91–100 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building it maybe can get cheaper ... destruction and disposal will be even more expensive. Look at Germany. They are the first to really destruct the first power plant and it will take 20 to 25 years. Everything has to be checked.
The cost of decommissioning is included
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have exact numbers for any of these questions. However, we know that regardless of the inputs in materials or land, the ultimate dollar cost, all in, is cheaper than nuclear. Take the levelized cost of solar for the MWh coinciding with daylight hours, and the levelized cost of storage during the other hours, and nuclear is blown out of the water: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...…
Additionally, part of the bonus of solar+storage vs. large nuclear is that when you spread out your generation into smaller grid sections, then you can reduce the need for large transmission infrastructure that requires maintenance[1]. Distributed software is good, so why not distributed energy generation? Answer: distributed energy generation is great! [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/05/california-finds-pge-equipm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some questions jump out there: What does that amount of solar and storage look like in terms of material used for its construction as well as area occupied once it’s deployed? What current examples do we have of projects at this scale? What is the lifespan of the solar arrays and batteries? What are the operating costs? How many personnel are required for maintenance and day to day operation? What other infrastructur…
I don't have exact numbers for any of these questions. However, we know that regardless of the inputs in materials or land, the ultimate dollar cost, all in, is cheaper than nuclear. Take the levelized cost of solar for the MWh coinciding with daylight hours, and the levelized cost of storage during the other hours, and nuclear is blown out of the water: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To give context to who acidburn is, he's been a long time HN user, has a PhD in nuclear engineering, has worked in fission and fusion for over a decade, and has blogged about it for years. The take here is the take of an expert and not just a nuclear bro.
I don't know acidburn but I'd argue that having a PhD in nuclear engineering and having worked in the field is likely to increase your bias towards nuclear (being a "nuclear bro") rather than equalize it. PLT PhDs will tell you Haskell is the best programming language and environmental science PhDs will tell you solar is the best energy source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear runs constantly. Solar and wind don't. This is a significant problem. Storage is hard and inefficient. We don't currently have a viable complete renewable solution. Nuclear is much better for the planet than fossil fuels and is the only option to bridge the gap required to operate the current renewables.
> Nuclear is much better for the planet than fossil fuels and is the only option to bridge the gap required to operate the current renewables. That's a strong declaration without any solution in sight for nuclear power-generated waste: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-waste
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
Yes, cost is the issue. Everyone assumes that anyone hesitant about Nuclear power is focussed on the environmental or safety concerns, but that is wrong. The costs (and cost overruns) of the construction and maintenance of Nuclear reactors have been enough reason on their own to be bearish on Nuclear. I'm hopeful that new technologies, such as small nuclear reactions that can be built in a factory, will address this.
0 points by BMc2020 10 days ago | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? ...
I opened all three of these, but did not read any of them I did a Ctrl-F for "subsid" (to find subsidy or subsidies) 0 hits I did a Ctrl-F for "decomm" (to find decommission or decommissioning) 0 hits
Having read many of these types of articles before, I've learned some shortcuts on how not to waste time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear is not fundamentally expensive[0], and most nuclear power plants currently in operation were cheap when they were built. The high costs of building new powerplants is a result of going decades without building any, leading to a loss of experience. Even still, nuclear remains competitive with other traditional power generation technologies like coal. Only with recent advancements in fracking did natural gas su…
Building it maybe can get cheaper ... destruction and disposal will be even more expensive. Look at Germany. They are the first to really destruct the first power plant and it will take 20 to 25 years. Everything has to be checked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know acidburn but I'd argue that having a PhD in nuclear engineering and having worked in the field is likely to increase your bias towards nuclear (being a "nuclear bro") rather than equalize it. PLT PhDs will tell you Haskell is the best programming language and environmental science PhDs will tell you solar is the best energy source.
This is an odd argument. You're basically saying that being more knowledgeable about something makes your opinion less useful. Everyone knows there's bias but if you're arguing that we shouldn't value someone's opinion because they're an expert then we're not going to progress very far in society. I'm not saying you have to take his word as divine truth but dismissing experts is extremely naive.
EDIT: At a first glance, the linked article seems reasonable if not a bit optimistic for future developments and very positive phrasing for NPP in general.
Until fail-safe fission technology is ready (unlike fail deadly technology which all current and planned systems currently are) nuclear power seems to me a sophisticated example of cutting off your nose to spite your face