Similarly pro-nuclear here, but more importantly, a proponent of diverse energy sources. From the article: I bet we could have been there already if nuclear power innovations didn't almost slow to...
Similarly pro-nuclear here, but more importantly, a proponent of diverse energy sources.
From the article:
It sets a goal of shifting the nation to 100 percent “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources,” within 10 years
I bet we could have been there already if nuclear power innovations didn't almost slow to a halt decades ago. There's so much left to learn in this sector. Note the twenty year gap where no new nuclear reactors were put into commercial operation in the US.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-08/how-the-green-new-deal-almost-went-nuclear-on-its-first-day I've been a proponent of nuclear as far back as I can recall. To me it's a...
I've been a proponent of nuclear as far back as I can recall. To me it's a no-brainer - massive amounts of clean energy with low risk. What's not to like?
EDIT: Hearing some good points but I still think nuclear should be part of the solution, but not the whole solution
EDIT2: As @dubteedub pointed out, the plan itself doesn't exclude nuclear, but AOC put out a fact sheet stating that. Other backers of the bill have said there is room for nuclear. So this seems to be a point of contention among progressive democratics.
Agreed. There haven't been any actual proposals I've seen to make nuclear economically competitive, besides "cut regulations". Even if that course of action made sense (in my opinion it doesn't),...
Agreed. There haven't been any actual proposals I've seen to make nuclear economically competitive, besides "cut regulations". Even if that course of action made sense (in my opinion it doesn't), there's zero public appetite in poorly regulated nuclear plants. Unless there's some sort of major breakthrough in reactor construction, I don't see nuclear being installed much in the future when you can just put up some solar panels and windmills for one fourth the cost and even it out with grid scale storage and still come in significantly cheaper.
Toshiba and Hitachi have both halted building nuclear plants here because they can't make the numbers work. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46122255 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46900918
Toshiba and Hitachi have both halted building nuclear plants here because they can't make the numbers work.
Your comment is misrepresenting the information from your sources. For starters, it implied that Toshiba and Hitachi are out of the game completely when that is not necessarily the case (as...
Exemplary
Your comment is misrepresenting the information from your sources. For starters, it implied that Toshiba and Hitachi are out of the game completely when that is not necessarily the case (as there's still one plant that's continuing construction, and two of them are trying to get a green light but haven't been written off, as per your second article). And it's not that they "can't make the numbers work" it's that they can't get them to work with the government. Considering how the UK government is having a ball with Brexit, I'm willing to bet that they're not on top of their game when it comes to their nuclear energy policy.
Unfortunately, I can only bet, as the articles are scant on the details of the negotiations.
I did notice this little snippet:
The UK has 15 nuclear reactors, generating about 21% of its electricity
Which seems to cast some doubt on the implication that nuclear isn't a viable alternative from an economic perspective.
As someone with experience with the nuclear industry, the biggest cost sink in building nuclear plants isn't the technology itself or its accompanying regulation. The problem is that a handful of...
As someone with experience with the nuclear industry, the biggest cost sink in building nuclear plants isn't the technology itself or its accompanying regulation. The problem is that a handful of huge contractors (e.g. Bechtel, D&Z, etc) have trapped most of the industry in a sort of vendor lock-in trap. These contractors then use their leverage to negotiate brutal cost-plus contracts that reward them for finishing work years late and billions of dollars overbudget.
This problem isn't limited to nuclear alone, however. It seems like every large infrastructure project is getting caught in this same quagmire.
I was trying to investigate this a bit more and dismayed that it's easy to find sources to back up either POV. I found this from the USEIA that seems me to be an impartial source:...
I was trying to investigate this a bit more and dismayed that it's easy to find sources to back up either POV. I found this from the USEIA that seems me to be an impartial source:
First, let me say that I may not be reading this right as this is certainly not my expertise. If we look at the "Total Overnight Cost" column I think we get a good idea for cost comparison purposes (please someone let me know if I'm not reading this right).
Looking at that, we can see that nuclear and off-shore wind energy are about on par for cost, while on-shore wind is substantially cheaper than nuclear, as is traditional solar. So I'd have to agree with @Guyon that nuclear should be part of the equation, especially for those regions where wind and solar are not as viable, and to supplement other power sources that cannot create enough energy to meet demand.
I think the costs are quite complicated. In France at least the dismantling costs have been underestimated and it's not yet very clear how much the whole life-cycle of a central will cost. Plus if...
I think the costs are quite complicated. In France at least the dismantling costs have been underestimated and it's not yet very clear how much the whole life-cycle of a central will cost. Plus if we build today we have to predict how much it will cost to maintain/dismantle in the next 50 years, which is pretty hard.
On the other hand if we go full renewable the grid problems might also end up costing an arm and a leg (you can find estimates about 5-10x the cost of nuclear), because you need to produce much more electricity in total to absorb the consumption peaks, and you need a lot of storage.
Are there actually viable alternatives for low-carbon base load though? Are pumped, train or crane storage and excess renewable power generation really cheaper than nukes?
Are there actually viable alternatives for low-carbon base load though? Are pumped, train or crane storage and excess renewable power generation really cheaper than nukes?
As far as I'm concerned, solar power is nuclear power. There's a perfectly good sustained nuclear fusion reactor 93 million miles away that we could be using to fuller advantage instead of digging...
As far as I'm concerned, solar power is nuclear power. There's a perfectly good sustained nuclear fusion reactor 93 million miles away that we could be using to fuller advantage instead of digging up uranium, dicking around with fission, and arguing about what to do with the radioactive byproducts. The sun has been running for 4.5 billion years and should run for at 4.5 billion more, so let's take advantage.
It is true that solar has seen immense improvements in the past decade, and currently is competitive with other methods of energy production. However solar energy has some clear drawbacks that...
It is true that solar has seen immense improvements in the past decade, and currently is competitive with other methods of energy production.
However solar energy has some clear drawbacks that should not be ignored.
It is dependent on location and sunlight availability.
Electricity can't be generated at night, so it requires excess energy storage using batteries or other methods, which increases it's price.
It is relatively inefficient, the standard energy conversion of solar panels being around 37%
I just don't think you can qualify Nuclear as green until you come up with a practical way of dealing with the waste that is acceptable by all the stakeholders, including communities that will...
I just don't think you can qualify Nuclear as green until you come up with a practical way of dealing with the waste that is acceptable by all the stakeholders, including communities that will have radioactive waste being trucked down their roads.
Can you provide further insight on what these incinerators are? The name suggests that we're somehow burning the metal, so best-case scenario, we'd simply be transmuting the waste into other,...
Can you provide further insight on what these incinerators are? The name suggests that we're somehow burning the metal, so best-case scenario, we'd simply be transmuting the waste into other, harder-to-contain forms. I'm wondering if the term is a mislabel?
I've always wondered why we dont toy with ideas like magnetic suspension for such problems. To my extremely ignorant brain, it seems like rather than chasing the conventional brute methods down a...
I've always wondered why we dont toy with ideas like magnetic suspension for such problems. To my extremely ignorant brain, it seems like rather than chasing the conventional brute methods down a tougher-materials rabbit hole, the solution would be in something more modern and less dependant on simply overpowering the problem.
The same can be said for the 'engine,' right? Cuz thats the trillion-dollar question. I am basically as ignorant as I can be on such matters but I do know that for most power generation matters our methods of energy capture are stupidly inefficient compared to the total output.
The people at Yucca mountain wanted the storage facility to open up. It's been proven safe, and was going to provide hundreds of long-term local jobs. The facility was even finished being built...
The people at Yucca mountain wanted the storage facility to open up. It's been proven safe, and was going to provide hundreds of long-term local jobs. The facility was even finished being built and we just decided not to use it.
Right now we've got nuclear waste piling up at all our reactors because nobody is willing to open the storage facility for it except for the people who actually live by it.
I fail to see how people at the origination points of radioactive waste wouldn't want it shipped off to Yucca Mountain. Right now, it's just piling up in spent fuel pools, which is outright more...
I fail to see how people at the origination points of radioactive waste wouldn't want it shipped off to Yucca Mountain. Right now, it's just piling up in spent fuel pools, which is outright more dangerous for everyone, especially those living near the point of origination.
You've got point A, the origination point. You've got point B, the end destination. People at both areas buy in, because for one it means safety and the other it means jobs. Draw a line from point...
You've got point A, the origination point. You've got point B, the end destination. People at both areas buy in, because for one it means safety and the other it means jobs. Draw a line from point A to point B. People living along that line have nothing/very little to gain, and potential loss from a catastrophic truck or train accident.
Reading the article it seems like this deal has little chance of being implemented due to the Senate and President blocking it. Anyway regardless of that you can't ignore the numbers. Americans...
Reading the article it seems like this deal has little chance of being implemented due to the Senate and President blocking it.
Anyway regardless of that you can't ignore the numbers. Americans have one of the highest rates of energy consumption (~250kWh/day/person, though that might be out of date) of any nation. To maintain that style of living (ignoring energy efficiency & tech improvements) renewable energy won't be enough, nuclear is a requirement.
If the debacle in South Carolina is any indication, new-build nuclear is very very challenging to implement in the US. The fact is wholesale electricity market prices are going down all the time,...
If the debacle in South Carolina is any indication, new-build nuclear is very very challenging to implement in the US. The fact is wholesale electricity market prices are going down all the time, due to cheaper electrons via natural gas, solar, and wind. This is killing coal and any new-build nuclear, as the start-up costs and man-power and political will it takes to build nuclear is massive. I am also unclear how a jobs/progressive legislation that is about installing tons of renewables would actually include nuclear regulations...Why not just have a separate line of bills about nuclear, fast tracking newer generation designs? I feel the green new deal is a lot about mass employment in the renewables industry, those are decently paying jobs that would be contributing to decarbonization, a win-win.
Very bad. To me the fact that they intentionally do not include nuclear is a clear indication that this bill is not really about the betterment of humanity but instead about controlling an...
Very bad. To me the fact that they intentionally do not include nuclear is a clear indication that this bill is not really about the betterment of humanity but instead about controlling an industry like energy and subsidizing whoever the people in charge want to funnel money to
I definitely didn't read that into it. Rather my thought was that AOC is aligning herself with a wing of the party that's been historically anti-nuclear, that old save-the-whales environmentalism....
I definitely didn't read that into it. Rather my thought was that AOC is aligning herself with a wing of the party that's been historically anti-nuclear, that old save-the-whales environmentalism.
subsidizing whoever the people in charge want to funnel money to
I recall this same talking point when Obama tried to encourage green energy, but it doesn't hold any more water then than now. Republicans have had no problem funneling money to the fossil fuel industry (or the private prison industry, or charter schools, or military contractors, or literal mercenaries) under Bush and Trump. If we're going to funnel money to some group, how about one that improving the world?
I generally agree with free markets (although they rarely exist in reality) but I think in this case it's worth subsidizing green energy due to climate change. I do respect that capitalism has...
I generally agree with free markets (although they rarely exist in reality) but I think in this case it's worth subsidizing green energy due to climate change. I do respect that capitalism has been the great engine of innovation for humankind though and a big part of that are markets free from government constraint.
Yeah free markets definitely exist. Just called the black market. I view it as a gradient. The closer we are to a free market the better. It's but an on or off thing
Yeah free markets definitely exist. Just called the black market.
I view it as a gradient. The closer we are to a free market the better. It's but an on or off thing
Correct. I didn't intend to be misleading at all - I'll edit my post to make that more clear. This looks to be a point of contention in the backers of the plan.
Correct. I didn't intend to be misleading at all - I'll edit my post to make that more clear. This looks to be a point of contention in the backers of the plan.
Similarly pro-nuclear here, but more importantly, a proponent of diverse energy sources.
From the article:
I bet we could have been there already if nuclear power innovations didn't almost slow to a halt decades ago. There's so much left to learn in this sector. Note the twenty year gap where no new nuclear reactors were put into commercial operation in the US.
Yes! Nuclear is part of the solution but is not the solution
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-08/how-the-green-new-deal-almost-went-nuclear-on-its-first-day
I've been a proponent of nuclear as far back as I can recall. To me it's a no-brainer - massive amounts of clean energy with low risk. What's not to like?
EDIT: Hearing some good points but I still think nuclear should be part of the solution, but not the whole solution
EDIT2: As @dubteedub pointed out, the plan itself doesn't exclude nuclear, but AOC put out a fact sheet stating that. Other backers of the bill have said there is room for nuclear. So this seems to be a point of contention among progressive democratics.
Agreed. There haven't been any actual proposals I've seen to make nuclear economically competitive, besides "cut regulations". Even if that course of action made sense (in my opinion it doesn't), there's zero public appetite in poorly regulated nuclear plants. Unless there's some sort of major breakthrough in reactor construction, I don't see nuclear being installed much in the future when you can just put up some solar panels and windmills for one fourth the cost and even it out with grid scale storage and still come in significantly cheaper.
See my response to OP that provides some numbers if you're interested in the nitty gritty.
Toshiba and Hitachi have both halted building nuclear plants here because they can't make the numbers work.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46122255
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46900918
Your comment is misrepresenting the information from your sources. For starters, it implied that Toshiba and Hitachi are out of the game completely when that is not necessarily the case (as there's still one plant that's continuing construction, and two of them are trying to get a green light but haven't been written off, as per your second article). And it's not that they "can't make the numbers work" it's that they can't get them to work with the government. Considering how the UK government is having a ball with Brexit, I'm willing to bet that they're not on top of their game when it comes to their nuclear energy policy.
Unfortunately, I can only bet, as the articles are scant on the details of the negotiations.
I did notice this little snippet:
Which seems to cast some doubt on the implication that nuclear isn't a viable alternative from an economic perspective.
As someone with experience with the nuclear industry, the biggest cost sink in building nuclear plants isn't the technology itself or its accompanying regulation. The problem is that a handful of huge contractors (e.g. Bechtel, D&Z, etc) have trapped most of the industry in a sort of vendor lock-in trap. These contractors then use their leverage to negotiate brutal cost-plus contracts that reward them for finishing work years late and billions of dollars overbudget.
This problem isn't limited to nuclear alone, however. It seems like every large infrastructure project is getting caught in this same quagmire.
You make a good point with the cost scaling, too.
I was trying to investigate this a bit more and dismayed that it's easy to find sources to back up either POV. I found this from the USEIA that seems me to be an impartial source:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=19&t=3
Specifically this paper goes into more detail:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf
First, let me say that I may not be reading this right as this is certainly not my expertise. If we look at the "Total Overnight Cost" column I think we get a good idea for cost comparison purposes (please someone let me know if I'm not reading this right).
Looking at that, we can see that nuclear and off-shore wind energy are about on par for cost, while on-shore wind is substantially cheaper than nuclear, as is traditional solar. So I'd have to agree with @Guyon that nuclear should be part of the equation, especially for those regions where wind and solar are not as viable, and to supplement other power sources that cannot create enough energy to meet demand.
I think the costs are quite complicated. In France at least the dismantling costs have been underestimated and it's not yet very clear how much the whole life-cycle of a central will cost. Plus if we build today we have to predict how much it will cost to maintain/dismantle in the next 50 years, which is pretty hard.
On the other hand if we go full renewable the grid problems might also end up costing an arm and a leg (you can find estimates about 5-10x the cost of nuclear), because you need to produce much more electricity in total to absorb the consumption peaks, and you need a lot of storage.
Even more reason to have a balanced approach involving many types or renewable energy so we're spreading out the risk of unforeseen costs.
Are there actually viable alternatives for low-carbon base load though? Are pumped, train or crane storage and excess renewable power generation really cheaper than nukes?
As far as I'm concerned, solar power is nuclear power. There's a perfectly good sustained nuclear fusion reactor 93 million miles away that we could be using to fuller advantage instead of digging up uranium, dicking around with fission, and arguing about what to do with the radioactive byproducts. The sun has been running for 4.5 billion years and should run for at 4.5 billion more, so let's take advantage.
Well said!
It is true that solar has seen immense improvements in the past decade, and currently is competitive with other methods of energy production.
However solar energy has some clear drawbacks that should not be ignored.
Some sources:
Thank you, but I know about these drawbacks and consider them irrelevant.
I just don't think you can qualify Nuclear as green until you come up with a practical way of dealing with the waste that is acceptable by all the stakeholders, including communities that will have radioactive waste being trucked down their roads.
Can you provide further insight on what these incinerators are? The name suggests that we're somehow burning the metal, so best-case scenario, we'd simply be transmuting the waste into other, harder-to-contain forms. I'm wondering if the term is a mislabel?
fascinating, thank you! The subject of energy production interests me greatly and this is super informative.
I've always wondered why we dont toy with ideas like magnetic suspension for such problems. To my extremely ignorant brain, it seems like rather than chasing the conventional brute methods down a tougher-materials rabbit hole, the solution would be in something more modern and less dependant on simply overpowering the problem.
The same can be said for the 'engine,' right? Cuz thats the trillion-dollar question. I am basically as ignorant as I can be on such matters but I do know that for most power generation matters our methods of energy capture are stupidly inefficient compared to the total output.
On a different thought, if I wanted to begin learning more about this type of science and study, where do you recommend starting? What field of study?
From what I can tell, we're already doing a good job of that.
This may be worth a watch then: https://youtu.be/ZwY2E0hjGuU
I've seen it before. I found it alarmist (but I like John Stewart generally).
The people at Yucca mountain wanted the storage facility to open up. It's been proven safe, and was going to provide hundreds of long-term local jobs. The facility was even finished being built and we just decided not to use it.
Right now we've got nuclear waste piling up at all our reactors because nobody is willing to open the storage facility for it except for the people who actually live by it.
Like I said, all stakeholders. That includes everyone between Yucca Mountain and the origination point of radioactive waste.
I fail to see how people at the origination points of radioactive waste wouldn't want it shipped off to Yucca Mountain. Right now, it's just piling up in spent fuel pools, which is outright more dangerous for everyone, especially those living near the point of origination.
You've got point A, the origination point. You've got point B, the end destination. People at both areas buy in, because for one it means safety and the other it means jobs. Draw a line from point A to point B. People living along that line have nothing/very little to gain, and potential loss from a catastrophic truck or train accident.
Reading the article it seems like this deal has little chance of being implemented due to the Senate and President blocking it.
Anyway regardless of that you can't ignore the numbers. Americans have one of the highest rates of energy consumption (~250kWh/day/person, though that might be out of date) of any nation. To maintain that style of living (ignoring energy efficiency & tech improvements) renewable energy won't be enough, nuclear is a requirement.
If the debacle in South Carolina is any indication, new-build nuclear is very very challenging to implement in the US. The fact is wholesale electricity market prices are going down all the time, due to cheaper electrons via natural gas, solar, and wind. This is killing coal and any new-build nuclear, as the start-up costs and man-power and political will it takes to build nuclear is massive. I am also unclear how a jobs/progressive legislation that is about installing tons of renewables would actually include nuclear regulations...Why not just have a separate line of bills about nuclear, fast tracking newer generation designs? I feel the green new deal is a lot about mass employment in the renewables industry, those are decently paying jobs that would be contributing to decarbonization, a win-win.
Very bad. To me the fact that they intentionally do not include nuclear is a clear indication that this bill is not really about the betterment of humanity but instead about controlling an industry like energy and subsidizing whoever the people in charge want to funnel money to
I definitely didn't read that into it. Rather my thought was that AOC is aligning herself with a wing of the party that's been historically anti-nuclear, that old save-the-whales environmentalism.
I recall this same talking point when Obama tried to encourage green energy, but it doesn't hold any more water then than now. Republicans have had no problem funneling money to the fossil fuel industry (or the private prison industry, or charter schools, or military contractors, or literal mercenaries) under Bush and Trump. If we're going to funnel money to some group, how about one that improving the world?
There should be no energy subsidies. Fossil fuels or green. Its simple
I generally agree with free markets (although they rarely exist in reality) but I think in this case it's worth subsidizing green energy due to climate change. I do respect that capitalism has been the great engine of innovation for humankind though and a big part of that are markets free from government constraint.
Yeah free markets definitely exist. Just called the black market.
I view it as a gradient. The closer we are to a free market the better. It's but an on or off thing
Correct. I didn't intend to be misleading at all - I'll edit my post to make that more clear. This looks to be a point of contention in the backers of the plan.