11–20 of 165 posts
Bloomberg'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-ru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It depends on how realistic you are.
> possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy
Sure. But the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating. And coupling an entirely separate coördination problem to the already labyrinthian onr of climate change is conceding the game at the opening.
> it needs to be lavished with subsidies to even exist
Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years.
At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.
“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.
[1] Executive Summary
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
> depends how much against the NPT you are It depends on how realistic you are. > possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy Sure. But the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating. And coupling an entirely separate coördination problem to the already labyrinthian onr of climate change is conceding the game at the opening. > it needs to be lavished with su…
Then we'd better move with as much speed and strength as possible in the other direction.
Public financial and in-kind support for nuclear power is transferring wealth from taxpayers to large corporations. Nuclear might be worth it to reduce climate change (a discussion for a different subthread) but let's be careful of corporate welfare. At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.
Public financial and in-kind support for nuclear power is transferring wealth from taxpayers to large corporations. Nuclear might be worth it to reduce climate change (a discussion for a different subthread) but let's be careful of corporate welfare. At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.
Public financial and in-kind support for nuclear power is transferring wealth from taxpayers to large corporations. Nuclear might be worth it to reduce climate change (a discussion for a different subthread) but let's be careful of corporate welfare. At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.
Public 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... .
Nuclear is, depending on what stats you use, either among the safest or actually the safest energy source.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
(And the top 3 are so close that differences are essentially noise)