6 ms·

If you increase regulation so the time and cost to build a nuclear plant is impossible...then yeah everything else is way cheaper. Not exactly brkeaking news.

tuetuopay 3y ago
Don't forget green subsidies on renewables that make them even cheaper.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Green subsidies are peanuts compared to the subsidies that nuclear gets. Half of the DoE budget is nuclear subsidies, and not being responsible for decomissioning/cleanup amounts to a massive subsidy.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Not even remotely true. Renewable account for 59% of subsidies. Nuclear, 1%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_Unit...
    - nemo 3y ago
      The person you were replying to and the article you posted both make a point you're not addressing: >Critics allege that the most important subsidies to the nuclear industry have not involved cash payments, but rather the shifting of construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns, defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. Critics claim that this approach distorts market choices, which they believe would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[15]
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        "shifting construction costs to ratepayers" is done for pretty much all energy projects. This is like saying gasoline refineries shift their costs to people buying gas at the pump. Waste management is a total red herring. The total amount of waste the US nuclear power industry has produced fits in a volume the footprint of a football fields and 10 yards high [1]. Nuclear power plants have to pay the cost of their nuclear waste disposal up front, it's already internalized into their costs. We already have nuclear waste facilities dug into bedrock, their actual use is being held up by political posturing. 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        nemo 3y ago
        I'd originally replied without really knowing anything about the topic, just noticed that you were avoiding responding to a specific point. Now that you're using dishonest framing like volume rather than mentioning cost. I looked up the cost, nuclear waste costs massively eclipse all other energy subsidies, the OP was right, and I think you know this based on your failure to respond honestly twice.
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        > I looked up the cost, nuclear waste costs massively eclipse all other energy subsidies It's be really good if you shared how you arrived at this conclusion. Because renewables have received $11 billion in subsidies in 2016 alone [1]. By comparison, nuclear waste management is already factored into the up-front costs of nuclear power plants [2]. Deep dig nuclear waste repositories like Onkalo cost less than a billion euros to store decades worth of nuclear waste [3]. I'm very, very interested how you reached the conclusion that the cost of storing nuclear waste "massively eclipse" all other energy subsidies. You are very likely mistaking the cost of managing waste from nuclear weapons production [4], which is distinct from nuclear power generation. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United... 2. https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedfiles/org/info/pdf/economicsnp.pdf https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedfiles/org/info/pdf/eco... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... 4. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106081#:~:text=Fast%20Facts,the%20cleanup%2C%20like%20maintaining%20roads https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106081#:~:text=Fast%20Fa....
drak0n1c 3y ago
Unfortunately the lack of new builds in the last few decades also removed a proving ground for regular cost optimizations and incremental innovations by firms with increasing institutional knowledge. Most other industries and technologies enjoy this benefit as they keep building products.
- manvillej 3y ago
  In the US, which is certainly affecting their growth & optimization. That said, progress is happening and being implemented in other countries. 60 new nuclear facilities are under contruction, 110 are planned. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu... The US is just behind on this compared to China, India, and Russia
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Let’s not leave out France. They are an outsized heavyweight when it comes to nuclear power.
    - _cenw 3y ago
      The youngest commercial reactor in France is more than 20 years old.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        They have plans, and more importantly social and political support, to build. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-parliament-votes-nuclear-plan-with-large-majority-2023-03-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-parliament-votes...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago
Is there any country where the regulations are simpler making nuclear cheaper than other options?
- WillAdams 3y ago
  Is the economics such that a country could: - allow a nuclear power plant to be built - build/operate it using domestic labor - export the energy at a profit to its neighbors?
  - tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago
    Where I live then mostly yes. I'm sure the construction would require some labor from abroad because which project doesn't nowadays. But I am not sure what the point is. Wind power doesn't get any subsidies here (since some decade), but there are plenty of companies who build parks. When it comes to nuclear, the (state-owned) company want subsidies because otherwise it's not worth it (electricity will be too expensive). Interest from other companies is basically nonexistent.
Ma8ee 3y ago
Yes, let the free market decide what is a suitable level of safety! /s
- drak0n1c 3y ago
  The reality in the US is currently the opposite extreme, and advocating for reform does not mean another fictional absurdist extreme. The government can be bad at regulation too - especially when decided solely by a small committee of non-technical representatives and career bureaucrats informed by the news cycle of their time who make decades-lasting rules and ossified agency directives.
  - Ma8ee 3y ago
    Why do you think the rules are decided by "a small committee of non-technical representatives and career bureaucrats informed by the news cycle of their time who make decades-lasting rules and ossified agency directives"? That would be highly unusual in the US. Most rules are at least heavily influenced by lobbyist paid by the industries.
    - drak0n1c 3y ago
      The context is US nuclear, which is an industry that is thoroughly fragmented, broken, and on life support.

tuetuopay 3y ago

Don't forget green subsidies on renewables that make them even cheaper.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Green subsidies are peanuts compared to the subsidies that nuclear gets. Half of the DoE budget is nuclear subsidies, and not being responsible for decomissioning/cleanup amounts to a massive subsidy.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Not even remotely true. Renewable account for 59% of subsidies. Nuclear, 1%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_Unit...
  - nemo 3y ago
    The person you were replying to and the article you posted both make a point you're not addressing: >Critics allege that the most important subsidies to the nuclear industry have not involved cash payments, but rather the shifting of construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns, defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. Critics claim that this approach distorts market choices, which they believe would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[15]
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      "shifting construction costs to ratepayers" is done for pretty much all energy projects. This is like saying gasoline refineries shift their costs to people buying gas at the pump. Waste management is a total red herring. The total amount of waste the US nuclear power industry has produced fits in a volume the footprint of a football fields and 10 yards high [1]. Nuclear power plants have to pay the cost of their nuclear waste disposal up front, it's already internalized into their costs. We already have nuclear waste facilities dug into bedrock, their actual use is being held up by political posturing. 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - nemo 3y ago
        I'd originally replied without really knowing anything about the topic, just noticed that you were avoiding responding to a specific point. Now that you're using dishonest framing like volume rather than mentioning cost. I looked up the cost, nuclear waste costs massively eclipse all other energy subsidies, the OP was right, and I think you know this based on your failure to respond honestly twice.
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        > I looked up the cost, nuclear waste costs massively eclipse all other energy subsidies It's be really good if you shared how you arrived at this conclusion. Because renewables have received $11 billion in subsidies in 2016 alone [1]. By comparison, nuclear waste management is already factored into the up-front costs of nuclear power plants [2]. Deep dig nuclear waste repositories like Onkalo cost less than a billion euros to store decades worth of nuclear waste [3]. I'm very, very interested how you reached the conclusion that the cost of storing nuclear waste "massively eclipse" all other energy subsidies. You are very likely mistaking the cost of managing waste from nuclear weapons production [4], which is distinct from nuclear power generation. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United... 2. https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedfiles/org/info/pdf/economicsnp.pdf https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedfiles/org/info/pdf/eco... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... 4. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106081#:~:text=Fast%20Facts,the%20cleanup%2C%20like%20maintaining%20roads https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106081#:~:text=Fast%20Fa....

drak0n1c 3y ago

Unfortunately the lack of new builds in the last few decades also removed a proving ground for regular cost optimizations and incremental innovations by firms with increasing institutional knowledge. Most other industries and technologies enjoy this benefit as they keep building products.

manvillej 3y ago
In the US, which is certainly affecting their growth & optimization. That said, progress is happening and being implemented in other countries. 60 new nuclear facilities are under contruction, 110 are planned. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu... The US is just behind on this compared to China, India, and Russia
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Let’s not leave out France. They are an outsized heavyweight when it comes to nuclear power.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    The youngest commercial reactor in France is more than 20 years old.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      They have plans, and more importantly social and political support, to build. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-parliament-votes-nuclear-plan-with-large-majority-2023-03-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-parliament-votes...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago

Is there any country where the regulations are simpler making nuclear cheaper than other options?

WillAdams 3y ago
Is the economics such that a country could: - allow a nuclear power plant to be built - build/operate it using domestic labor - export the energy at a profit to its neighbors?
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago
  Where I live then mostly yes. I'm sure the construction would require some labor from abroad because which project doesn't nowadays. But I am not sure what the point is. Wind power doesn't get any subsidies here (since some decade), but there are plenty of companies who build parks. When it comes to nuclear, the (state-owned) company want subsidies because otherwise it's not worth it (electricity will be too expensive). Interest from other companies is basically nonexistent.

Ma8ee 3y ago

Yes, let the free market decide what is a suitable level of safety! /s

drak0n1c 3y ago
The reality in the US is currently the opposite extreme, and advocating for reform does not mean another fictional absurdist extreme. The government can be bad at regulation too - especially when decided solely by a small committee of non-technical representatives and career bureaucrats informed by the news cycle of their time who make decades-lasting rules and ossified agency directives.
- Ma8ee 3y ago
  Why do you think the rules are decided by "a small committee of non-technical representatives and career bureaucrats informed by the news cycle of their time who make decades-lasting rules and ossified agency directives"? That would be highly unusual in the US. Most rules are at least heavily influenced by lobbyist paid by the industries.
  - drak0n1c 3y ago
    The context is US nuclear, which is an industry that is thoroughly fragmented, broken, and on life support.