Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
1–10 of 165 posts
Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
#2Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
#3Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast had an episode on nuclear recently:
> The US is taking a fresh look at nuclear power. After a dearth of construction, and de-commissioning of working nuclear plants, people are talking, yet again, about it as a source of steady, affordable, carbon-free electricity. But of course, nuclear has its drawbacks, particularly on the financial side, as new plants have been plagued by cost over-runs, contributing to utility bankruptcies. So what would need to happen to get the economics working again? On this episode we speak with Mark Nelson, the founder of Radiant Energy Group, to discuss the state of the industry, the state of the technology, and what it would take to bring nuclear back into the mix.
* https://omny.fm/shows/odd-lots/whats-really-standing-in-the-...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d084PIspUwk [audio-only]
Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
#4It isnt challenges in meeting clean energy goals that motivates politicians from both sides to give nuclear power an extra push, its the industrial and skill requirements of the nuclear-military industrial complex:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146...
If clean energy were the goal, costs and speed of construction would dictate only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) be built. This is what they mean in the article when they refer to a "cost problem".
Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
#5“While the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) at these capital price points will not be immediately competitive in most U.S. markets (i.e., greater than $60/MWhre), long term decarbonization goals combined with the long lifetime of the plant (i.e., LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years) should motivate revisiting the AP1000 economic feasibility if decarbonization targets are taken seriously.”
Extrapolating from Georgia for Gen III+, even just for the U.S., is flawed.
https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE...
Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
#6It isnt challenges in meeting clean energy goals that motivates politicians from both sides to give nuclear power an extra push, its the industrial and skill requirements of the nuclear-military industrial complex: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146... If clean energy were the goal, costs and speed of construction would dictate only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) be built.…
Yes, there are links between civilian and military nuclear. (That’s almost an argument for nuclear power, since the military spending is a sunk cost.) Gen III+ reactors, which China is competently constructing, get past many of those problems.
> only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery)
Solar and wind, yes. Only solar and wind, hilariously no. Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive in most markets.
Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
#7It isnt challenges in meeting clean energy goals that motivates politicians from both sides to give nuclear power an extra push, its the industrial and skill requirements of the nuclear-military industrial complex: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146... If clean energy were the goal, costs and speed of construction would dictate only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) be built.…
Yes, there are links between civilian and military nuclear. (That’s almost an argument for nuclear power, since the military spending is a sunk cost.) Gen III+ reactors, which China is competently constructing, get past many of those problems. > only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) Solar and wind, yes. Only solar and wind, hilariously no. Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not c…
If there is one thing I'd love to change about humanity, it'd be that proponents of a given solution believe exclusively in that solution. It is counter productive, creates unnecessary strife among competing solutions (competition is a good thing), and creates pseudo enemies from friends attempting to accomplish the same goal.
Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
#8Public support for nuclear is a pure function of time since last disaster. The last one was in 2011 so in the public's mind we are back in "probably will never happen again" territory. However, we will still see more Fukushimas in the future (according to [1]). A 100X improvement in safety would really help the cause.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961....
Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
#9It isnt challenges in meeting clean energy goals that motivates politicians from both sides to give nuclear power an extra push, its the industrial and skill requirements of the nuclear-military industrial complex: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146... If clean energy were the goal, costs and speed of construction would dictate only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) be built.…
Yes, there are links between civilian and military nuclear. (That’s almost an argument for nuclear power, since the military spending is a sunk cost.) Gen III+ reactors, which China is competently constructing, get past many of those problems. > only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) Solar and wind, yes. Only solar and wind, hilariously no. Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not c…
>That’s almost an argument for nuclear power
I suppose. That depends how much against the NPT you are and how big a fan of extinction inducing weapons you are I guess.
I wouldnt exactly treat the maintenance and construction of nukes as a sunk cost. It is possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy. We've done it before.
>Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive
It's beaten by solar + wind + natural gas.
Nuclear power doesnt come close to being economically competitive even with the price anderson catastrophe liability cap. It needs to be lavished with subsidies to even exist. For the military, however, cost is rarely an object.
Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)
#10“While the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) at these capital price points will not be immediately competitive in most U.S. markets (i.e., greater than $60/MWhre), long term decarbonization goals combined with the long lifetime of the plant (i.e., LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years) should motivate revisiting the AP1000 economic feasibility if decarbonization targets are taken seriously.” Extrapolating fr…
I'm in the unfortunate position where I'm curious to learn why extrapolating from Georgia is flawed, while also not loving the idea of reading through a 30 page technical document to find out why.