101–110 of 247 posts
Looks like Mycle Schneider, the lead author, is a founding member of WISE-Paris, which is the French branch of the anti-nuclear group WISE, which he directed from 1983 to 2003. [wikipedia]
Is it particularly noteworthy that an anti nuclear article was written by an anti nuclear author or am I missing something?
Note: I do not know if this argument against nuclear energy is valid. I'm submitting it in the hope that HN comments will help evaluate it.
His argument is highly contingent on a single premise: nuclear power is very expensive to build, making it uneconomical. However, it's extremely difficult to determine how much of this expense is necessary vs. due to over-regulation or lack of innovation. It's easy to say that some regulations on nuclear power are probably unnecessary (cf. widespread nuclear paranoia); it's much harder to say which . It's easy to say…
The sheer capital intensity of nuclear is what hampers innovation, not safety regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would have no problem with building one outside our city. And frankly compared the land clearing one would need for solar/thermal or the blight of enormous windmills, I’d prefer it. What you may be really asking is whether people are comfortable with the risk of turning into the next Chernobyl. I feel that risk is quite low, especially for new builds.
:) fair play to you. At least the real estate prices will be good. I won't go for low risk when it comes to nuclear and not let my family grow up next to it. Only no risk would be acceptable to me when it comes to nuclear, quite some tail risk in this case.
So... it’s a massive problem that there is no storage for nuclear waste (mostly agree) but not even worth mentioning there is no energy storage for renewables? Coming from a cold, dark country with long and cloudy winters and no oceanic coast, it drives me mad when people point at the Med or California and say “look how cheap solar and wind is”.
Where are you from that has no wind or sun?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the hidden cost of nuclear? The waste storage. The security measures (can't have terrorists walking off with the nuclear waste). The constant need for inspections, audits, etc. And that's before you consider the corruption and the gravy train that is basically associated with funding existing plants using massive amounts of public funding. Nuclear being too expensive is the main point of this article. That…
What do you mean hidden costs of nuclear? All of those you listed are a well defined part in the costs, and considered from the start of a nuclear power plant, with provisions required for decomissioning and storage. As for Germany, nuclear is their only CO2-free base load power option, so comparing costs to solar that only works when sun shines isn't apt. A good winter storm and tidal, wind and solar are out for hou…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFSTOR
Today, about half the EoL reactors in the USA are on the SAFSTOR track instead of the one where they are immediately decommissioned. There is a single waste disposal site available, WIPP, that will close in the next couple of years. Only a handful of reactors on the SAFSTOR track are there because they sit adjacent to operational reactors.
So plans are one thing, reality is quite another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the hidden cost of nuclear? The waste storage. The security measures (can't have terrorists walking off with the nuclear waste). The constant need for inspections, audits, etc. And that's before you consider the corruption and the gravy train that is basically associated with funding existing plants using massive amounts of public funding. Nuclear being too expensive is the main point of this article. That…
What do you mean hidden costs of nuclear? All of those you listed are a well defined part in the costs, and considered from the start of a nuclear power plant, with provisions required for decomissioning and storage. As for Germany, nuclear is their only CO2-free base load power option, so comparing costs to solar that only works when sun shines isn't apt. A good winter storm and tidal, wind and solar are out for hou…
>A good winter storm and tidal, wind and solar are out for hours - what do you do then?
Design for the storm. In Texas everything except solar could in theory have worked fine (wind often overproduces in storms) and yet every power source failed.
>However, many of the measures needed for energy efficiency are now cheaper than the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants. Yes, blackouts are cheaper than electricity. >The second point is that renewables today have become so cheap that in many cases they are below the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants. Prohibiting new plants by law has a way of doing that, with aging mechanisms that fail catastr…
> Yes, blackouts are cheaper than electricity. Texas has demonstrated that you can have blackouts and expensive at the same time if only you cut enough regulations. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/how-and-why...