this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2179 points (94.1% liked)

World News

38970 readers
2446 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] archonet@lemmy.world 150 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (23 children)

do not let "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough"

edit: quick addendum, I really cannot stress this enough, everyone who says nuclear is an imperfect solution and just kicks the can down the road -- yes, it does, it kicks it a couple thousand years away as opposed to within the next hundred years. We can use all that time to perfect solar and wind, but unless we get really lucky and get everyone on board with solar and wind right now, the next best thing we can hope for is more time.

[–] havokdj@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I completely agree with everything you said except for ONE little thing:

You are grossly misrepresenting how far that can is kicked down, for the worse. It doesn't kick it down a couple thousand years, it kicks it down for if DOZENS of millennia assuming we stay at the current energy capacity. Even if we doubled or tripled it, it would still be dozens of millennia. First we could use the uranium, then when that is gone, we could use thorium and breed it with plutonium, which would last an incomprehensibly longer time than the uranium did. By that point, we could hopefully have figured out fusion and supplement that with renewable sources of energy.

The only issue that would stem from this would be having TOO much energy, which itself would create a new problem which is heat from electrical usage.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you just move the planet slightly further away from the sun! Problem solved!

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No man you gotta move the moon closer, since it's cold

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The U235 is good for about 3 years, and pinning everything on something that has never had more than a half proof of concept is a bad choice.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

As if breeder reactors don't exist

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Some of the biggest blunders of all time come across because too many people let perfect be the Nemesis of good

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is it supposed to be easier to get people onboard with nuclear (which is decreasing) than wind and solar (which are increasing at triple the rate of the nuclear construction peak in the 80s and growing at 20% p.a.)?

People are on board with VRE. Some of the are on board with nuclear too, but it's not working.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Nucleur isn't all it's cracked up to be, maybe it would be economical if we had heavily invested in the tech decades ago. But current plants have major issues, here is a snippet from another article:

The study also questions the reliability of the nuclear fleet, particularly given the dramatically low availability of French power plants this year – nearly half of the 56 nuclear reactors were closed even though the EU was in a complicated period of electricity supply with frequent peaks in the price of electricity above €3/kWh.

The availability of this electrical source is also questioned in view of the increasingly frequent droughts expected in the coming years, causing, in particular, low river flows and therefore associated problems of cooling power plants.

Article

Study: Why investing in Nucleur is bad for the environment

[–] diyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I really cannot stand that phrase because it’s commonly used as poor rationale for not favoring a superior approach. Both sides of the debate are pushing for what they consider optimum, not “perfection”.

In the case at hand, I’m on the pro-nuclear side of this. But I would hope I could make a better argument than to claim my opponent is advocating an “impossible perfection”.

[–] WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

But that is exactly what's happening. People are pretending like the alternative to investing in nuclear is living off 100% renewables from tomorrow.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Buying time isn't a great argument for nuclear when it takes so much longer than wind or solar to build a plant - median time of 88 months to build a nuclear plant compared to 8-14 for solar.

People will get on board when they see the cost per kwh.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So best time to do it was 88 months ago... What the next best time to do it?

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Doing solar that's several times faster to build, cheaper per kwh, and doesn't require digging radioactive bullshit out of the ground seems like a better idea, no?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] gnygnygny@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nuclear is most of the time over budget and planning. That's a fact.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Over budget and over planning is bad.

...but also irrelevant - I gave the average real world delivery times.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Which isn't unusual for large construction projects. Nuclear is biggest cost problem is that each power plant is essentially a mega civil engineering project. They require cooling ponds, cooling towers, huge reactors, turbines, and radiation shields.

All of which are fairly large structures that have to be built to pretty high tolerances and have little room for construction defects which are very common in the industry. I work in construction and I can tell you that the majority of construction projects, whether they are an office building, a highway or a bridge run over budget.

There are always going to be factors outside of the control of the design team and the developer. Contractors may run out of labor, supply chains may have many years to complete some of the equipment and these issues compound the schedule which is already very complicated. Do we have an even discussed the expanded and politicized planning and safety rules and certifications that a new nuclear plant is going to need to follow.

I think the solution for micro reactors is pretty intriguing, except we need lots of power not small amounts of power. But a mass-produced reactor that rules off of an assembly line in a factory is likely to be on time and on budget because they can correct for for the problem of building things in the field. It's really hard for people to fabricate complicated machines when they're being rained on in the middle of winter during a storm.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem with Nuclear's "good enough" is that Nuclear is currently worse than other technology we have in almost every way.

  1. Higher total lifetime cost per kwh than solar or land-based wind (and hydro, but that's niche), even after factoring in capacitors for weather and time of day/year
  2. Awkwardly front-loaded TCO. You basically pay a huge percent of that ugly TCO up front, making Nuclear more prohibitively expensive than its modest total lifetime cost would imply.
  3. Long life. This is a terrible thing. TCO's of solar and wind plants are predicated upon a 20 year obsolescence. That means, the TCO includes the cost to build, tear down, and make way for the inevitable better tech in 20 years. Nuclear plants are priced at 50+ year lifetimes. You can't easily retrofit a nuclear plant with better technology if/when it starts to catch up.

It is absolutely true that solar and wind are better because more money has gone into their research. But because of that, they are better options in almost all real world power situations.

The problem with focusing on nuclear is... why waste all that political capital just to spend 100x the money or more that you could spend to be 100% renewbles in the short term? The front-loaded TCO is the real issue with that one. If you wanna hit 0 emissions tomorrow with Solar/Wind, you're just paying the up-front costs, knowing there are per-year costs (still cheaper than fossil fuels) to keep it going. If you want to do the same with nuclear, you're paying for almost all of it out of the gate for 50 years worth. Suffice to say, that's a budgeting nightmare.

And what's left is space. Nuclear creates a lot of power in a small area. But wind and solar are both far more easily/efficiently integrated into the space we are already using.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Higher total lifetime cost per kwh than solar or land-based wind (and hydro, but that’s niche), even after factoring in capacitors for weather and time of day/year

No way. Batteries are expensive as hell. Solar+Battery is at best equal to nuclear in the current numbers. And probably worse overall... forget the actual damages as far as mining all the lithium and other rare metals.

The front-loaded TCO is the real issue with that one.

You're in the green after about 10-15 years with nuclear. So I'm not sure why you bring this point up repeatedly. https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY?t=600

TCO shouldn't matter to stop climate change.

And what’s left is space. Nuclear creates a lot of power in a small area. But wind and solar are both far more easily/efficiently integrated into the space we are already using.

There's plenty of decommissioned coal/gas/oil plants that are perfect sites for nuclear. Ironically it costs more to clean up the radioactivity left behind by these plants than the nuclear plant will release in it's whole lifetime.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

No way. Batteries are expensive as hell

Batteries+solar runs $77/MWH with current technology. Nuclear runs $175/MWH with current technology (both of these numbers are TCO, not just running costs) 1 and 2. Months back I did a fairly exhaustive analysis on reddit. Wish I'd kept a link of that, but I cut and ran. More importantly, a nuclear plant is usually "locked in" to current efficiency for 50 years or more, where solar farms and battery farms can be traded up. By end-of-life, that nuclear plant will still be a $175/MWH-TCO plant, but could be competing against solar+battery in the order of $50/MWH TCO as large scale battery tech is skyrocketing of late.

I ended up anti-nuclear from a position of knowledge and research, not a position of "omg it's nuclear". I started pro-nuclear until I did the math a LOT.

You’re in the green after about 10-15 years with nuclear. So I’m not sure why you bring this point up repeatedly

Per Nuclear Power Economics and Project Structuring, the capital cost accounts as 60% of the total cost of ownership. Yes it's in the green (capital-wise), by year 10-15. But 60% of Every penny that needs to be spent on a nuclear plant is spent before you hit the "on" button. Solar plants go green in 5 years, but more importantly, you amortize the cost (and continue to do so) over the life of the plant. The latter is always more feasible for a large scale project.

There’s plenty of decommissioned coal/gas/oil plants that are perfect sites for nuclear. Ironically it costs more to clean up the radioactivity left behind by these plants than the nuclear plant will release in it’s whole lifetime.

Compare that to solar roofs, solar parking shades, windmills that can often be installed in "spare lots", etc.

EDIT: And to be clear, I'm not even saying there may never be an appropriate use for a nuclear plant in going green. There's just very few of them. Going solar in a big city is a custom gig, but dropping a nuclear plant in its outskirts, not so much. Luckily for me in the US, there's a whole hell of a lot of unused or unusable land just begging for solar plants.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

According to the EIA.gov, nuclear is between 36 and $88 per megawatt hour for LCOE for advanced nuclear. Your numbers are way off.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Strange. I must be mis-reading your numbers, because the chart I'm reading on your link shows an LCOS/LCOE between $88 and $98... The numbers I was quoting was probably conventional nuclear, and that's a fair correction. I would really appreciate if you are able to address why my references disagreed with your reference, as I didn't come out with my numbers off-the-cuff. Is it conventional vs advanced nuclear, or is it a different measurement entirely?

Note also, however, that Advanced Nuclear still loses to Solar handily in every single chart presented in that document. In addition, none of that addresses the front-loaded cost of nuclear vs solar, which amounts to an entire order of magnitude.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dr_pepper_spray@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But this is my argument against those who complain about Solar and Wind -- those won't kill you or destroy a location for hundreds of years if they break down and once they're installed they don't have to be fed by more mining, or anything else. Just wind and sun.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

And maintenance, it apparently takes quite some effort to keep those running

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Funny you say that. Solar and wind each have more human deaths per kWh than nuclear.

Worth mentioning that fossil fuels blow those numbers completely out of the water, though.

[–] Dr_pepper_spray@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Where are you getting that from?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)