161–170 of 365 posts
Do the “no nuclear, renewables are the future” people have any comments? We burned a few decades saying solar and wind are the solution. This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions.
I'll consider apologizing when one of the Google plants comes on line, whenever that is.
I suppose like anything there are multiple reasons, but what are the top 3 why California electric rates are so high (compared to the rest of the U.S.)? https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/ Why doesn't the state encourage more capacity to bring costs down? (to encourage electrification/EVs, etc.) Is it because they are phasing out natural gas? Is it to encourage roof top solar? Or trying to reduce…
The average wholesale prices in California is nothing special. The costs come from the wildfires and a derelict grid requiring large infrastructure upgrades.
I suppose like anything there are multiple reasons, but what are the top 3 why California electric rates are so high (compared to the rest of the U.S.)? https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/ Why doesn't the state encourage more capacity to bring costs down? (to encourage electrification/EVs, etc.) Is it because they are phasing out natural gas? Is it to encourage roof top solar? Or trying to reduce…
The average wholesale prices in California is nothing special. The costs come from the wildfires and a derelict grid requiring large infrastructure upgrades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how green hydrogen is assumed to become abundant and trivially easy to retrofit into existing infrastructure but fast neutron reactors are automatically considered infeasible by comparison. Or that by far the easiest way to produce massive amounts hydrogen without emitting carbon into the atmosphere is… wait for it… nuclear power.
Yes, hydrogen is clearly a much easier technology to make work than fast reactors. Why is this even a question? For example, fast reactors have the issue that in an accident, if fuel melts and rearranges, one can have potentially have a configuration that is prompt supercritical on fast neutrons. This is functionally an atomic bomb. Also, even in a Fallout Future where everything is nuclear powered, hydrogen is still…
https://www.swri.org/markets/energy-environment/power-genera...
could fit in the employee break room of the turbine house of an LWR and could make it competitive. It’s a big if though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re skeptical of nuclear, a proven technology with excellent safety record, the only power generation that has a completely closed fuel life cycle, and believe in a technology we don’t have. If we (the West) had built out nuclear to satisfy our electricity needs, implementing new nuclear power tech as it improved, we could have electricity subscriptions like we have mobile / home internet planes. You’d just pay fo…
You do know that nuclear power has experienced negative learning by doing throughout its entire life? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... You don’t get ”free electricity” with absolutely massive handouts to the nuclear industry. Instead renewables and storage are delivering on the ”too cheap to meter” promise.
*Yes, I understand it's inflation adjusted. There are so many possible explanations for the observed negative curve that go beyond the bold, broad claim that learning curve theory doesn't hold in nuclear.
In my mind, an (at least) equally reasonable explanation is that the conditions for the learning curve weren't met. (This probably sounds like "no true Scotsman". I admit that the learning curve is a function of scale and relative to mass-production examples, the "signal" for the learning curve is probably weaker to begin with given how many facilities of the same design were actually built.)
-Changes in design pull you backward on the curve. There were lots of changes in French design
-Unsteady expansion timeline messes with the workforce expertise part of the hypothesis. You want ideally an accelerated or at least constant build rate, not large gaps where the workforce either respecializes in another field or retires.
- regulations increase over time. Part of the conditions for the theory are implicitly "all else being equal".
-while inflation adjustment partially accounts for this, labor becomes more expensive as gdp per capital increases (see, for example, low skill manufacturing leaving China as it becomes wealthier). I don't know the details, but given the rapid post-war growth, I'm guessing gdp/capital was growing pretty quickly during the French build out
For relatively low volume manufacturing, the learning curve effects are probably smaller to begin with, so it's easier to get an effective negative learning rate. With so many confounding factors that violate the premise of theory, I find it rather unscientific to definitively claim the theory is just wrong in an entire industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Solar is the only way we're going to get it. We're adding solar at a 1TW / year rate. We're adding nuclear at a rate of ~30 GW / year.
I'm honestly baffled by the persistent irrationality of nuclear supporters. This is a solved problem. The investment required to build grid storage for renewables, the TCO, the scalability, the capacity, and the build time, are all objectively better than nuclear. So what's the real story? What is this obsession with an outdated last-century technology really about?
- Renewables are not, or not nearly as much, big profits for big business. They don't require the capital investment of fossil fuels or nuclear, and therefore they don't have the large moats of those businesses.
- Anti-liberalism (or reactionaryism): Destroying liberalism is an openly stated goal for which many will sacrifice singificant wealth and cause significant harm. Nuclear is counter to anti-nuclear liberal campaigners of yesteryear (I think conservatives often have little idea of changes since the Cold War era; they still talk about 'Communists', etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France has nuclear and had a blackout.
The last time France had a blackout on the scale of Spain and Portugal was 1978. France has been and remains one of the top electricity exporters for Western Europe. Because of nuclear. By comparison, Germany dropped its nuclear power industry in favor of focus on renewables. Now they import electricity generated by nuclear from France and buy fossil fuels from Russia despite recent Russian aggression. Who isn't depe…
>2023 when several reactors were switched off for longer unexpected maintenance periods.
Who exploited Niger for four decades for its Uranium?
France
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/08/04/h...
Who is the main buyer in the EU of Russian Uranium?
France
https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2025-01-eu-and-us-re...
If they aren’t dependent on Russian fossile fuels why do they still buy from Russia?
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20250414-greenpeace-report-reve...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even without I think wind will become too expensive eventually to make it worth while. Especially when solar gets more efficient and cheaper. Wind has down sides like moving parts and requiring giant concrete poors. Birds strikes, noise as well as ground vibration are also issues.
You can add (no) recycling of huge composite balades.
The US produces hundreds of millions of tons of construction and demolition waste per year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to be revisionist history trying to position nuclear power as some underdog?!?!? We threw absolutely massive handouts at the nuclear industry 20 years ago. Only look to Vogtle, Virgin C. Summer, Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3 and all other projects. Moorside, Oldbury, Wylfa and countless in the US. Had new built nuclear power delivered on budget and on time nuclear power would definitely have been part of the…
Remember that time France went from 7% to 70% nuclear energy? https://youtu.be/1WNjyxeBsWc?si=kVa2qf0uBeFrAyYB
It was impressive, but it's been overshadowed by modern renewables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France has nuclear and had a blackout.
Misleading I’d say > Residents of Andorra and parts of France bordering Spain were also reporting being hit by the blackout. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/04/28/spain-portugal...
A sudden rise in demand would have the same effect because nuclear power plants can’t react that quickly.