7 ms·

Pray tell, what is "unrealistic" about nuclear energy as an alternative? There are only 436 nuclear reactors in the world (for comparisons sake, there are more

Pray tell, what is "unrealistic" about nuclear energy as an alternative? There are only 436 nuclear reactors in the world (for comparisons sake, there are more than 2400 coal power plants worldwide, and the US alone have more than 980 natural-gas power stations (2022). And yet this small number of nuclear reactors produces 10% of global electricity.

throwaway5959 2y ago
When was the last nuclear plant built in California? Edit: downvoting someone you disagree with is not cool. Go outside, touch some grass.
- krasin 2y ago
  California is a bad example for nuclear, as it's the perfect spot for solar. On the opposite, Finland lacks sun, but enjoys their new reactor (even though, since it's another one-off project, it's over budget).
  - throwaway5959 2y ago
    I don’t live in Finland. In fact, Finland’s population is half that of Michigan’s, so I’m sure they’d be fine with solar and wind as well. They already get a quarter of their power from hydro.
    - krasin 2y ago
      > I’m sure they’d be fine with solar Sorry, your confidence betrays you here. Please, look up the altitude of Helsinki. In January they get 6 hours of sunlight per day and it's almost universally cloudy winter-time. Nuclear & wind are better options for Finland and they pursue both ([1], [2], [3]) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
      - throwaway5959 2y ago
        Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”.
        krasin 2y ago
        > Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”. Because wind works for Finland and it's a good idea for them to invest in it (and they do). But putting solar & Finland together is nonsense.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        The Nordic countries are literally the only places in the world where solar isn't the best option by 2030: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-ener...
        kbenson 2y ago
        "Best" is relative to how you're measuring, and cheapest doesn't mean that's where you want to put all your investment. The cheapest option that can work for some small about of the time can be best by one measurement and not by another. There are other problems with solar that make it beneficial to offset with other energy sources. For example, lack of ability to generate any energy for 50% of the year, and reduced efficiency depending on weather. Wind has its own problems as well, but are map to somewhat different circumstances than solar, so is a good supplement for some of the power. Nuclear has its own problems as well, but unlike wind and solar, many of those aren't inherent to the source, but to how we've developed methods to harness it and deal with produced byproduct (waste). I suspect a first principles approach to nuclear energy might eventually be a very useful source of energy. I think it would be beneficial if we still kept some nuclear around to keep developing it towards a better source. It does well to offset some of the requirements of other systems, which are limited by time, geography or climate.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  Yeah, sure, lets take a technology where the main challenge is obstructionism by NIMBYs who bought in to too much FUD, and judge it by a state notorious for enabling NIMBYism.
jncfhnb 2y ago
Nuclear energy has a levelized cost of energy that is about 5-10x more expensive than utility solar, with solar expected to continue becoming exponentially cheaper
- usrbinbash 2y ago
  And? Solar cannot do it, it's as simple as that, so the cost is irrelevant. > becoming exponentially cheaper "Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power. But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further. Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    > Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power. Not “at first” but demonstrably over time and ongoing. Yes it will cease eventually but it seems like that’s not near. > But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further. Powering the us on batteries for a full day is not a realistic goal. But batteries are already cost competitive and shuttering gas peaker plants. > Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands. Rooftop solar is actually more expensive than nuclear actually. Or at least a year or two ago. If you build a bunch of nuclear you will not be able to compete on price with cheap renewables during the day. But you can’t just turn a nuclear reactor on and off so you’ll have to still generate and operate at a loss. Which means to be profitable you have to raise prices to make up for it in the off hours. Which, in turn, makes you less competitive and makes it more commercially viable for batteries. Tl;dr, market forces will punish you. Renewables and batteries and fossil fuels as backup are the clear winners

throwaway5959 2y ago

When was the last nuclear plant built in California? Edit: downvoting someone you disagree with is not cool. Go outside, touch some grass.

krasin 2y ago
California is a bad example for nuclear, as it's the perfect spot for solar. On the opposite, Finland lacks sun, but enjoys their new reactor (even though, since it's another one-off project, it's over budget).
- throwaway5959 2y ago
  I don’t live in Finland. In fact, Finland’s population is half that of Michigan’s, so I’m sure they’d be fine with solar and wind as well. They already get a quarter of their power from hydro.
  - krasin 2y ago
    > I’m sure they’d be fine with solar Sorry, your confidence betrays you here. Please, look up the altitude of Helsinki. In January they get 6 hours of sunlight per day and it's almost universally cloudy winter-time. Nuclear & wind are better options for Finland and they pursue both ([1], [2], [3]) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    - throwaway5959 2y ago
      Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”.
      - krasin 2y ago
        > Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”. Because wind works for Finland and it's a good idea for them to invest in it (and they do). But putting solar & Finland together is nonsense.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      The Nordic countries are literally the only places in the world where solar isn't the best option by 2030: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-ener...
      - kbenson 2y ago
        "Best" is relative to how you're measuring, and cheapest doesn't mean that's where you want to put all your investment. The cheapest option that can work for some small about of the time can be best by one measurement and not by another. There are other problems with solar that make it beneficial to offset with other energy sources. For example, lack of ability to generate any energy for 50% of the year, and reduced efficiency depending on weather. Wind has its own problems as well, but are map to somewhat different circumstances than solar, so is a good supplement for some of the power. Nuclear has its own problems as well, but unlike wind and solar, many of those aren't inherent to the source, but to how we've developed methods to harness it and deal with produced byproduct (waste). I suspect a first principles approach to nuclear energy might eventually be a very useful source of energy. I think it would be beneficial if we still kept some nuclear around to keep developing it towards a better source. It does well to offset some of the requirements of other systems, which are limited by time, geography or climate.
tbrownaw 2y ago
Yeah, sure, lets take a technology where the main challenge is obstructionism by NIMBYs who bought in to too much FUD, and judge it by a state notorious for enabling NIMBYism.

jncfhnb 2y ago

Nuclear energy has a levelized cost of energy that is about 5-10x more expensive than utility solar, with solar expected to continue becoming exponentially cheaper

usrbinbash 2y ago
And? Solar cannot do it, it's as simple as that, so the cost is irrelevant. > becoming exponentially cheaper "Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power. But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further. Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  > Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power. Not “at first” but demonstrably over time and ongoing. Yes it will cease eventually but it seems like that’s not near. > But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further. Powering the us on batteries for a full day is not a realistic goal. But batteries are already cost competitive and shuttering gas peaker plants. > Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands. Rooftop solar is actually more expensive than nuclear actually. Or at least a year or two ago. If you build a bunch of nuclear you will not be able to compete on price with cheap renewables during the day. But you can’t just turn a nuclear reactor on and off so you’ll have to still generate and operate at a loss. Which means to be profitable you have to raise prices to make up for it in the off hours. Which, in turn, makes you less competitive and makes it more commercially viable for batteries. Tl;dr, market forces will punish you. Renewables and batteries and fossil fuels as backup are the clear winners