South/Southeast have little to no wind resources at all but are VERY sensitive to severe weather events that would tear apart large solar arrays leaving millions without power for fall too long. In the North and center of the US, wind power is almost a no-brainer. High, consistent winds across the plains could offset many other forms of electricity generation, especially away from large bodies of water. Geography strongly guides which solutions are available. The US produces over 37 billion metric tons of CO₂, making the U.S. responsible for 14% of global emissions on its own. Regardless of what other nations do (and I hope they continue toward de-carbonization), the US must take an aggressive role in reducing its own fossil fuel emissions within its borders, since those are the only emissions we can directly control. Diplomacy and economic incentives can only go so far across international borders, but building an maintaining ties overseas is obviously of great importance for that reason. None of this "America First" crap. As for domestic production of electricity, we are already out of sync with countries like Iran, regardless of what Israel does or does not do. We have 93 nuclear power plants. Iran has 1. The nuclear power (and weapon) genie is already out of the lamp. Everyone knows how to make a nuclear plant today. That said, Israel (and Iran) have other options like PV and especially solar thermal. They exist in a region where thermal masses could be used to great effect without concern of Plutonium proliferation. We absolutely, positively do NOT need every nation to get their power from the same sources. We only need them to get that power from sources other than fossil fuels.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  > It matters because every dollar put into nuclear is dollar away from something else. That’s not how things work. It’s tempting to view money in such simple term but also very wrong. In effect, the state has a lot of leeway in how it decides to invest and a lot of conservative positions are taken to preserve the overall status quo when it comes to who has power and who hasn’t.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    This is exactly how capital works. You don't buy the machine that takes 10X as long to deliver, costs more, has unending waste storage liabilities, and is uninsurable.
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      No, it’s clearly not how it works. National scale investment like the power grid are not subject to the same kind of rules that classical investment because the state can and do print money. For all the bad things I have to say about the Inflation Reduction Act for exemple, it will result in significant investment in renewable with money which for all intent and purpose appeared out of thin air (with all the impact this will have on the overall equilibrium of the economy). You could have at the same time have a comprehensive investment plan for nuclear and renewable without one significantly impacting the funding of the other. The US would be labour and knowledge limited long before it is capital starved.
      - rcxdude 3y ago
        The money represents real resources. Printing more of it doesn't make more resources, it just moves some power over the allocation of those resources to the government printing it.
        zerodensity 3y ago
        Money has not been backed by resources since the 1970s.
- coryrc 3y ago
  Germany disproves this being a good idea. Incredible amounts invested in solar yet still wholly dependent on coal and natural gas to survive the winter.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Germany pumped a lot into solar a decade or so ago in order to drive solar down its experience curve. This was expensive, but it was a tremendous gift to the world. You can thank much of the game-changing decline in renewable prices on this sacrifice. If they wanted to buy that same capacity again it would be much cheaper now. The good experience effects of renewables and storage implies we should go full speed ahead installing them. The side effect of pushing down their prices makes this the most cost effective approach overall. Nuclear, which doesn't have good experience effects, is a different story entirely.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

zokier 3y ago

> Does it matter if nuclear takes 15-20 years to build? No, it does not matter. When it's built it will help out. It matters because every dollar put into nuclear is dollar away from something else. Sure it would be great to have more resources put into nuclear power, and even more so into fusion power. But right now we are at a situation where that can not happen at the cost of things that have more immediate impact. That is simply the nature of having existential crisis at our hands right now, not in some far future.

ttfkam 3y ago
How about every dollar put into the social and economic fallout of large swaths of Florida and Louisiana falling underwater? That sounds like a pretty significant opportunity cost to me.
- ben_w 3y ago
  False dichotomy; nuclear currently costs about the same as the combination of PV with enough Li-Ion batteries that it kinda looks the same from a "baseload?" perspective, and Li-Ion is the most expensive of the various options currently vaguely near the right scale for storage in that kind of timeframe. From the "everything else except baseload?" perspective, PV can also be one of the cheapest power sources around. Also, because it's a global problem, the solution has to be something that everyone wants to have, and that everyone wants everyone else to have too, which means we have to care that what powers Iran is green and also Iran will care about not triggering another airstrike from Israel fearing it's a secret atomic bomb project. PV in particular is also useful for being a continuous roll-out, so even if it worked out at exactly the same cost/joule as nuclear and taking exactly as long to reach the same final total average power output, getting the first joules sooner displaces more of the existing CO2 emissions.
  - ttfkam 3y ago
    Yes, we are talking about base load. We have about a football field's worth of spent fuel sitting in casks and pools. That's not per reactor; that's in total in the US since we started running nuclear power stations. In fast neutron reactors, this could power all of the US electrical needs for 150 years without requiring any new sources of uranium (no mines, no seawater extraction, nothing!) AND would eliminate the need for 100,000+ year geological storage. Far more compact than batteries, wouldn't compete with other large scale transitions that need batteries like electric cars, and would work even during either a week-long blizzard, tornado, or hurricane. Batteries offset the power needs from dusk to dawn, but most solar farms do not build capacity for extended (multi-day to week) outages. A single tornado let alone a hurricane could wipe out gigawatts of solar or wind capacity. Containment domes on nuclear reactors by contrast wouldn't even blink at these kinds of natural disasters. We need solar. We need wind. We need geothermal. We need hydro. And we need nuclear to completely eliminate most fossil fuels from our energy cycle. We need some of all. Diversification in energy sources is a good thing. I strongly disagree that everyone needs the same solution. Some nations are extremely rich in wind while others are mostly devoid of it. Nations like Iceland have a ridiculous surplus of energy due to geothermal resources. Some nations have easy access to hydro while most don't. New Zealand could probably power twenty New Zealands on wind alone. Even in the US we see this in play. The South/Southeast have little to no wind resources at all but are VERY sensitive to severe weather events that would tear apart large solar arrays leaving millions without power for fall too long. In the North and center of the US, wind power is almost a no-brainer. High, consistent winds across the plains could offset many other forms of electricity generation, especially away from large bodies of water. Geography strongly guides which solutions are available. The US produces over 37 billion metric tons of CO₂, making the U.S. responsible for 14% of global emissions on its own. Regardless of what other nations do (and I hope they continue toward de-carbonization), the US must take an aggressive role in reducing its own fossil fuel emissions within its borders, since those are the only emissions we can directly control. Diplomacy and economic incentives can only go so far across international borders, but building an maintaining ties overseas is obviously of great importance for that reason. None of this "America First" crap. As for domestic production of electricity, we are already out of sync with countries like Iran, regardless of what Israel does or does not do. We have 93 nuclear power plants. Iran has 1. The nuclear power (and weapon) genie is already out of the lamp. Everyone knows how to make a nuclear plant today. That said, Israel (and Iran) have other options like PV and especially solar thermal. They exist in a region where thermal masses could be used to great effect without concern of Plutonium proliferation. We absolutely, positively do NOT need every nation to get their power from the same sources. We only need them to get that power from sources other than fossil fuels.
WastingMyTime89 3y ago
> It matters because every dollar put into nuclear is dollar away from something else. That’s not how things work. It’s tempting to view money in such simple term but also very wrong. In effect, the state has a lot of leeway in how it decides to invest and a lot of conservative positions are taken to preserve the overall status quo when it comes to who has power and who hasn’t.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  This is exactly how capital works. You don't buy the machine that takes 10X as long to deliver, costs more, has unending waste storage liabilities, and is uninsurable.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    No, it’s clearly not how it works. National scale investment like the power grid are not subject to the same kind of rules that classical investment because the state can and do print money. For all the bad things I have to say about the Inflation Reduction Act for exemple, it will result in significant investment in renewable with money which for all intent and purpose appeared out of thin air (with all the impact this will have on the overall equilibrium of the economy). You could have at the same time have a comprehensive investment plan for nuclear and renewable without one significantly impacting the funding of the other. The US would be labour and knowledge limited long before it is capital starved.
    - rcxdude 3y ago
      The money represents real resources. Printing more of it doesn't make more resources, it just moves some power over the allocation of those resources to the government printing it.
      - zerodensity 3y ago
        Money has not been backed by resources since the 1970s.
coryrc 3y ago
Germany disproves this being a good idea. Incredible amounts invested in solar yet still wholly dependent on coal and natural gas to survive the winter.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Germany pumped a lot into solar a decade or so ago in order to drive solar down its experience curve. This was expensive, but it was a tremendous gift to the world. You can thank much of the game-changing decline in renewable prices on this sacrifice. If they wanted to buy that same capacity again it would be much cheaper now. The good experience effects of renewables and storage implies we should go full speed ahead installing them. The side effect of pushing down their prices makes this the most cost effective approach overall. Nuclear, which doesn't have good experience effects, is a different story entirely.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]