• 17 Posts
  • 1.68K Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 17th, 2023

help-circle



  • Prices should have been decreasing, like they should have been with housing. But due to a lack of funding and manufacturing, modern nuclear power plants have very little R&D investment, and the entire labor pool surrounding nuclear plant fabrication doesn’t really exist anymore.

    Exactly. This means that pumping money into this sector is ineffective if the goal is to combat climate change - the optimal build times will most likely not be met for any of the initial reactors that could be built, which pushes the first day of power generation back further and further. Renewables start to give some power immediately while you’re building up more and more capacities.

    The primary reason for the prices of renewables falling is more than likely china and chinese subsidies gunning for a market dominance, followed by technological advancement, Unfortunately these advances don’t solve the problem of solar panels needing silicon, […]

    Given the technological advancements and the current prices, it’s a good idea to start investing massively. If this should affect pricing negatively instead of positively (it was the latter before), investments could ensure local production. Every country will want access to silicon anyway for chip production, so this is not a new problem, just a difference of scale.

    and batteries being expensive, […]

    The price of batteries keeps falling and falling. Recently, the price of renewables + grid-scale storage has fallen below the equivalent price of nuclear energy. Given the current pricing trends, investing in nuclear means hoping that the trend reverses. With renewables and grid-scale storage, you’re simply betting on the same trends of the last decade continuing.

    and wind turbines being a maintenance nightmare, as well as a disposal nightmare (most wind turbine blades are made out of fiber glass, good luck have fun)

    Just like with nuclear energy, these are problems of investments and scale. Because of the supply of used turbine blades increasing, there has been a lot of development and investment into recycling them, and the situation has already improved a lot. You’re, again, hoping that the same will happen for nuclear energy on a short-enough timescale.

    Yes the grid is centralized. What next, going to the grocery store is centralized? Wait until you figure out what walmart did.

    And that somehow means it should stay centralized? A decentralized grid has a bunch of advantages: lower costs for the individual participants, higher resilience during catastrophes, lower impact of maintenance/disruptions/attacks, and a much shorter time to first production.


  • Well, if reality disagrees with you, it’s usually not reality that’s wrong. You can say that prices should have been decreasing, but I can show you that prices did not decrease, they increased, whereas prices for renewables have been decreasing.

    Also, nuclear energy is the dream of the current fossil fuel industry - it’s centralized (no individuals can produce their own energy), it’s heavily subsidized (otherwise it would be way too expensive), and negative effects are socialized (cleanup is oftentimes not fully covered by the operator, and they also won’t be held accountable in the case of accidents). They are terrified of renewables, as they’d lose control and gain more competition.




  • Why don’t you share your sources for 10-20% increased costs then? Let me see what you’re working with.

    I didn’t claim 30 years of construction time, what are you talking about? You’ll also surely know that you can’t just randomly start building a nuclear reactor anywhere - there’s a lot of steps beforehand you have to take care of (if you don’t want to damage the local ecosystem). These steps take way longer for nuclear than for renewables, pushing your 7.5 years to double or even more. This, in combination with the increased cost as well as the long time until power production starts, makes it a non-starter to solve the climate crisis.

    It’s the anti nuclear thats astounding, the figures you’re presenting are a best misleading when sourced to outright fabrications and lies.

    I can see how you might think that when you’re inventing things I’ve said.


  • Nuclear is literally 3-4 times as expensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

    The levelized cost of electricity is exactly the metric you were talking about, over the whole lifetime of the power plant. Nuclear costs are also increasing, not decreasing as you claimed. Building reactors also takes way longer - you can deploy solar and wind in a couple of months to years, whereas all existing nuclear reactors took at least 10-20 years to build. While you’re continuously building up renewable capacity , it already starts producing energy, whereas a nuclear reactor will only start producing once it’s fully built, meaning that it simply doesn’t help us reduce carbon emissions until then, whereas renewables can. How can you be so wrong on a topic you talk so confidently about?

    The propaganda of the nuclear industry is truly incredible.




  • The only place where Nuclear doesn’t have a cutting edge advantage is cost per kwh, and frankly if you’re putting profits over sustainability then welcome to being part of the problem that lead to us burning coal cause it was cheap.

    This is incredibly naive. We have a limited amount of money for the energy transition (because otherwise the problem would already be solved), and the more efficiently you spend that money, the faster we stop pumping greenhouse gases into the air.

    Nuclear is by far the most expensive form of energy. If it takes you 30 years instead of 10 to replace all other forms of energy production, you haven’t won anything.