White House eyes subsidies for nuclear plants to help meet climate targets(reuters.com)
reuters.com
White House eyes subsidies for nuclear plants to help meet climate targets
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/white-house-eyes-subsidies-nuclear-plants-help-meet-climate-targets-sources-2021-05-05/
587 comments
It is so upsetting to see CA close down precious nuclear power plants, not because they have built a better alternative to using natural gas or other dirty fuels to cover this load, they haven't, but because it is unprofitable to do the required maintenance and necessary improvements.
The need for profit is killing our planet. When it comes to basic essential things like shelter, energy, food, water, profit is pure parasitic loss and should be eliminated. These things really should run at a loss, considering these things generate all other economic activity there is, but we insist that they must be run privately and for profit.
The need for profit is killing our planet. When it comes to basic essential things like shelter, energy, food, water, profit is pure parasitic loss and should be eliminated. These things really should run at a loss, considering these things generate all other economic activity there is, but we insist that they must be run privately and for profit.
I mean, if everything runs at a loss, we eventually all starve to death.
I think there's a big difference between running things "for profit," which I agree is not always necessary, and attempting to run things "cash flow positive."
When we have resources like electricity that are very feasible to charge for, one of the best ways to make sure our overall system is operating efficiently and not just wasting resources is to charge for the resource and aim for slight cash-flow positive - the goal being to break even with a small margin for error.
If break-even isn't economical under the current market rules, but something is a social good we want to maintain, like nuclear power, we can adjust the rules of the market. This actually makes sense for base load power, as we know there's a floor that we don't want to fall beneath, and renewables are so elastic that we sometimes fall below that floor. Plus the transmission network needs to be kept in balance, so we can't actually handle huge swings in power.
But the solution here is not to say "profit is killing our planet," it's to fix the rules of the market to get the outcome we want. Profit, in general, is a good thing. But yes, sometimes the system gets into a state where bad outcomes are profitable, and we do need to fix that.
I think there's a big difference between running things "for profit," which I agree is not always necessary, and attempting to run things "cash flow positive."
When we have resources like electricity that are very feasible to charge for, one of the best ways to make sure our overall system is operating efficiently and not just wasting resources is to charge for the resource and aim for slight cash-flow positive - the goal being to break even with a small margin for error.
If break-even isn't economical under the current market rules, but something is a social good we want to maintain, like nuclear power, we can adjust the rules of the market. This actually makes sense for base load power, as we know there's a floor that we don't want to fall beneath, and renewables are so elastic that we sometimes fall below that floor. Plus the transmission network needs to be kept in balance, so we can't actually handle huge swings in power.
But the solution here is not to say "profit is killing our planet," it's to fix the rules of the market to get the outcome we want. Profit, in general, is a good thing. But yes, sometimes the system gets into a state where bad outcomes are profitable, and we do need to fix that.
> and we do need to fix that
I can't see any way of fixing it that doesn't entail interfering with the (supposedly) natural operations of profit seeking in the market.
At some point we need a state (or somebody or something that is in charge and able to reconfigure and manage economic processes "from above"), some agent or authority to be able to say, "Build this. Don't build that. Do it even if it doesn't make any money." Or we'll eventually experience our own very profitable self negation.
I can't see any way of fixing it that doesn't entail interfering with the (supposedly) natural operations of profit seeking in the market.
At some point we need a state (or somebody or something that is in charge and able to reconfigure and manage economic processes "from above"), some agent or authority to be able to say, "Build this. Don't build that. Do it even if it doesn't make any money." Or we'll eventually experience our own very profitable self negation.
What's your describing is also known as "subsidizing", a term you may have seen in the headline.
You think that's enough? I guess we'll find out.
It's absolutely capable of being enough if the subsidy is enough money.
I think you and the parent comment actually agree quite a bit.
The parent comment is saying "profit is killing our planet", and you're basically saying "markets aren't killing our planet". The resolution, of course, is that non profit-motivated organizations can exist and participate in markets.
The parent comment is saying "profit is killing our planet", and you're basically saying "markets aren't killing our planet". The resolution, of course, is that non profit-motivated organizations can exist and participate in markets.
If the negative externalities that are killing our planet are included in the cost, those killers become less profitable. This can be done via taxes or other means.
Unfortunately, oligopolies invariably perceive such measures as incentive & opportunity for regulatory capture i.e. corruption, which resets progress.
It follows that correcting the energy market requires also restructuring the sector.
It follows that correcting the energy market requires also restructuring the sector.
> not because they have built a better alternative to using natural gas or other dirty fuels to cover this load, they haven't, but because it is unprofitable to do the required maintenance and necessary improvements.
Solar and wind are pervasive and cheap in California. If nuclear is no better for the environment and more expensive, why should it keep running?
The whole "profit" thing is a way to manage scarce resources, i.e. minimize waste. That's exactly what we want.
You're right that for basic needs like shelter, energy, food, and water, we shouldn't accept that some people might have to go without. So we have tipped the scales through programs like section 8, progressive energy rates, EBT, etc to get that outcome will still seeing other resources efficiently used.
Solar and wind are pervasive and cheap in California. If nuclear is no better for the environment and more expensive, why should it keep running?
The whole "profit" thing is a way to manage scarce resources, i.e. minimize waste. That's exactly what we want.
You're right that for basic needs like shelter, energy, food, and water, we shouldn't accept that some people might have to go without. So we have tipped the scales through programs like section 8, progressive energy rates, EBT, etc to get that outcome will still seeing other resources efficiently used.
The competition isn't "nuclear vs renewables", California is not going to not build renewables (it got 40% of it's utility-scale energy from them in 2018!). It's what you do about the rest: over half of CA's energy comes from natural gas. If you can keep nuclear alive longer, you can use the renewable growth to draw down fossil-fuel energy. If you don't, you need to replace the nuclear energy before you can start decomissioning any gas plants.
If your long-term goal is a maximum of renewables, there is a significant difference between nuclear and natural gas.
Nuclear generation can't react to changes in demand very fast and so doesn't play well with large amounts of wind generation. It's ok with solar, because you can predict night-time 8 hours in advance, which is optimal for ramping up nuclear generation.
Combined-cycle gas turbines, while they do use fossil fuels, are the most carbon-efficient way to get electricity from fossil fuels, and can quickly react to changes in demand.
So while I agree with the point about not getting rid of nuclear too fast, both nuclear and natural gas have their place in moving to mostly renewables. Natural gas could especially be important if it allows other fossil-fuel burning, eg for transport, to be replaced by electricity generated with non-zero but low carbon emissions.
Nuclear generation can't react to changes in demand very fast and so doesn't play well with large amounts of wind generation. It's ok with solar, because you can predict night-time 8 hours in advance, which is optimal for ramping up nuclear generation.
Combined-cycle gas turbines, while they do use fossil fuels, are the most carbon-efficient way to get electricity from fossil fuels, and can quickly react to changes in demand.
So while I agree with the point about not getting rid of nuclear too fast, both nuclear and natural gas have their place in moving to mostly renewables. Natural gas could especially be important if it allows other fossil-fuel burning, eg for transport, to be replaced by electricity generated with non-zero but low carbon emissions.
> If nuclear is no better for the environment and more expensive, why should it keep running?
40% of power in CA is generated with natural gas. If you can close the nuclear power plant and replace it with the equivalent amount of solar and wind, you should just keep the nuclear plant open and build that amount of solar and wind anyways.
40% of power in CA is generated with natural gas. If you can close the nuclear power plant and replace it with the equivalent amount of solar and wind, you should just keep the nuclear plant open and build that amount of solar and wind anyways.
Nuclear really is not that precious when it comes to solving climate change. We have undergone a massive tech shift, the consequences of which have not filtered out into many academic models.
Seemingly just in time, solar, wind, and storage are scaling both in production capacity and in falling costs to solve our climate problems. These will be the backbone of getting to 80% carbon free electricity in the next decade, and 0% carbon not that long after. This will be far cheaper than any other source of energy generation we can use, and will save us massive amounts of money.
One of the better grid modelers out there, Christoper Clack, who has no opposition to nuclear and in the past has made strong arguments for it being a cheaper way to get to 0%, also has an amazing new mode out this year that says we should do something very unintuitive: deploy massive amounts of distributed solar and storage close to power meters (e.g. on people's homes). This will result in a much stronger distribution grid that can both shave peaks of demand, resulting in far less very costly distribution infrastructure, and which will empower far even cheaper deployment of larger amounts of utility-scale solar and wind in future decades.
Nuclear would be nice if it weren't so expensive, and if it were our only option we should keep it around, but there's little reason to create make-work when we have cheaper options, and options that will have additional benefits for the grid such as greatly increasing reliability and resilience. Massive distributed solar and storage will create an absolutist rock solid grid that will be able to weather disruptions far better than one with large generators that become almost like single points of failure.
Seemingly just in time, solar, wind, and storage are scaling both in production capacity and in falling costs to solve our climate problems. These will be the backbone of getting to 80% carbon free electricity in the next decade, and 0% carbon not that long after. This will be far cheaper than any other source of energy generation we can use, and will save us massive amounts of money.
One of the better grid modelers out there, Christoper Clack, who has no opposition to nuclear and in the past has made strong arguments for it being a cheaper way to get to 0%, also has an amazing new mode out this year that says we should do something very unintuitive: deploy massive amounts of distributed solar and storage close to power meters (e.g. on people's homes). This will result in a much stronger distribution grid that can both shave peaks of demand, resulting in far less very costly distribution infrastructure, and which will empower far even cheaper deployment of larger amounts of utility-scale solar and wind in future decades.
Nuclear would be nice if it weren't so expensive, and if it were our only option we should keep it around, but there's little reason to create make-work when we have cheaper options, and options that will have additional benefits for the grid such as greatly increasing reliability and resilience. Massive distributed solar and storage will create an absolutist rock solid grid that will be able to weather disruptions far better than one with large generators that become almost like single points of failure.
> increasing reliability and resilience
I'm far from well versed in this area but I was under the impression that renewables really suffer in this department. The lifespan of a wind turbine is about 20 years. We don't know exactly what the lifespan of a nuclear plant is but it's certainly longer than that. And of course the availability on solar and other "harvesting" type mechanisms can be inconsistent, up and down as a function of weather, etc. What am I missing?
I'm far from well versed in this area but I was under the impression that renewables really suffer in this department. The lifespan of a wind turbine is about 20 years. We don't know exactly what the lifespan of a nuclear plant is but it's certainly longer than that. And of course the availability on solar and other "harvesting" type mechanisms can be inconsistent, up and down as a function of weather, etc. What am I missing?
Wind turbines have a design lifetime of 20 years, but most will last much longer (source: I work at a large offshore wind company).
There are two reasons why everything is still built for 20 years: Firstly, there is not pressure on the projects to increase lifetime, because the deprecated value today of further production in year 21 is basically zero. Secondly, the turbines we installed 20 years ago were so small that there is really no reason to keep them going.
There are two reasons why everything is still built for 20 years: Firstly, there is not pressure on the projects to increase lifetime, because the deprecated value today of further production in year 21 is basically zero. Secondly, the turbines we installed 20 years ago were so small that there is really no reason to keep them going.
Germany saw a huge increase in reliability over the past decade as it increased its renewable percentages. Old-timers said that anything above 5% renewable would cause grid collapse, then kept on shifting up the percentage as renewables increased on the grid and no disasters happened.
It does require running the grid differently. But part of that is becoming more responsive to constantly changing conditions, and a grid that it used to that will have far fewer problems then one where a GW reactor trips off because of some sensor problem (as happened in Texas). As we get closer to 80% renewable grids, then we will be used to running backup natural gas plants to keep everything running. And the ultimate in resilience and reliability will happen as we add more storage. With batteries everywhere, we will have buffering all over the grid that will make it far far easier to make sure everybody has power, and to limit outages to the smallest areas possible.
The first year of power shut offs for PG&E's public safety in the face of high wind and fire conditions covered massive areas. This last year they covered far less, as they could focus the power shut offs far better with an extra year of work. This sort of finer grained granularity and control is what happens as more renewables and storage will be added to the grid, as we update this impressive machine that we started building a century ago. Adding modern communication and control will come along with more storage, demand response, and home-to-grid power from solar.
It does require running the grid differently. But part of that is becoming more responsive to constantly changing conditions, and a grid that it used to that will have far fewer problems then one where a GW reactor trips off because of some sensor problem (as happened in Texas). As we get closer to 80% renewable grids, then we will be used to running backup natural gas plants to keep everything running. And the ultimate in resilience and reliability will happen as we add more storage. With batteries everywhere, we will have buffering all over the grid that will make it far far easier to make sure everybody has power, and to limit outages to the smallest areas possible.
The first year of power shut offs for PG&E's public safety in the face of high wind and fire conditions covered massive areas. This last year they covered far less, as they could focus the power shut offs far better with an extra year of work. This sort of finer grained granularity and control is what happens as more renewables and storage will be added to the grid, as we update this impressive machine that we started building a century ago. Adding modern communication and control will come along with more storage, demand response, and home-to-grid power from solar.
Decommissioning nuclear is pain in the ass though. A turbine can be recycled - everything but the concrete.
And I think that you have some serious metal fatigue in some critical nuclear reactor core components.
And I think that you have some serious metal fatigue in some critical nuclear reactor core components.
In every discussions like this I see so much hope and wishes in regard to storage, and yet we are so far away from having commercial viable solutions to be combined with wind.
Current state of the art storage with solar is commercial viable around 75% capacity for 4hrs, with a charge cycle of 24 hours. Those numbers are a good improvement over 0% storage, but there is a good reason why there are not a single commercial operated wind farm that use the same technology. Wind does not have a 24hr charge cycle, and 4hrs of 75% capacity does not do much when there first several weeks of good weather followed by several weeks of bad weather.
When northern European countries plans for stability, we are not talking about hours. This is why oil power plants get subsidized in countries who invest heavily in wind power. The reserve energy source need to be profitable while the weather is creating negative energy prices, regardless for how long such period last, because afterward you will need a lot of it to be available for an equal long period of time. This is the problem that storage need to solve and have yet to find any suitable commercial viable answers. You could improve the economic viability of current batteries used in PV by 1000% and it would still not be economical viable for wind.
When it comes to individuals and personal homes, the answer that most experts seems to conclude on is that solar and storage is something which comes after more fundamental improvements such as heat exchanges and replacing internal combustion engines with electric ones. Solar and batteries are nice, but the planet is still going to be quite damaged if we continue burning massive amount of coal, oil and gas in order to generate power that electric heaters demand during the winter.
Current state of the art storage with solar is commercial viable around 75% capacity for 4hrs, with a charge cycle of 24 hours. Those numbers are a good improvement over 0% storage, but there is a good reason why there are not a single commercial operated wind farm that use the same technology. Wind does not have a 24hr charge cycle, and 4hrs of 75% capacity does not do much when there first several weeks of good weather followed by several weeks of bad weather.
When northern European countries plans for stability, we are not talking about hours. This is why oil power plants get subsidized in countries who invest heavily in wind power. The reserve energy source need to be profitable while the weather is creating negative energy prices, regardless for how long such period last, because afterward you will need a lot of it to be available for an equal long period of time. This is the problem that storage need to solve and have yet to find any suitable commercial viable answers. You could improve the economic viability of current batteries used in PV by 1000% and it would still not be economical viable for wind.
When it comes to individuals and personal homes, the answer that most experts seems to conclude on is that solar and storage is something which comes after more fundamental improvements such as heat exchanges and replacing internal combustion engines with electric ones. Solar and batteries are nice, but the planet is still going to be quite damaged if we continue burning massive amount of coal, oil and gas in order to generate power that electric heaters demand during the winter.
Battery storage is being built right now in the UK and there is a large pipeline of new projects. And scaling up is comparatively easy. It is ridiculously modular, suited to mass production, and piggy-backs on the global electronics industry.
I wouldn't get hung up on paring battery storage with a particular generation technology. Just connect it to the grid and let the market decide when to charge and discharge.
One good reason for colocating battery storage with renewables is that you get to share the grid connection. That connection can be expensive and will be under utilized due to intermittency. So store some of the energy in batteries and spend less money on expensive AC cables. You can even reverse the flow and take energy from the grid.
I wouldn't get hung up on paring battery storage with a particular generation technology. Just connect it to the grid and let the market decide when to charge and discharge.
One good reason for colocating battery storage with renewables is that you get to share the grid connection. That connection can be expensive and will be under utilized due to intermittency. So store some of the energy in batteries and spend less money on expensive AC cables. You can even reverse the flow and take energy from the grid.
Also, they can share the inverter(s).
However far away storage is from commercial viability, it's far closer than with nuclear.
Costs are dropping so rapidly that typical 5-year timelines for utility planning and procurement is running into some problems. People who make bids have to anticipate their costs in the future, so there's considerable betting going on.
Agreed on the heat pumps versus fossil heat. I moved in the past few years, and replacing all the natural gas is my first task before installing solar. By replacing natural gas with a heat pump, my total energy consumption has plummeted drastically. However, my utility charges only about 15% as much for a unit of natural gas energy as it does electrical energy, which eliminated the cost savings! So now that I better know my total energy consumption the switch to solar will happen very soon, and save me a ton of money.
Costs are dropping so rapidly that typical 5-year timelines for utility planning and procurement is running into some problems. People who make bids have to anticipate their costs in the future, so there's considerable betting going on.
Agreed on the heat pumps versus fossil heat. I moved in the past few years, and replacing all the natural gas is my first task before installing solar. By replacing natural gas with a heat pump, my total energy consumption has plummeted drastically. However, my utility charges only about 15% as much for a unit of natural gas energy as it does electrical energy, which eliminated the cost savings! So now that I better know my total energy consumption the switch to solar will happen very soon, and save me a ton of money.
I think your missing the point of the above poster. Why get rid of nuclear power until its replaced with some other non carbon polluting source? It just raises the amount of co2 going into the atmosphere. If all renewable energy grids work, great. But don't replace nuclear with fossil fuels, like California, Vermont and many others have done.
No matter when the nuclear is shut off, it's going to cause an instantaneous uptick in fossil usage, because that's the dispatchable power we use. Even if you plug in an extra 4GW of solar/wind to the grid before you turn off the nuclear, the event of turning off the nuclear reactor will still make it look like fossil fuel have replaced it. (That is, until storage becomes the dispatchable replacement not only for peaker plants, but also for open cycle or combined cycle natural gas).
The event that is precipitating CA's shutdown has been planned for more than a decade. And the cost of keeping the nuclear plant would be $7B-$14B, before any of the inevitable cost increases that accompany large construction projects. $7B for solar and storage will easily replace nuclear. At $1/W for solar, and $250/kWh for storage, $7B will buy 4GW of solar and 12 GWh of storage, and cost overruns are unheard of for solar and storage installations.
The event that is precipitating CA's shutdown has been planned for more than a decade. And the cost of keeping the nuclear plant would be $7B-$14B, before any of the inevitable cost increases that accompany large construction projects. $7B for solar and storage will easily replace nuclear. At $1/W for solar, and $250/kWh for storage, $7B will buy 4GW of solar and 12 GWh of storage, and cost overruns are unheard of for solar and storage installations.
For solar that would be at least $7b every 25-30 years, no?
Well $7B now, and a fraction of that in 25-30 years to replace the aging panels and batteries. (I think 12-15 years is a common battery warranty for grid batteries with daily cycling, but why might fall even further in price in 15 years than solar).
The nuclear plant that is shutting down is already at the end of its original license, and the $7B of work would be for 20 years or less of nuclear.
The nuclear plant that is shutting down is already at the end of its original license, and the $7B of work would be for 20 years or less of nuclear.
This is still pitting two cooperative undertakings against each other, and we really shouldn't do that.
The thing is, we want more power. Like, a lot more power. Power is wealth, there is an unlimited number of good things we can do with it.
Nuclear power is qualitatively about the best power you can have. Absolutely enormous amounts, available on demand, constantly. You just can't beat it.
We should heavily subsidize reasearch and development on new nuclear energy, until we have ten times as much nuclear power as we have now.
And we should do that in parallel with building out so much solar that we can rapidly retire coal completely, because we want to do that in ten years and that is completely feasible with solar + batteries. The new nukes will barely be coming online when that happens.
But the 40s will be a renaissance of human culture if we have that nuclear power.
The thing is, we want more power. Like, a lot more power. Power is wealth, there is an unlimited number of good things we can do with it.
Nuclear power is qualitatively about the best power you can have. Absolutely enormous amounts, available on demand, constantly. You just can't beat it.
We should heavily subsidize reasearch and development on new nuclear energy, until we have ten times as much nuclear power as we have now.
And we should do that in parallel with building out so much solar that we can rapidly retire coal completely, because we want to do that in ten years and that is completely feasible with solar + batteries. The new nukes will barely be coming online when that happens.
But the 40s will be a renaissance of human culture if we have that nuclear power.
Agreed that the 2040s have great potential due to massively cheaper energy and lots of it, but I disagree that nuclear will contribute much. I'm not convinced that nuclear has such great qualities compared to renewables plus storage, and I think the only reason this is not more commonly held is that people have not yet internalized a world with storage at the prices we will see it within 5-10 years.
Battery storage can scale large, but more importantly, it can scale really small. This means that you can throw a couple shipping containers of it at one side of a congested transmission link, and save tons of money. It means that we can make all our houses self reliant for hours at a time.
Storage will help us solve the problem of transmission lines causing massive wildfires. It will provide massive reliability and resilience across the grid. Small nuclear won't help much with that, unless is also paired with storage.
If nuclear can provide electricity at rates competitive with solar and wind, then storage will help nuclear too. But if nuclear is not beating the cost of solar and wind, then we will have less wealth if we spend our labor building nuclear than if we build renewables and storage.
A world built on solar wind and storage will probable have peak power capacity 2x-4x more than we need, with 2-3 days worth of storage. The ratio between power and storage will largely depend on the relative costs of storage versus power.
And I think it's time to start thinking about the sort of word where we have an over abundance of energy that renewables will provide. We will have lots of excess energy being produced, and with the right applications that can tolerate intermittency, that excess energy will incredibly cheap.
Battery storage can scale large, but more importantly, it can scale really small. This means that you can throw a couple shipping containers of it at one side of a congested transmission link, and save tons of money. It means that we can make all our houses self reliant for hours at a time.
Storage will help us solve the problem of transmission lines causing massive wildfires. It will provide massive reliability and resilience across the grid. Small nuclear won't help much with that, unless is also paired with storage.
If nuclear can provide electricity at rates competitive with solar and wind, then storage will help nuclear too. But if nuclear is not beating the cost of solar and wind, then we will have less wealth if we spend our labor building nuclear than if we build renewables and storage.
A world built on solar wind and storage will probable have peak power capacity 2x-4x more than we need, with 2-3 days worth of storage. The ratio between power and storage will largely depend on the relative costs of storage versus power.
And I think it's time to start thinking about the sort of word where we have an over abundance of energy that renewables will provide. We will have lots of excess energy being produced, and with the right applications that can tolerate intermittency, that excess energy will incredibly cheap.
People keep touting the low cost of renewables plus storage, but this is incredibly misleading when most regions (Germany, Denmark, California, etc.) that have high renewable adoption have some of the most expensive electricity in the world.
Storage (especially at the current rate of growth) is nowhere close to meeting our capacity needs for a 100% renewable grid. We can't store enough energy for a single day of consumption. Keep in mind we would need to store enough energy to handle long periods of low production. We're an order of magnitude away from that. On top of that, the vast majority of global energy storage is not actually provided by batteries, but by pumped-storage hydro (expanding this capacity would run into environmental issues and physical limitations; we don't have enough water in convenient locations).
Battery tech seems way off from providing us the needed capacity. Even Tesla is bottlenecked by battery production. We'd need to see Moore's Law level growth to have enough storage capacity to mitigate climate change, but we're only seeing 30% to 40% growth, which is just not enough given that it's currently less than a fraction of a percent of our total energy storage needs for 100% renewable power.
People are also seriously overestimating the time table needed to build a nuclear power plant. India, China, and Russia have been able to build plants in a few years vs 10 years in the West. If we're not pushing nuclear now, we'll be burning coal and natural gas for the next century.
Storage (especially at the current rate of growth) is nowhere close to meeting our capacity needs for a 100% renewable grid. We can't store enough energy for a single day of consumption. Keep in mind we would need to store enough energy to handle long periods of low production. We're an order of magnitude away from that. On top of that, the vast majority of global energy storage is not actually provided by batteries, but by pumped-storage hydro (expanding this capacity would run into environmental issues and physical limitations; we don't have enough water in convenient locations).
Battery tech seems way off from providing us the needed capacity. Even Tesla is bottlenecked by battery production. We'd need to see Moore's Law level growth to have enough storage capacity to mitigate climate change, but we're only seeing 30% to 40% growth, which is just not enough given that it's currently less than a fraction of a percent of our total energy storage needs for 100% renewable power.
People are also seriously overestimating the time table needed to build a nuclear power plant. India, China, and Russia have been able to build plants in a few years vs 10 years in the West. If we're not pushing nuclear now, we'll be burning coal and natural gas for the next century.
But your text is just as misleading!
Only about 14% of what we pay in Denmark and probably a comparable amount in Germany goes to paying for the actual electricity.
The rest is for "Green taxes" that pays for our new green infrastructure, R&D and lots of things that will benefit the transition.
So if we just said "we good now", 86% of the cost would disappear, and probably not be much more expensive than US energy, or even cheaper, at least soon!
Only about 14% of what we pay in Denmark and probably a comparable amount in Germany goes to paying for the actual electricity.
The rest is for "Green taxes" that pays for our new green infrastructure, R&D and lots of things that will benefit the transition.
So if we just said "we good now", 86% of the cost would disappear, and probably not be much more expensive than US energy, or even cheaper, at least soon!
I find it hard to believe that any 'green tax' will be reduced, or at least without a comparative increase somewhere else, once the infrastructure is done.
But the tax isn't is a problem, quite the opposite because it targets non renewable sources and has been decreasing as green energy has been established.
Also it works as a magnet for business surprisingly maybe.
We have enormous new datacenters from Google, Facebook and Apple being built right at this moment, even though Denmark is tiny.
Taxation is extremely important when it comes to transitioning to green energy. As long as the taxation scheme favours green energy - granted that is difficult to define exactly.
We've had to same scheme with electric cars giving you about half the price of a conventional car.
This is exactly how government should help the green transition, instead of the exact opposite that for many years has been happening in the US with the corporate welfare and grotesque subsidising of heavy industry. Though again this is a contentious issue as Tesla has sucked a lot of green subsidies from the pool. So there definitely is problems to tackle.
Also it works as a magnet for business surprisingly maybe.
We have enormous new datacenters from Google, Facebook and Apple being built right at this moment, even though Denmark is tiny.
Taxation is extremely important when it comes to transitioning to green energy. As long as the taxation scheme favours green energy - granted that is difficult to define exactly.
We've had to same scheme with electric cars giving you about half the price of a conventional car.
This is exactly how government should help the green transition, instead of the exact opposite that for many years has been happening in the US with the corporate welfare and grotesque subsidising of heavy industry. Though again this is a contentious issue as Tesla has sucked a lot of green subsidies from the pool. So there definitely is problems to tackle.
Even if it loses the race, we should subsidize research and development right now.
This is too important to leave to the back of a napkin, is what I'm saying. Breakthroughs in nuclear energy would be a big win. The aesthetic and ecosystem costs of transforming hundreds of square kilometers of desert into solar farms are bearable, but they're real.
The power yield of solar panels in the Belt is also not superb given the launch costs. Pretty dangerous to go blasting uranium into space on top of a rocket, no matter how reliable, but we can go to where the uranium is, for the most part.
We don't want to be behind the curve when that time comes. Extracting metals from Earth's surface is just going to get more environmentally noxious and less profitable, as we work through the good veins. We might luck out and find a few more rich lodes, but we shouldn't count on it, and mining in the ocean is a whole unexplored world (just like the Belt): it's closer, but it's also an ecosystem, and water is capable of spreading solid pollution quite a bit more promiscuously than the air is. Groundwater and surface water leaching from mine tailings is already very bad, we don't want that happening in the ocean. We only have one of those and we already beat it up pretty badly.
This is too important to leave to the back of a napkin, is what I'm saying. Breakthroughs in nuclear energy would be a big win. The aesthetic and ecosystem costs of transforming hundreds of square kilometers of desert into solar farms are bearable, but they're real.
The power yield of solar panels in the Belt is also not superb given the launch costs. Pretty dangerous to go blasting uranium into space on top of a rocket, no matter how reliable, but we can go to where the uranium is, for the most part.
We don't want to be behind the curve when that time comes. Extracting metals from Earth's surface is just going to get more environmentally noxious and less profitable, as we work through the good veins. We might luck out and find a few more rich lodes, but we shouldn't count on it, and mining in the ocean is a whole unexplored world (just like the Belt): it's closer, but it's also an ecosystem, and water is capable of spreading solid pollution quite a bit more promiscuously than the air is. Groundwater and surface water leaching from mine tailings is already very bad, we don't want that happening in the ocean. We only have one of those and we already beat it up pretty badly.
> Battery storage can scale large ...
This is a lie at our current technology levels.
This is a lie at our current technology levels.
A lie would require that both 1) batteries can't scale, and 2) I know that they can't scale but am knowingly asserting a falsehood.
Neither of these are true. We are current at 200-300GWh of production per year, and consistent with recent history are expected to grow capacity 10x every five years, so that by 2031 we will produce 20-30TWh of new batteries per year. That's 500-750GW per year, at a 4 hour duration.
In contrast, the idea of scaling nuclear production to 100GW of new capacity per year by 2031 is simply inconceivable.
In 2021, with current technology, nuclear simply can not scale as fast as storage, or for that matter solar or wind.
Neither of these are true. We are current at 200-300GWh of production per year, and consistent with recent history are expected to grow capacity 10x every five years, so that by 2031 we will produce 20-30TWh of new batteries per year. That's 500-750GW per year, at a 4 hour duration.
In contrast, the idea of scaling nuclear production to 100GW of new capacity per year by 2031 is simply inconceivable.
In 2021, with current technology, nuclear simply can not scale as fast as storage, or for that matter solar or wind.
Not discussing with the falling cost of solar and wind - but recently I have read a good argument about why nuclear is expensive:
""" Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. What defines “reasonable”? It is an ever-tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of other modes of power, then they are reasonable.
This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. """
https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
""" Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. What defines “reasonable”? It is an ever-tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of other modes of power, then they are reasonable.
This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. """
https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
At least in California, the utilities are trying to make that distributed generation unattractive through lobbying. I'm slowly working towards getting myself off grid to avoid the tyranny of PG&E.
75% of my electricity bill is transmission and distribution charges. It's beyond preposterous.
When San O went down the Friends of the Earth rejoiced (activist group mentioned in the article). CA lost 8% of its power and put out an extra 10m tons of CO2 the following year.
There are 8.5 million people within 50 miles of that plant, and it sits in a geological fault zone that can make large earthquakes. The plant is old, expensive to maintain, and inspections documented various safety concerns. If anything goes dramatically wrong it’s going to be an incredible disaster.
People can read about the closure etc. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...
People can read about the closure etc. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...
The problem is not that it got shut down for being old. The problem is that it didn't get replaced with a clean source of energy, be that nuclear or renewables. In the typical nuclear fashion the plant ran for far longer than it was designed for and people kept putting off replacements. I point this out because we need to think differently going forward.
Your comment is typical of the pro-nuclear stance where all of the failures are pinned on opponents. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station wasn't closed because of Friends of the Earth. It was closed because the new steam generating tubes were wearing out two years after being installed. The regulators weren't about to let the operator run it as is. And the operator didn't want to pay to replace the steam tubes again. So they closed it.
>the operator didn't want to pay to replace the steam tubes
How silly is that? This is kinda my point. 8% of power for the most populous state in the second most populous nation is no small amount. The operator didn't want to do the necessary maintenance, so we opt for a cheaper, objectively worse solution, instead of spending the money required to do the job correctly. It's not like it was physically impossible to fix San Onofre, the engineers know exactly what work is required to be done, but the beancounters in charge of the purse strings ultimately thought better and we are all worse off for it in ways that will costs us far in the longrun than this maintenance would have.
How silly is that? This is kinda my point. 8% of power for the most populous state in the second most populous nation is no small amount. The operator didn't want to do the necessary maintenance, so we opt for a cheaper, objectively worse solution, instead of spending the money required to do the job correctly. It's not like it was physically impossible to fix San Onofre, the engineers know exactly what work is required to be done, but the beancounters in charge of the purse strings ultimately thought better and we are all worse off for it in ways that will costs us far in the longrun than this maintenance would have.
It's possible you're reading something in my comment that I didn't intend.
Profit in general is not the problem. It’s that we have no idea how to price externalities. If you could prove in court a correlation between coal production and disastrous weather events then you would enable massive class action suits against coal producers, eliminating any profit potential. No investor would go near it and the problem would solve itself.
>If you want to treat climate change as an existential threat
Chasing that rabbit down the hole, what happens if the US does wean off fossil fuel entirely, but countries like Russia and China continue (and say it is projected to increase 400X like China in the last 30 years). Then its an existential threat, does that mean use of force, or limit ourselves to diplomatic means that will ultimately fail and just accept the resulting existential outcome? Does the analysis change when it is a less diplomatically controversial Country such as India?
Alternatively what if those Countries beat the US to weaning off fossil fuel and determine overnight any continued US use of fossil fuel is an existential threat and act of war?
It sounds like hyperbole but I remember when the US began regulating incandescent light bulbs and it was floated by certain media outlets as an attack on freedom and liberties. We have literally seen murders of people telling others to wear a mask during the pandemic, and I watched a news segment claiming a normal year sees 150-300 FAA incidents on planes and we have seen 1,300 already this year mostly related to passengers refusing to wear masks and many times escalating to attacks on the airline workers for attempting to enforce the CDC mask guidelines. We live in violent and chaotic times, where millions and millions of people allow themselves to be worked up into mobs by a media that does it willfully and deliberately. I don't see it as an easy transition domestically much less globally, and those in power don't care about the science but seem to froth at the mouth for this kind of discontent.
Chasing that rabbit down the hole, what happens if the US does wean off fossil fuel entirely, but countries like Russia and China continue (and say it is projected to increase 400X like China in the last 30 years). Then its an existential threat, does that mean use of force, or limit ourselves to diplomatic means that will ultimately fail and just accept the resulting existential outcome? Does the analysis change when it is a less diplomatically controversial Country such as India?
Alternatively what if those Countries beat the US to weaning off fossil fuel and determine overnight any continued US use of fossil fuel is an existential threat and act of war?
It sounds like hyperbole but I remember when the US began regulating incandescent light bulbs and it was floated by certain media outlets as an attack on freedom and liberties. We have literally seen murders of people telling others to wear a mask during the pandemic, and I watched a news segment claiming a normal year sees 150-300 FAA incidents on planes and we have seen 1,300 already this year mostly related to passengers refusing to wear masks and many times escalating to attacks on the airline workers for attempting to enforce the CDC mask guidelines. We live in violent and chaotic times, where millions and millions of people allow themselves to be worked up into mobs by a media that does it willfully and deliberately. I don't see it as an easy transition domestically much less globally, and those in power don't care about the science but seem to froth at the mouth for this kind of discontent.
Suppose that a genie gives every human on earth access to infinite power, with no externalities like CO2 or radioactive waste. Would it make the world a better place or would it turn into a dystopian nightmare?
I think it would be like pouring sugar over a bacteria colony. The earth's crust could be economically strip mined. Ore could be smelted into metal at negligible cost, which could in turn be used to make more machines to strip mine the crust at a faster rate. Oceans could be boiled to access rare metals, or maybe just for fun by a bored teenager.
This isn't to detract from OPs practical comment, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
I think it would be like pouring sugar over a bacteria colony. The earth's crust could be economically strip mined. Ore could be smelted into metal at negligible cost, which could in turn be used to make more machines to strip mine the crust at a faster rate. Oceans could be boiled to access rare metals, or maybe just for fun by a bored teenager.
This isn't to detract from OPs practical comment, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
The natural resources of the earth are completely insignificant if you have access to infinite power. We could travel to and mine planets that are about to be consumed by blackholes or stars.
..and with infinite power, even that isn't necessary because we could simply create whatever matter we wanted directly from energy.
..and with infinite power, even that isn't necessary because we could simply create whatever matter we wanted directly from energy.
Except budgets by definition are limited. We cannot do all the things all the time. Sorry to be a buzzkill but we need adult minds on this problem, not simpletons who can’t understand how limited our options are at this point.
NullPrefix(1)
> They are fairly different industries
Funding for each may actually benefit the others. For example, FLiBe salt is being considered as a coolant in some Gen IV fission, as well as compact fusion and concentrated solar. Production will increase if there is a definite market for it, making it easier to obtain.
Funding for each may actually benefit the others. For example, FLiBe salt is being considered as a coolant in some Gen IV fission, as well as compact fusion and concentrated solar. Production will increase if there is a definite market for it, making it easier to obtain.
Annual world production of beryllium is around 200 tonnes. Any solution using FLiBe is not scalable.
I very much doubt FLiBe was ever seriously considered for solar applications.
I very much doubt FLiBe was ever seriously considered for solar applications.
What about economies of scale? Wouldn't we expect as demand rose, more suppliers and production would also come about?
Total world Be resource is estimated to be 100,000 tons, although that's likely an underestimate. Still, the MSRE (a 7.4MW(th) reactor) used about a ton of beryllium in the fuel and secondary coolant salts. The world would need several million times the thermal power output of the MSRE to replace fossil fuels.
The ARC fusion reactor concept would require even more Be per MW(th) of output.
The ARC fusion reactor concept would require even more Be per MW(th) of output.
Germany would like a word about that.
This is a good provision, but they are going to have to aggressively promote new sources of nuclear power, if they are going to feed all the new Electric Vehicles coming online AND replace coal. Not just keeping old aging plants operating.
Do you have a calculation on how much renewable you could make if you remove the subsidies?
Nuclear is 4 times more expensive, it would be interesting to know if we could boost renewable much further much faster.
Nuclear is 4 times more expensive, it would be interesting to know if we could boost renewable much further much faster.
A broad carbon price that starts small but rises gradually over time would be better than passing a hodge podge of half measures. Virtually all economists say this would be more economically efficient (cheaper) and it doesn't create distortions by favoring politically popular projects over less sexy but more effective solutions.
I used to think this, but this book convinced me otherwise:
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Making+Climate+Policy+Work-p-978...
If we treat all industry as spherical cows, a common carbon price comes out as a great way to incentivize industrial change.
However, once we get into the particulars of different industries and the varying levels of difficulty they have in decarbonizing, and the very different levels of lobbying power they have to influence that price, and the difficult of enforcement across different sectors, a common shared policy across all sectors starts to be far less efficient than tailoring the solution to each industry.
For example, steel is pure commodity, very difficult to eat any cost from stranded assets, and has far less ability to call up capital to solve the problem than, say, natural gas. So the price will have hugely different consequences for steel than natural gas production, and there are different tailored industrial policies that will make the transition happen much more time- and cost-efficiently.
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Making+Climate+Policy+Work-p-978...
If we treat all industry as spherical cows, a common carbon price comes out as a great way to incentivize industrial change.
However, once we get into the particulars of different industries and the varying levels of difficulty they have in decarbonizing, and the very different levels of lobbying power they have to influence that price, and the difficult of enforcement across different sectors, a common shared policy across all sectors starts to be far less efficient than tailoring the solution to each industry.
For example, steel is pure commodity, very difficult to eat any cost from stranded assets, and has far less ability to call up capital to solve the problem than, say, natural gas. So the price will have hugely different consequences for steel than natural gas production, and there are different tailored industrial policies that will make the transition happen much more time- and cost-efficiently.
I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't that mean that steel producers just end up passing on more of the cost to consumers in the form of higher prices, resulting in reduced steel consumption? It sounds like a tax would work fine.
By the way, I'm working on the assumption of a carbon price applied on fossil fuels at the source, such as the Energy Innovation Act would include.
By the way, I'm working on the assumption of a carbon price applied on fossil fuels at the source, such as the Energy Innovation Act would include.
Yes, but maybe steel is more essential to society than burning natural gas. But natural gas companies make more margin so they can afford the carbon credits, meanwhile steel has tighter margins so it gets passed to the consumer. This means it might disproportionately limit the consumption of things based on how much money they make. This is all fine until construction becomes more expensive because you can’t easily get the steel you need for buildings (what if you were trying to build a clean energy power plant and. Is it’s too expensive?). Some things are essential and need protection from the free market (ex, hospitals have diesel backup generators. Those would become more expensive). You could add a government subsidy for steel, but now you’re stacking laws on top of each other and playing centrally organized government. Which doesn’t work well.
The downside to having separate laws per industry is that you’ll get insane workarounds (see import tariff law). Carbon is carbon — so workarounds are easy. For example if natural gas is taxed higher than steel, you’ll have natural gas companies producing just enough steel to be qualified as steel production companies so that they get the lower rate. Or something like that.
Choosing policy is tremendously difficult. We could deliberate all day. despite what I’ve said, a carbon tax is better than doing nothing, and we would be wise to start creating/increasing carbon taxes already.
The downside to having separate laws per industry is that you’ll get insane workarounds (see import tariff law). Carbon is carbon — so workarounds are easy. For example if natural gas is taxed higher than steel, you’ll have natural gas companies producing just enough steel to be qualified as steel production companies so that they get the lower rate. Or something like that.
Choosing policy is tremendously difficult. We could deliberate all day. despite what I’ve said, a carbon tax is better than doing nothing, and we would be wise to start creating/increasing carbon taxes already.
If a) steel is more essential to society than burning natural gas and b) steel production is carbon-intensive, then an across-the-board carbon tax has two effects.
1. In the short term it makes steel more expensive. But because steel is essential, we still use it, it just costs a little more. If you're building a clean energy power plant, or making a generator for a hospital, some of the tax revenues could go to you, to make those things still affordable.
2. In the longer term, there are now huge financial incentives to either reduce the carbon consumption of steel production, or to replace steel with something which uses less carbon. Which is what you want.
1. In the short term it makes steel more expensive. But because steel is essential, we still use it, it just costs a little more. If you're building a clean energy power plant, or making a generator for a hospital, some of the tax revenues could go to you, to make those things still affordable.
2. In the longer term, there are now huge financial incentives to either reduce the carbon consumption of steel production, or to replace steel with something which uses less carbon. Which is what you want.
If we look at just steel:
Your implicit assumption is that companies are willing to pay more for steel. An increase of just a single digit percent more to the price of steel is enough to be completely uncompetitive with overseas steel production, which would inevitably lead to the closing of all local manufacturing capacity of steel.
Steel production is also a commodity critical to national security. Losing access to foreign steel due to war or other concerns would literally bring the country to its knees for the duration of the encounter.
Shifting all local manufacturing capability overseas to where there is less regulation sounds good, until it doesn't... as we saw during the pandemic. The world would have looked a lot different today if Chinese manufacturing had closed or decreased for more than a few weeks (roughly Jan-Feb, much of which coincided with the usual Chinese New Year shutdown that is typically planned for).
Your implicit assumption is that companies are willing to pay more for steel. An increase of just a single digit percent more to the price of steel is enough to be completely uncompetitive with overseas steel production, which would inevitably lead to the closing of all local manufacturing capacity of steel.
Steel production is also a commodity critical to national security. Losing access to foreign steel due to war or other concerns would literally bring the country to its knees for the duration of the encounter.
Shifting all local manufacturing capability overseas to where there is less regulation sounds good, until it doesn't... as we saw during the pandemic. The world would have looked a lot different today if Chinese manufacturing had closed or decreased for more than a few weeks (roughly Jan-Feb, much of which coincided with the usual Chinese New Year shutdown that is typically planned for).
But shouldn't carbon tax equally apply to imported steel? It wouldn't make any sense to only apply it to domestic.
So, I can see one obvious issue here. How do you know that what they say about their steel's carbon load is true? This goes double as they're incentivized to lie to you, you have minimal control over what happens in their country and worse, the incentives go all the way up to the nation states level, as being carbon neutral is counter to growth.
1. creates an insanely huge web of tax breaks, silver lining is that we would have a lot more accounting positions.
2. Replace steel? I see how this rationale works, we strive to replace X for something that generates less carbon, this ought to work to some extent until nothing more carbon neutral exist.
2. Replace steel? I see how this rationale works, we strive to replace X for something that generates less carbon, this ought to work to some extent until nothing more carbon neutral exist.
Consumption would only be reduced for industries that have a viable alternative. Maybe you can replace steel for some applications, but not all, and for those the costs will be passed on to the consumer who will bear this tax and will have no alternative on the market.
I think that's the point of the carbon tax.
That customers will feel price pressure from their most-carbon-emitting activities and commodities is precisely the point. This will encourage finding alternatives. No demand is entirely inelastic.
That customers will feel price pressure from their most-carbon-emitting activities and commodities is precisely the point. This will encourage finding alternatives. No demand is entirely inelastic.
The argument isn't that this wouldn't work, its that this would be sub-optimal.
Squeezing extra tax out of poor people who have literally no alternative is not going to be a popular plan. Allowing for a hint of nuance in your public policy would incentivize switching to alternatives where possible, while also incentivizing the development and adoption of alternatives where they don't currently exist.
Squeezing extra tax out of poor people who have literally no alternative is not going to be a popular plan. Allowing for a hint of nuance in your public policy would incentivize switching to alternatives where possible, while also incentivizing the development and adoption of alternatives where they don't currently exist.
People have thought of this--a popular kind of proposal is to return all the tax money as a dividend to everyone evenly, to ease the financial burden.
I think a carbon tax with dividend actually fits the criteria you are describing pretty well.
I think a carbon tax with dividend actually fits the criteria you are describing pretty well.
Wouldn't this have the perverse incentive of poor people wanting large emitters to keep emitting, because it directly puts food on their table?
In a sense yes, but I wouldn't call that an incentive, any more than I have an "incentive" for Chipotle to give me free burritos. I'm not the one making the decision there. The people who are doing the polluting have the right incentive, and that's what matters.
If the amount of the tax were fixed, the dividend would decrease over time, but the tax gradually increases as we get better and better at doing things without emitting greenhouse gases. The eventual target being net zero carbon. Based on the tax level in the Energy Innovation Act as an example, this is predicted around 2050.
If the amount of the tax were fixed, the dividend would decrease over time, but the tax gradually increases as we get better and better at doing things without emitting greenhouse gases. The eventual target being net zero carbon. Based on the tax level in the Energy Innovation Act as an example, this is predicted around 2050.
Poor people can still vote. And they will vote against anything that reduces their dividend, even if means voting against things that lower emissions.
As to your second point - moving the goalposts every time progress is made eliminates any incentive to improve. If you're committing to keeping the dividend the same over time, that means you need to keep the tax take the same. And if you're gonna take the same amount of money off me regardless, why should I pay attention to my emissions? In the limit case, of zero carbon, the carbon tax rate is infinite and you're taking a bunch of cash off people for nothing. Somewhere along the way, something has got to give.
As to your second point - moving the goalposts every time progress is made eliminates any incentive to improve. If you're committing to keeping the dividend the same over time, that means you need to keep the tax take the same. And if you're gonna take the same amount of money off me regardless, why should I pay attention to my emissions? In the limit case, of zero carbon, the carbon tax rate is infinite and you're taking a bunch of cash off people for nothing. Somewhere along the way, something has got to give.
> Allowing for a hint of nuance in your public policy
I am highly skeptical that is it possible for American legislation's 'nuance' to tilt a simple tax law in any direction but towards enriching the rich and powerful.
I feel like carve outs would be great for lobbyists and the politicians they pay patronage to, but it would destroy the effectiveness of the carbon tax: the industries with enough political power would negotiate exemptions because "there are no economically feasible alternatives" but making carbon-expensive activity economically infeasible is the core purpose or the carbon tax.
Exempting any industry in particular is just corruption.
I am highly skeptical that is it possible for American legislation's 'nuance' to tilt a simple tax law in any direction but towards enriching the rich and powerful.
I feel like carve outs would be great for lobbyists and the politicians they pay patronage to, but it would destroy the effectiveness of the carbon tax: the industries with enough political power would negotiate exemptions because "there are no economically feasible alternatives" but making carbon-expensive activity economically infeasible is the core purpose or the carbon tax.
Exempting any industry in particular is just corruption.
I absolutely agree. I have no faith that the government would do anything other than half measures at best. I consider policy discussions like this totally theoretical/intellectual
How long it takes for the market to produce viable alternatives is an open question.
But isn't it the point to make, e.g., steel and concrete construction include external costs? Vs, e.g. wood? Or renovating buildings instead of tearing down and rebuilding?
You could also have tax paid off over time. E.g. a concrete building that lasts 60 years, vs a stick build that lasts 20. Bricks are frequently recycled, >100 year lifetime.
I'm open to hearing counter-examples, i.e., where there is an external cost to not manufacturing a high CO2 cost product. The examples I've seen so far are really arguments about competition with BRICS economies, and their bizarre exemption from controls.
You could also have tax paid off over time. E.g. a concrete building that lasts 60 years, vs a stick build that lasts 20. Bricks are frequently recycled, >100 year lifetime.
I'm open to hearing counter-examples, i.e., where there is an external cost to not manufacturing a high CO2 cost product. The examples I've seen so far are really arguments about competition with BRICS economies, and their bizarre exemption from controls.
Here's the thing. Nobody wants to admit that solving climate change will involve reducing the standard of living of a lot of people. Some things will be more expensive, and people will consume less. If you think about it, without massive technological innovation, how could it be any other way?
Here's the thing. Nobody wants to admit that solving climate change will involve reducing the standard of living of a lot of people.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It will be expensive to switch to renewables, certainly, but the ongoing externalities and subsidies for fossil fuels are already extremely expensive to society. Even if you completely ignore climate change, the costs in terms of healthcare and QALYs just due to air pollution alone are tremendous.
We have the technology we need to solve climate change already, the problem is not that people aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices, the problem is that it's hard to get past societal inertia and overcome entrenched special interests.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It will be expensive to switch to renewables, certainly, but the ongoing externalities and subsidies for fossil fuels are already extremely expensive to society. Even if you completely ignore climate change, the costs in terms of healthcare and QALYs just due to air pollution alone are tremendous.
We have the technology we need to solve climate change already, the problem is not that people aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices, the problem is that it's hard to get past societal inertia and overcome entrenched special interests.
> but the ongoing externalities and subsidies for fossil fuels are already extremely expensive to society
Not really, that’s why it’s an externality. The damage in the US caused by climate change is maybe a few billion annually in increased hurricanes right now. That’s only like $10/person a year.
This is why it requires getting people to understand the future damage that will be caused. What’s happening now isn’t enough to justify doubling electricity costs, etc because most citizens aren’t feeling any pain from climate change.
> the costs in terms of healthcare and QALYs just due to air pollution alone are tremendous.
CO2 != “air pollution” in the sense that causes health problems.
Not really, that’s why it’s an externality. The damage in the US caused by climate change is maybe a few billion annually in increased hurricanes right now. That’s only like $10/person a year.
This is why it requires getting people to understand the future damage that will be caused. What’s happening now isn’t enough to justify doubling electricity costs, etc because most citizens aren’t feeling any pain from climate change.
> the costs in terms of healthcare and QALYs just due to air pollution alone are tremendous.
CO2 != “air pollution” in the sense that causes health problems.
They don't want to admit it because it's not clear it's true. Except perhaps for cars, because we need to drastically reduce vehicle miles travelled as we can't swap out our fleet fast enough and transportation miles are the biggest, hardest to solve sector of US emissions. Personally, if regulations allowed more living without cars, I think we would all have massively higher quality of life. The suburban lifestyle of living on a tiny island that can only be left with a car has drastically reduced most people's health, left them isolated, and has effects like making it so kids no longer play in streets. Allowing more people to live in neighborhoods where their daily errands and school drop offs could be met by short walking or biking trips would drastically improve their quality of life, instead of piling the family into the SUV and spending hours in traffic everyday.
For the rest of the word, we are having that massive technological innovation right now that will increase quality of life globally. For electrifying the developing world, micro grids with renewables and storage will be immensely cheaper than building our massive transmission grids and large centralized production.
Industrial sectors have the least clear path to decarbonizations, as well as sea-freight and flight, but if we can solve electricity and transportation in the next decade we have a few years so solve these far smaller sources of emissions.
There is a lot of reason to be worried, but there's also a ton of reasons to be hopeful. GDP is already decoupling from emissions, and I think as we decouple it further, we will find a higher quality of life for the vast majority of people, both in developed or developing nations.
For the rest of the word, we are having that massive technological innovation right now that will increase quality of life globally. For electrifying the developing world, micro grids with renewables and storage will be immensely cheaper than building our massive transmission grids and large centralized production.
Industrial sectors have the least clear path to decarbonizations, as well as sea-freight and flight, but if we can solve electricity and transportation in the next decade we have a few years so solve these far smaller sources of emissions.
There is a lot of reason to be worried, but there's also a ton of reasons to be hopeful. GDP is already decoupling from emissions, and I think as we decouple it further, we will find a higher quality of life for the vast majority of people, both in developed or developing nations.
It's not going to be a dystopia, and yes, urban design/zoning in the US is absolutely terrible. I hate it. I could rant about it for hours.
But if we have to drastically reduce ground freight and shipping emissions to reduce co2 emissions enough, which we do, goods will be more expensive. And it's also not free to switch private cars to EVs. If goods in general are more expensive, then peoples' money goes less far.
To be clear, I am in favor of this. Maybe you can make the very wealthy eat the cost, but somebody has to pay for it, and I can't see how it doesn't result in lower mean quality of life.
But if we have to drastically reduce ground freight and shipping emissions to reduce co2 emissions enough, which we do, goods will be more expensive. And it's also not free to switch private cars to EVs. If goods in general are more expensive, then peoples' money goes less far.
To be clear, I am in favor of this. Maybe you can make the very wealthy eat the cost, but somebody has to pay for it, and I can't see how it doesn't result in lower mean quality of life.
> we can't swap out our fleet fast enough
Average age of a car in the US is 12 years. The fleet gets swapped out naturally pretty quickly, and slight incentives would accelerate that. It's faster than swapping out electric generating capacity.
Average age of a car in the US is 12 years. The fleet gets swapped out naturally pretty quickly, and slight incentives would accelerate that. It's faster than swapping out electric generating capacity.
The other side of that is that we can't ramp EV production quickly enough to cause that swap out to happen any time soon, at least as far as I understand the industry.
If we are at 100% of new vehicles being electric in 2030, I'd be surprised but also ecstatic.
If we are at 100% of new vehicles being electric in 2030, I'd be surprised but also ecstatic.
Having EVs dominate new vehicle sales in 2030 would require an annual growth rate of ~50%. This is plausible.
Exactly.
In France we had a Citizen's Convention for Climate (CCC), basically a citizen's jury of 150 people tasked with finding solutions for the climate crisis.
One thing was extremely clear from their proposals: people are absolutely willing to have strong climate laws passed as long as they only constrain other people. Usually these other people being vague shapeless corporations, because it feels like any cost that they bear isn't a real cost.
Maybe a climate change solution won't reduce anyone's standard of living, but maybe it will. If we're content to say "we have to stop polluting activities unless someone's livelihood depends on it in which case we'll do something else", we're screwed. Every polluting activity has someone's livelihood depending on it.
In France we had a Citizen's Convention for Climate (CCC), basically a citizen's jury of 150 people tasked with finding solutions for the climate crisis.
One thing was extremely clear from their proposals: people are absolutely willing to have strong climate laws passed as long as they only constrain other people. Usually these other people being vague shapeless corporations, because it feels like any cost that they bear isn't a real cost.
Maybe a climate change solution won't reduce anyone's standard of living, but maybe it will. If we're content to say "we have to stop polluting activities unless someone's livelihood depends on it in which case we'll do something else", we're screwed. Every polluting activity has someone's livelihood depending on it.
You claim that “the price will have hugely different consequences for steel than natural gas production” as if that’s a problem so big that we should agree with you that a carbon tax is not a great solution. Why is that so bad - isn’t raising the price of steel exactly what a carbon tax should do?
I think the idea is that the steel/gas price changes would be disproportionate to their real carbon uses.
How would that happen?
If the price is set on carbon, I’d expect it to be proportionate.
If the price is set on carbon, I’d expect it to be proportionate.
I'll have to read the book because I thought this was actually the strength of the method not a weakness - that difficulty to decarbonize means it'll either push alternatives that are easier to into the market or allow the market to pay the cost to do the difficult changes in the most efficient way it can find.
I think we also need trade agreements to consider carbon tax, otherwise you would have unfair competition.
The current systmt is really distorted. Coal from Germany/Australia/US is taxed differently to coal from China/Indonesia. Products made from brown coal energy in China are untaxed. Chinese steel production using coal from Australia results in Australia having a carbon debt, but not China. If a ship is made with Chinese steel, no tax. Made with American/EU steel? Taxes.
If a ship burns the filthiest high sulphur bunker oil then it pays no more tax than a sail boat.
We can't fix climate change with exceptions for everyone.
If a ship burns the filthiest high sulphur bunker oil then it pays no more tax than a sail boat.
We can't fix climate change with exceptions for everyone.
A carbon border price was in Biden's campaign platform and it would be one of the best political moves he could make. US industry has a big advantage in carbon intensity over China, so a price would advantage domestic industry and at the same time put pressure on China to clean up faster. Both of these are big political problems for Biden.
Book criticizes failed market based efforts. (Duh.) Carbon pricing is a tax, not a market solution. (Right?) Further, most recently, carbon pricing policy proposals have been decoupling price from impacts, in recognition that good policy accommodates good politics.
So it seems to me the authors of carbon pricing proposals agree with this book, and pivoted accordingly.
So it seems to me the authors of carbon pricing proposals agree with this book, and pivoted accordingly.
This is the reality of carbon taxes as implemented in some Western European countries and Canada. A generic tax that applies to a limited set of activities then a sector-by-sector specific plan for most large industries depending on a lot of factors.
I suppose I should really read the book. But I am suspicious. To me having a carbon tax emphatically does not mean embracing some "capitalism solves all problems" ideology. Direct intervention is still needed, but direct intervention works best in conjunction with carbon taxes. You don't want the market trying to "route around" your direct intervention because there is no incentive to play ball.
See https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RI... for more of that.
If anything, it's actually this sort of nuclear subsidy that could be too hands off --- if it's like a 1990s throw money at ISPs for fibre with no strings attached tpye thing. I would say Carbon tax and nationalize the nukes.
See https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RI... for more of that.
If anything, it's actually this sort of nuclear subsidy that could be too hands off --- if it's like a 1990s throw money at ISPs for fibre with no strings attached tpye thing. I would say Carbon tax and nationalize the nukes.
Noah Smith has an article on Substack arguing that economists have largely failed to produce useful research on climate change, in part because of a preoccupation with carbon taxes to the exclusion of other research topics. The article is subscription only (edit: not true, see reply below), but his four big points are these:
* First, academic economists have basically ignored the topic. A survey of top economics journals found that, out of 77,000 total articles published, only 57 (0.074%) were about climate change.
* Many of the most cited papers have turned out to be crap, with basic calculation and data coding errors the authors have had to publish corrections for. Smith argues that this is partly because economists don't collaborate with other researchers much, especially natural sciences like climate change.
* The most important model for integrating climate change into macroeconomic analysis is the DICE model created by Richard Nordhaus. But the DICE model has big problems, the most important of which is that, due to discounting of future economic effects, it basically ignores the welfare of future generations. The DICE model also assumes that preventing climate change will be very expensive, and hasn't adjusted for recent technology advances on that front.
* Last, economists have been obsessed with carbon taxes, and haven't dealt with how politically unpopular they are, especially in international negotiations. This is, IMO, similar to how economists love to promote free trade, saying that the losers can be compensated via money from the overall economic gains, leaving everyone better off, and ignoring that this never, ever actually happens.
I'm in the camp that thinks that economists haven't earned a ton of credibility on the specific topic of climate change. Our best shot, IMO, is massive R&D efforts and CO2-removal geoengineering (especially wave-powered olivine weathering, as promoted by Project Vesta). Accompanied by crippling taxes on heavy emissions industries, but I think people will have an easier time accepting those if it's clear that governments are pursuing alternatives to taxes too.
* First, academic economists have basically ignored the topic. A survey of top economics journals found that, out of 77,000 total articles published, only 57 (0.074%) were about climate change.
* Many of the most cited papers have turned out to be crap, with basic calculation and data coding errors the authors have had to publish corrections for. Smith argues that this is partly because economists don't collaborate with other researchers much, especially natural sciences like climate change.
* The most important model for integrating climate change into macroeconomic analysis is the DICE model created by Richard Nordhaus. But the DICE model has big problems, the most important of which is that, due to discounting of future economic effects, it basically ignores the welfare of future generations. The DICE model also assumes that preventing climate change will be very expensive, and hasn't adjusted for recent technology advances on that front.
* Last, economists have been obsessed with carbon taxes, and haven't dealt with how politically unpopular they are, especially in international negotiations. This is, IMO, similar to how economists love to promote free trade, saying that the losers can be compensated via money from the overall economic gains, leaving everyone better off, and ignoring that this never, ever actually happens.
I'm in the camp that thinks that economists haven't earned a ton of credibility on the specific topic of climate change. Our best shot, IMO, is massive R&D efforts and CO2-removal geoengineering (especially wave-powered olivine weathering, as promoted by Project Vesta). Accompanied by crippling taxes on heavy emissions industries, but I think people will have an easier time accepting those if it's clear that governments are pursuing alternatives to taxes too.
That post isn't subscription only: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-has-climate-economics-...
Thank you for this link. This was a very worthwhile read.
Glad to see it too.
I wish there was some discussion of carbon tax and dividend though. Like I absolutely agree that the orthodox "supply constraints and everything is a tradeoff" macroeconomics is nuts, and climate resilience doesn't need to suck, but we also can't just have electric-car are way there.
We simply need to make driving suck more, separate from making taking the train suck less, and Carbon tax + dividend is a great way to do that fairly and with minimal pain.
I wish there was some discussion of carbon tax and dividend though. Like I absolutely agree that the orthodox "supply constraints and everything is a tradeoff" macroeconomics is nuts, and climate resilience doesn't need to suck, but we also can't just have electric-car are way there.
We simply need to make driving suck more, separate from making taking the train suck less, and Carbon tax + dividend is a great way to do that fairly and with minimal pain.
This sounds like a good article, I'll check it out. However, the claim that free trade doesn't lead to gains for losers in the economic sense is inaccurate. The poorest people worldwide have seen massive improvements to quality of life, even if things aren't perfect. Looking just at historical infant mortality rates, food/water access, education, and other broad metrics indicates life has been massively improving over the last century, worldwide. It's naive to think that free trade hasn't contributed to that.
As a quick example, free trade has allowed more developed nations (like the US) to leverage the labor markets in less developed nations, like China. As a result, money has flowed into those labor markets and increased the quality of life in those areas.
To be clear, those labor markets aren't perfect, and free trade as a universal good is a ridiculous idea. My point is just that free trade has led to a lot of good the world over and the referenced statement is over simplifying something that is very complicated.
As a quick example, free trade has allowed more developed nations (like the US) to leverage the labor markets in less developed nations, like China. As a result, money has flowed into those labor markets and increased the quality of life in those areas.
To be clear, those labor markets aren't perfect, and free trade as a universal good is a ridiculous idea. My point is just that free trade has led to a lot of good the world over and the referenced statement is over simplifying something that is very complicated.
I agree with your view on economists, but CCAS is a clown show that politicians use to delay taking real action. Biological and geoengineering strategies have promise but it will take decades of research, and we need to act now.
As far as convincing people, the way Canada gives taxpayers a big carbon tax refund is a good way to sell it. People love getting a summer bonus, and it still pushes people towards better solutions.
As far as convincing people, the way Canada gives taxpayers a big carbon tax refund is a good way to sell it. People love getting a summer bonus, and it still pushes people towards better solutions.
Not sure if a price that "starts small" is enough at this point. It may have been 15 years ago, but it seems like now it won't be enough to stave off a massive disaster. If there's only political will to start small, then obviously we should do that. It seems like the can kicking of the past has come to bite us in the ass, though, and these sorts of actions will not do it.
Given the uncertainty of climate effects, we should actually be starting very very very high, and then bringing it down as we have more certainty about the worst case effects. I need to find that paper from financial analysts that say that simpler, more politically achievable schemes with low starting prices completely mismodel the financial risk...
Unless you're advocating some kind of fundamental change in our systems of economy and government it seems kind of pointless to point out how a plan which has no hope of making it through might be better.
Any sort of carbon tax has no hope at all in the US! But pointing out that the optimal form is also the least politically acceptable is, IMHO, important for choosing how we address climate change and what sort of policies we choose.
Because "no hope" in politics can become "certain outcome" with only a few switches in influencers. The US is subject to minority veto in all of its national legislation, so if the Koch influence were to cease, or if there was a (shocking) change of heart from that huge influence on the minority political power that is the roadblock to a carbon tax, that could all change.
Because "no hope" in politics can become "certain outcome" with only a few switches in influencers. The US is subject to minority veto in all of its national legislation, so if the Koch influence were to cease, or if there was a (shocking) change of heart from that huge influence on the minority political power that is the roadblock to a carbon tax, that could all change.
A small price now, combined with projections that it will rise substantially over time will still affect the calculations of any major capital purchase. Of course, convincing people the price will rise is made difficult by the lack of seriousness to date.
Gasoline should be at least $25/gallon by now. So putting that aside, large-scale investment in nuclear seems to be the best option.
With a $5/gallon tax, you could pay $600/ton for direct air capture of carbon. This is the current price for small test installations. There are claims that this could decrease to as little as $40/ton with scale.
Any literature on this? I've not really followed the idea of carbon capture (other than planting forests and stuff).
I'm not convinced a carbon tax is politically viable. For some reason, they are incredibly unpopular. In very blue Washington state, they've made several attempts to pass one, and each has failed. The most recent was basically the cadillac of carbon taxes, they threw in everything you can throw in to address concerns. It still failed.
A carbon tax would be more popular at if it was redistributed to the citizenry.
Carbon tax is different from other taxes as the primary purpose is not to raise money for govt, it's to reduce carbon producing activity.
So take all the proceeds and distribute directly to every citizen to use as they want - e.g to buy petrol if that's their choice.
When people see those checks arriving they'll be more positive.
Carbon tax is different from other taxes as the primary purpose is not to raise money for govt, it's to reduce carbon producing activity.
So take all the proceeds and distribute directly to every citizen to use as they want - e.g to buy petrol if that's their choice.
When people see those checks arriving they'll be more positive.
> A carbon tax would be more popular at if it was redistributed to the citizenry.
The Washington state plan included this redistribution. People didn't go for it.
The Washington state plan included this redistribution. People didn't go for it.
What is the point? My gas bill goes up, only partially paid for by this check that I'm getting. A few who don't buy gas see some extra cash, but most people don't see any option to not drive so they lose.
The biggest changes will be made by businesses since they are much more price sensitive than individuals. A lot of things will happen that you don't even notice
Say you are choosing between 2 otherwise identical apartments that include utilities in rent. One building is more energy efficient than the other thus can charge less in rent and still make as much profit. Even though you are getting a dividend check you will still choose the lower priced apartment (if you are a rational economic actor).
Multiply this scenario across the billions of economic decisions across the economy and it adds up quickly.
In your specific scenario, since the initial tax is low a few pennies in added cost won't really matter, gas prices go up and down already. But you know that the price will continue to rise, so if you are a rational economic actor, the next time you buy a car you will take that into account. And by the time you need a new car the price of EVs may have declined enough to be cheaper than a new gas car, as they are predicted to be by the middle of the decade (fuel and maintenance are already significantly cheaper).
Say you are choosing between 2 otherwise identical apartments that include utilities in rent. One building is more energy efficient than the other thus can charge less in rent and still make as much profit. Even though you are getting a dividend check you will still choose the lower priced apartment (if you are a rational economic actor).
Multiply this scenario across the billions of economic decisions across the economy and it adds up quickly.
In your specific scenario, since the initial tax is low a few pennies in added cost won't really matter, gas prices go up and down already. But you know that the price will continue to rise, so if you are a rational economic actor, the next time you buy a car you will take that into account. And by the time you need a new car the price of EVs may have declined enough to be cheaper than a new gas car, as they are predicted to be by the middle of the decade (fuel and maintenance are already significantly cheaper).
You get the same refund whether you buy more gas or not. The point is it incentivizes people to use less carbon.
My point is most people don't see their gas consumption as something they can change. There are a few who will, and eventually more fuel efficient cars become popular, but for the most part people see gasoline as something you need to buy to live life. So if the price goes up other things get cut first. In other words gasoline is not very elastic, which we already know. When people start to see that carbon tax is why they can't live, they will vote to kill it.
In the US we are not in a situation where drivers are a small enough minority that they can be ignored.
In the US we are not in a situation where drivers are a small enough minority that they can be ignored.
We have friends who are into their car rallying.
They drive in a group of 4 or 5 families half way across the country towing their rally cars and entourage, let alone the actual racing part. It's a huge gas guzzling event.
Yes, they probably consider that they need to keep up this hobby "to live".
One of them said to me that she did feel bad about the environmental impact, but she had no way to offset it.
In her eyes, higher petrol prices would be good - unpleasant but good - because she could then be guilt-free about her carbon-spewing lifestyle.
This to me is the true beauty of a carbon tax.
They drive in a group of 4 or 5 families half way across the country towing their rally cars and entourage, let alone the actual racing part. It's a huge gas guzzling event.
Yes, they probably consider that they need to keep up this hobby "to live".
One of them said to me that she did feel bad about the environmental impact, but she had no way to offset it.
In her eyes, higher petrol prices would be good - unpleasant but good - because she could then be guilt-free about her carbon-spewing lifestyle.
This to me is the true beauty of a carbon tax.
> The most recent was basically the cadillac of carbon taxes, they threw in everything you can throw in to address concerns. It still failed.
Sounds like I need to read about that.
Also, shit. There goes one of my last hopes. Really hope Project Vesta pans out, because I don't see much else.
Sounds like I need to read about that.
Also, shit. There goes one of my last hopes. Really hope Project Vesta pans out, because I don't see much else.
I've been reading "Seeing Like a State", and this reminds me of the sort of legibility problems that States historically had around taxation. The premise of the book is that the State reorganizes society to make it easier to administer often times to the detriment of society itself. For instance, a medieval European kingdom wants to tax grain - there are no markets which determine the price of grain. There is no universal measurement, there is no universal language. Instead, each village has its own tradition founded upon hundreds of years of bitter dispute between the local lord, the peasants, and the local clergy. A peasant is given some number of baskets each year and is told to fill them up. The peasant and the lord don't trust each other. The peasant suspects baskets are bigger this year and the lord suspects the peasant will scheme to avoid filling them. So, everything is codified - the basket is filled from a certain height (eg shoulder) with a grain with a certain amount of wetness to a certain level - either mounded, semi-mounded, potentially leveled off with a specific tool, etc... Any changes to the system stand to create a revolt. Also, no one has a surname, detailed maps for productivity of fields don't really exist, and lets say 90% of males in England have 1 of 6 names. Peasants don't own anything anyway, but they have complex rules around the communal usage of land (even though that's illegal). Kings are forced to rely on the local knowledge of lesser lords as middlemen who can navigate the local systems without causing revolts; they in turn refuse to do anything to fix a system that benefits them greatly.
Anyway, that's about what I see happening if you try to tax carbon. There is no legibility into what causes pollution from the outside - you can't look at the good itself, you must know the history of all inputs down to the raw goods and then some! If you just tax the creation of carbon domestically, you will encourage offshoring everything that necessarily pollutes to places that will pollute way more. If you just tax big players, businesses will split off divisions to be under the limit. If you just tax certain industries, you will send them offshore (apart from air travel). The righter solution would be to implement a carbon VAT, so that you align the incentives of producers and consumers. Now, you are in the business of taxing grain from peasants! How much pollution goes into foreign steel? Who knows? Are their carbon offsets real? Do we just put a tariff on foreign steel which feels sorta right? That will violate trade deals and will doubtlessly punish the honest players the most, once again encouraging more pollution.
Anyway, that's about what I see happening if you try to tax carbon. There is no legibility into what causes pollution from the outside - you can't look at the good itself, you must know the history of all inputs down to the raw goods and then some! If you just tax the creation of carbon domestically, you will encourage offshoring everything that necessarily pollutes to places that will pollute way more. If you just tax big players, businesses will split off divisions to be under the limit. If you just tax certain industries, you will send them offshore (apart from air travel). The righter solution would be to implement a carbon VAT, so that you align the incentives of producers and consumers. Now, you are in the business of taxing grain from peasants! How much pollution goes into foreign steel? Who knows? Are their carbon offsets real? Do we just put a tariff on foreign steel which feels sorta right? That will violate trade deals and will doubtlessly punish the honest players the most, once again encouraging more pollution.
EU Emissions Trading System
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
The only way to make this work is to put the carbon tax into a fund that the US government has no access to, and to empty the fund every year, writing each American a check.
So, tax cuts. Got it.
Read the comment again, it’s not a tax cut.
It’s a revenue neutral tax increase on carbon, returned to the people who are now paying more for just about everything.
Poor people who don't use much carbon will net benefit. The rich who are now paying a bit more to re-fuel their private jets will pay a bit more.
It’s a revenue neutral tax increase on carbon, returned to the people who are now paying more for just about everything.
Poor people who don't use much carbon will net benefit. The rich who are now paying a bit more to re-fuel their private jets will pay a bit more.
That's literally a tax cut, but appropriately targeted at the not-rich this time.
Agreed. This is the approach favored by Janet Yellen, Biden's Treasury Sec and everyone from the NRDC to Exxon.
https://clcouncil.org/
https://clcouncil.org/
Exactly. Put the costs where they really are.
I would make a bit of of a change, though--make the carbon tax refundable. Lets say you tax CO2 emissions at $100/ton. You then pay $100/ton to anybody who effectively sequesters CO2.
In fact, I would pretty much scrap the emissions rules and replace them with taxes of this sort. There should be no acceptable level followed by fines, there should be a cost from the first gram.
I would make a bit of of a change, though--make the carbon tax refundable. Lets say you tax CO2 emissions at $100/ton. You then pay $100/ton to anybody who effectively sequesters CO2.
In fact, I would pretty much scrap the emissions rules and replace them with taxes of this sort. There should be no acceptable level followed by fines, there should be a cost from the first gram.
Is this different from the "trade" of cap and trade?
Yes, because in cap and trade the amount of pollution is decided by policy and price by the market.
In this fine-based policy, the price is set by policy and quantity by the market.
In this fine-based policy, the price is set by policy and quantity by the market.
Depends on how it works. "Offsets" for example basically allow companies to pay other companies to not cut down trees that it wouldn't cut down anyway. A direct tax on carbon emissions would avoid that sort of thing.
I don't know if that's better or worse, but my intuition is that a sweeping, solve-all solution will take forever to get through and measures like this are easier to push through faster. In software terms, it's more akin to a gradual refactor than a rewrite.
Unfortunately, at least in the US, Congress doesn’t appear to work that way. If they pass something, it is assumed to solve the problem, and they won’t want to touch it again for at least a decade.
> A broad carbon price that starts small but rises gradually
That would have been the plan 30 years ago.
Right now, we can either turn it up to 11 when the scheme starts, or face horrible consequences.
That would have been the plan 30 years ago.
Right now, we can either turn it up to 11 when the scheme starts, or face horrible consequences.
I support nuclear power and oppose subsidies for it. A better approach is to remove subsidies from their dirtier competitors.
Nuclear power capital requirements (up front) are one of the biggest roadblocks to building new plants, followed by regulatory complexity and cruft that hasn’t been streamlined to allow new reactor designs to be implemented.
Doing both, removing subsidies from dirty energy and moving them to nuclear, would be the best case.
Doing both, removing subsidies from dirty energy and moving them to nuclear, would be the best case.
I hear about regulatory cruft, but have never heard of examples of what would be changed.
We have two recent build sites in the US, one failed entirely, and the other is hobbling along. I've read lots of analyses and postmortems, and the only regulation-related criticisms I've found are that the NRC doesn't regulate enough. By only looking for safety of the design, Westinghouse was able to submit designs that were safe, but not particularly buildable. If the regulators had checked the work of Westinghouse to include basic build ability in addition to safety, tens of billions of dollars might have been saved, and we might have been building more nuclear reactors.
But I would like to hear more specific complaints about how regulations could change, if it has the chance to improve nuclear.
We have two recent build sites in the US, one failed entirely, and the other is hobbling along. I've read lots of analyses and postmortems, and the only regulation-related criticisms I've found are that the NRC doesn't regulate enough. By only looking for safety of the design, Westinghouse was able to submit designs that were safe, but not particularly buildable. If the regulators had checked the work of Westinghouse to include basic build ability in addition to safety, tens of billions of dollars might have been saved, and we might have been building more nuclear reactors.
But I would like to hear more specific complaints about how regulations could change, if it has the chance to improve nuclear.
I have one that's specific to new technology.
A few years ago I got to sit in a meeting between reps from a bunch of GenIV reactor startups, and a former head of the NRC. The reactor people had one complaint: that the NRC required near-complete blueprints before they would even look at a design. It cost several hundred million dollars to get to that point, then the NRC would give a flat yes or no. If no then you were out of business, and if yes then you still just had a paper reactor.
That's a really difficult environment for investors. They said it would be a huge help just to have a multi-stage process. The NRC person was unsympathetic, said it wasn't the NRC's job to help develop nuclear technology, and brushed off climate change arguments.
Fortunately Congress has gotten involved since then and things seem to be improving a bit.
A few years ago I got to sit in a meeting between reps from a bunch of GenIV reactor startups, and a former head of the NRC. The reactor people had one complaint: that the NRC required near-complete blueprints before they would even look at a design. It cost several hundred million dollars to get to that point, then the NRC would give a flat yes or no. If no then you were out of business, and if yes then you still just had a paper reactor.
That's a really difficult environment for investors. They said it would be a huge help just to have a multi-stage process. The NRC person was unsympathetic, said it wasn't the NRC's job to help develop nuclear technology, and brushed off climate change arguments.
Fortunately Congress has gotten involved since then and things seem to be improving a bit.
Tbh I can understand the need for near complete blueprints: Trying to judge a systems safety, based on plans of only half the system, does not sound like it would be a very useful judgement.
What's to prevent cutting massive corners after the original half plan was approved?
What's to prevent cutting massive corners after the original half plan was approved?
They weren't asking for final approval at an earlier stage. They were just asking for feedback along the way. That way they wouldn't have to guess whether their basic idea had a chance, and they could make changes to address concerns before spending hundreds of millions nailing down the details on something the NRC could have told them it considered fundamentally flawed. It would also help them with investors, when they could show favorable early feedback.
> But I would like to hear more specific complaints about how regulations could change, if it has the chance to improve nuclear.
https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop is a review of "Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop" by Jack Devanney.
Based on the review, the short version is that the regulators use the wrong threat model for radiation (LNT), and a regulatory model which effectively requires nuclear to be unprofitable (ALARA).
The review describes briefly what needs to be changed.
https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop is a review of "Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop" by Jack Devanney.
Based on the review, the short version is that the regulators use the wrong threat model for radiation (LNT), and a regulatory model which effectively requires nuclear to be unprofitable (ALARA).
The review describes briefly what needs to be changed.
Acronyms used:
LNT stands for Linear No Threshold: cancer risk is directly proportional to dose, that doses are cumulative over time (rate doesn‘t matter), and that there is no threshold or safe dose. This contradicts studies that we have about people who received enough CUMULATIVE doses of radiation that they would be dead if it was at the same time.
ALARA: Radiation should be As Low As Reasonably Achievable. In practice this means that any cost reduction simply means freed money that you're now required to spend on safety.
LNT stands for Linear No Threshold: cancer risk is directly proportional to dose, that doses are cumulative over time (rate doesn‘t matter), and that there is no threshold or safe dose. This contradicts studies that we have about people who received enough CUMULATIVE doses of radiation that they would be dead if it was at the same time.
ALARA: Radiation should be As Low As Reasonably Achievable. In practice this means that any cost reduction simply means freed money that you're now required to spend on safety.
Yeah, that's utterly stupid. We need to define a value per life saved and apply it across the board to safety regulations. Any safety regulation that comes in cheaper than that is required, no safety regulation that comes in more expensive than that is required. There should be no singling out of industries. All such regulations must include a reasonable description of how it can be done for that cost--which can be challenged in court. Likewise, outside groups can challenge proposals which have been rejected by showing there's a cheaper way to do it. (And this would include companies that stand to benefit. A company that comes up with a cheap enough way to implement a safety measure can get it mandated. While this could cause a monopoly situation they can't exploit it because if they make it too expensive the rule goes away.)
> is that the regulators use the wrong threat model for radiation (LNT)
Nuclear fans like to complain about the LNT, but I don't think they're really thinking this through.
In a nuclear accident, most of the population exposure will be a minor increase spread across a vast population. At those doses, we basically cannot check whether LNT is true or not -- the small cancer incidence it predicts is statistically invisible against all the other causes of cancer.
So foes of LNT want to say "we can't show LNT is correct", which is fine, but then they say "so we must assume the actual effect is smaller, perhaps zero", which is not fine. The evidence doesn't support that second step, and this is not a court of criminal law where radiation must be presumed innocent unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One might very well argue that one should take a precautionary approach, which is to assume that low level radiation has the worst effect it could have that is not ruled out by evidence. This would imply even larger threat than under LNT.
Nuclear fans like to complain about the LNT, but I don't think they're really thinking this through.
In a nuclear accident, most of the population exposure will be a minor increase spread across a vast population. At those doses, we basically cannot check whether LNT is true or not -- the small cancer incidence it predicts is statistically invisible against all the other causes of cancer.
So foes of LNT want to say "we can't show LNT is correct", which is fine, but then they say "so we must assume the actual effect is smaller, perhaps zero", which is not fine. The evidence doesn't support that second step, and this is not a court of criminal law where radiation must be presumed innocent unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One might very well argue that one should take a precautionary approach, which is to assume that low level radiation has the worst effect it could have that is not ruled out by evidence. This would imply even larger threat than under LNT.
We know the mechanism by which radiation causes damage: Particles knock into DNA, changing its structure. This causes mutations, and once too many of those accumulate, you get cancer, or your cells just stop working and you die.
This would suggest that the risk should be linear with radiation dose. But cells have DNA repair mechanisms. If a person receives a very large dose in a short amount of time, it makes sense that the repair systems might be too overwhelmed to fix all the damage that has occurred. Of course, the repair system isn't perfect, and some small fraction of damage will be permanent. This suggests that LNT should be true for small doses, but the harmfulness of radiation per particle should increase at larger doses.
A few consequences if that's true:
Depending on how the constant coefficient is determined, a fully linear health risk model will tend to overestimate risk at low dose rates, but underestimate at high dose rates.
This also suggests that radiation concentrated in a particular spot on the body is particularly dangerous. The cells in that location will be bearing the brunt of the radiation dose, so their repair systems are more likely to fail. So inhaling a bit of plutonium dust means you're in for a worse time than absorbing an equivalent dose spread out over your body.
Of course, whatever health risk model we choose, it should also be applied to the regulation of coal plants, since they put radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere as a part of their regular operation.
This would suggest that the risk should be linear with radiation dose. But cells have DNA repair mechanisms. If a person receives a very large dose in a short amount of time, it makes sense that the repair systems might be too overwhelmed to fix all the damage that has occurred. Of course, the repair system isn't perfect, and some small fraction of damage will be permanent. This suggests that LNT should be true for small doses, but the harmfulness of radiation per particle should increase at larger doses.
A few consequences if that's true:
Depending on how the constant coefficient is determined, a fully linear health risk model will tend to overestimate risk at low dose rates, but underestimate at high dose rates.
This also suggests that radiation concentrated in a particular spot on the body is particularly dangerous. The cells in that location will be bearing the brunt of the radiation dose, so their repair systems are more likely to fail. So inhaling a bit of plutonium dust means you're in for a worse time than absorbing an equivalent dose spread out over your body.
Of course, whatever health risk model we choose, it should also be applied to the regulation of coal plants, since they put radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere as a part of their regular operation.
It's also possible that repair mechanisms can be induced, with the body making more repair enzymes under higher damage load. If so, this would imply the danger from a single particle would be higher at low doses where less induction has occurred. This is radiation hormesis, but of a kind that means LNT could be underestimating the danger of very low doses of radiation.
You could be right, maybe there's a hormetic valley somewhere in the risk curve. I think it still has to be linear close to the background radiation level, and grow faster than linear as one approaches the lethal level, though.
Isn't it true that the proportionality coefficient for LNT was calculated using cancer rates for atomic bomb survivors? The dose for them would be very rapid, and there would be little time for enzymes to be produced. This would explain why such a valley didn't show up in that particular set of data.
Isn't it true that the proportionality coefficient for LNT was calculated using cancer rates for atomic bomb survivors? The dose for them would be very rapid, and there would be little time for enzymes to be produced. This would explain why such a valley didn't show up in that particular set of data.
LNT has been checked as far down as the statistics lets it be checked (including with animal experiments). Those doses are much higher than the doses I was talking about, the doses that actually matter for nuclear accidents. It's conceivable that the slope of the effect/dose curve at very low doses could be very steep. The results at those higher doses wouldn't be able to tell.
This is great, thank you!
Setting a firm limit on radiation release ahead of time, rather than one based on economics like ALARA just seems like it would be far safer. The other examples also seem like they are bad regulations that don't help safety or construction either. Would be great to see if they could result in more efficient construction.
Setting a firm limit on radiation release ahead of time, rather than one based on economics like ALARA just seems like it would be far safer. The other examples also seem like they are bad regulations that don't help safety or construction either. Would be great to see if they could result in more efficient construction.
Another way of setting a limit on radiation would be: 1/10 as much as an average coal plant per kWh. Current nuclear plants are already below this, because coal plants release a fair bit of radioactive material into the air, from trace elements like thorium in coal.
When regulations prevent deploying something 10x safer than the currently deployed alternatives, they're not making us safer.
When regulations prevent deploying something 10x safer than the currently deployed alternatives, they're not making us safer.
Nuclear plants may be below this in normal operation, but what matters is the dose in accident scenarios. That's what drives things like containment buildings, which are large and expensive.
It looks like private enterprise is maybe incompatible with Nuclear Power then. I find this to be pleasing, and we should simply side step private enterprise and build public plants.
How did you get that from the linked article? Or are you just shooting from the hip based on bias?
> By only looking for safety of the design, Westinghouse was able to submit designs that were safe, but not particularly buildable.
Because the commission is biased towards safety above all else. They need to be more realistic and not cave in to fearmongering. The design needs to be safe, but against a realistic threat model.
The designs also need to be assembly line and not so highly customized. French style reactor designs are good for this reason. Part that holds the reactor? Fine, evaluate for weather and calamity resistance and build per location. The reactor? Hope you like black.
Because the commission is biased towards safety above all else. They need to be more realistic and not cave in to fearmongering. The design needs to be safe, but against a realistic threat model.
The designs also need to be assembly line and not so highly customized. French style reactor designs are good for this reason. Part that holds the reactor? Fine, evaluate for weather and calamity resistance and build per location. The reactor? Hope you like black.
I don't see any evidence humans are smart enough to operate nuclear power safely. There are too many examples of humans not fully understanding nuclear, or just being stupid with nuclear. For example, building a nuclear power plant near an earthquake fault line in CA, or where tsunamis occur in Japan. We can't get the basics of safety right here.
I have a hard time coming to the same conclusion.
All of the problems with nuclear reactors have happened to plants which were designed and constructed in the 1950->1970s. As it turns out, we've learned a ton about safely operating nuclear plants. The problem is upgrading these old plants rarely happens and getting newer plants to replace them is equally daunting.
There are 3 examples of major nuclear plant problems. That doesn't seem like too many.
In contrast, there are hundreds of operating plants. The newer ones are particularly safe because they require positive input to keep the nuclear reaction going. Any sort of earthquake, tsunami, mudslide, etc that causes the plant systems to fail will cause the nuclear reaction to be halted.
Chernobyl, 3 mile island, and fukushima are all impossible in plants built in the last 25 years. (Gen III or newer)
All of the problems with nuclear reactors have happened to plants which were designed and constructed in the 1950->1970s. As it turns out, we've learned a ton about safely operating nuclear plants. The problem is upgrading these old plants rarely happens and getting newer plants to replace them is equally daunting.
There are 3 examples of major nuclear plant problems. That doesn't seem like too many.
In contrast, there are hundreds of operating plants. The newer ones are particularly safe because they require positive input to keep the nuclear reaction going. Any sort of earthquake, tsunami, mudslide, etc that causes the plant systems to fail will cause the nuclear reaction to be halted.
Chernobyl, 3 mile island, and fukushima are all impossible in plants built in the last 25 years. (Gen III or newer)
The US army tried and failed. The US Air Force tried and failed. The marines keep trying. Japan has had several fatal accidents in their civilian program just handling fuel. Even the navy limits them to specialist roles, and their success and safety record might all hinge on the legacy of one gifted man (Rickover).
I support research and trials of the SMRs, but you might want to consider the possibility that it really is hard at the full-system level. The human mind does not readily understand invisible, exponential process like radiation.
I support research and trials of the SMRs, but you might want to consider the possibility that it really is hard at the full-system level. The human mind does not readily understand invisible, exponential process like radiation.
Every power source has accidents. Deaths per TWh for nuclear are comparable to wind and solar. Every form of fossil is much worse. Hydro beats everything for major disasters; Banqaio Dam killed 26,000 people immediately and many more in the aftermath.
I'm sure the Army, Air Force, or Marines would if they practically could. The promise of power density with no logistics tail is magic. They choose not to because of practical, operational reasons.
> Deaths per TWh for nuclear are comparable to wind and solar.
A statistic that only works because epidemiological studies into the long term effects of radiation exposure are extremely difficult, complex and time consuming.
Something made even more difficult by the fact that we blasted uranium fallout in the atmosphere that's hanging around to this day, so getting a non-affected control group has become pretty much impossible.
Ain't helping that any research attempting to investigate the problem will very quickly be labeled as highly controversial by pro-nuclear lobbies [0]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/
A statistic that only works because epidemiological studies into the long term effects of radiation exposure are extremely difficult, complex and time consuming.
Something made even more difficult by the fact that we blasted uranium fallout in the atmosphere that's hanging around to this day, so getting a non-affected control group has become pretty much impossible.
Ain't helping that any research attempting to investigate the problem will very quickly be labeled as highly controversial by pro-nuclear lobbies [0]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/
What makes it even more difficult is natural background radiation. The global average is 2.4 millisieverts/year, with the US averaging 3.1 and Japan averaging 1.5. Medical scans add 0.6 mSv/year. Airline crews get an extra 2 mSv/year.
By comparison, atmospheric nuclear tests added 0.11 mSv at their peak in 1963, declining to 0.005 mSv/year today. Chernobyl added 0.04 mSv in 1986, declining to 0.002 today. The nuclear fuel cycle adds 0.0002 to the global average, and is required to be less than 1 mSv for all members of the public.
The highest natural background radiation is in Ramsar, Iran, with 6.0 mSv/year. Studies are ongoing but the evidence so far shows no negative health effects.
Note that Sieverts are normalized to the health effects on the human body. Any concerns about different types of radioactivity are already accounted for in this measurement.
Chernobyl and Fukushima of course caused larger exposures to nearby inhabitants, and these exposures are accounted for in the statistics I mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
By comparison, atmospheric nuclear tests added 0.11 mSv at their peak in 1963, declining to 0.005 mSv/year today. Chernobyl added 0.04 mSv in 1986, declining to 0.002 today. The nuclear fuel cycle adds 0.0002 to the global average, and is required to be less than 1 mSv for all members of the public.
The highest natural background radiation is in Ramsar, Iran, with 6.0 mSv/year. Studies are ongoing but the evidence so far shows no negative health effects.
Note that Sieverts are normalized to the health effects on the human body. Any concerns about different types of radioactivity are already accounted for in this measurement.
Chernobyl and Fukushima of course caused larger exposures to nearby inhabitants, and these exposures are accounted for in the statistics I mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
Even with all the disasters included, nuclear power is safer than almost all other kinds (the exception being very large hydro plants), per unit energy.
Interesting. I know nuclear power is far safer than it's general reputation.
Is nuclear really safer than solar?
This[1] has some data and estimations for death rates measured based on deaths from accidents and air pollution per terawatt-hour (TWh), which suggests nuclear has 0.07 deaths per TWh, which is marginally higher than wind (0.04), hydro (0.02), and solar (0.02).
So, it's very close!
1. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Is nuclear really safer than solar?
This[1] has some data and estimations for death rates measured based on deaths from accidents and air pollution per terawatt-hour (TWh), which suggests nuclear has 0.07 deaths per TWh, which is marginally higher than wind (0.04), hydro (0.02), and solar (0.02).
So, it's very close!
1. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
At the # of deaths produced by nuclear in normal operation, or by wind or solar, the "deaths" are dominated by the statistical lives due to the cost of energy itself.
The NRC uses a value of $9M for the value of a statistical life. That is, it is worth spending $9M if that will save one expected life.
Nuclear, solar and wind have deaths/energy somewhere in the ballpark of 1 life per 10^10 kWh. So, at $9M/life this cost is roughly $0.001/kWh. This is very small, which says that even minor differences in the cost of energy from various sources will be more important than the direct number of lives lost.
(This would not be true of fossil fuels, though.)
TLDR: it's more important to reduce the cost of energy from these non-fossil sources, and to choose the sources with lowest cost, than it is to make them safer. For nuclear, inherent safety could be useful if it would enable cost to be reduced, but not because nuclear needs to be safer.
The NRC uses a value of $9M for the value of a statistical life. That is, it is worth spending $9M if that will save one expected life.
Nuclear, solar and wind have deaths/energy somewhere in the ballpark of 1 life per 10^10 kWh. So, at $9M/life this cost is roughly $0.001/kWh. This is very small, which says that even minor differences in the cost of energy from various sources will be more important than the direct number of lives lost.
(This would not be true of fossil fuels, though.)
TLDR: it's more important to reduce the cost of energy from these non-fossil sources, and to choose the sources with lowest cost, than it is to make them safer. For nuclear, inherent safety could be useful if it would enable cost to be reduced, but not because nuclear needs to be safer.
That's bad data. Nuke is getting blamed for the Fukushima deaths that were due to the evacuation--neglecting the fact that the safest option was to stay put. If you replace the evacuation deaths (IIRC ~500) with the stay-put deaths (most likely zero) you about halve the nuke death rate.
The larger deployment of utility-scale solar does seem to have reduced it's death rate. (Many of the solar deaths are from falling off the roof during installation or maintenance. Utility-scale solar is normally on the ground and with better safety measures.)
The larger deployment of utility-scale solar does seem to have reduced it's death rate. (Many of the solar deaths are from falling off the roof during installation or maintenance. Utility-scale solar is normally on the ground and with better safety measures.)
> Nuke is getting blamed for the Fukushima deaths that were due to the evacuation
I think this is fair. /All/ deaths from nuclear and renewable power are due to accidents and bad decisions. Accidents and bad decisions aren't going to go away. It takes a monumentally boneheaded decision to make a nuclear power plant dangerous, but apparently the rate of monumentally boneheaded decisions is one per thirty years at our current level of nuclear power usage.
I think this is fair. /All/ deaths from nuclear and renewable power are due to accidents and bad decisions. Accidents and bad decisions aren't going to go away. It takes a monumentally boneheaded decision to make a nuclear power plant dangerous, but apparently the rate of monumentally boneheaded decisions is one per thirty years at our current level of nuclear power usage.
> but apparently the rate of monumentally boneheaded decisions is one per thirty years at our current level of nuclear power usage.
That rate is very likely to increase as time goes on and reactors become older and thus more prone to failure/some freak low probability incident happening.
That rate is very likely to increase as time goes on and reactors become older and thus more prone to failure/some freak low probability incident happening.
> or where tsunamis occur in Japan
This one is particularly interesting considering Fukushima wasn't the first time something like that happened. On the other side of Japan is the Kahiwazaki-Kariwa plant [0], the largest of its kind on the planet.
In 2007 that plant was already hit by an earthquake, shaking the plant beyond design basis, it was shut down for 21 months after that.
And even tho it wasn't affected by the 2011 earthquake that blew Fukushima up, it still was shut down to implement safety improvements, it remains shut down to this day with no date for resuming operations.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Pow...
This one is particularly interesting considering Fukushima wasn't the first time something like that happened. On the other side of Japan is the Kahiwazaki-Kariwa plant [0], the largest of its kind on the planet.
In 2007 that plant was already hit by an earthquake, shaking the plant beyond design basis, it was shut down for 21 months after that.
And even tho it wasn't affected by the 2011 earthquake that blew Fukushima up, it still was shut down to implement safety improvements, it remains shut down to this day with no date for resuming operations.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Pow...
Look at the US Navy operational record for nuclear power. That might convince you that humans can do it.
This isn't fearmongering:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348520
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348520
What is an example of this fearmongering, and what expense did it cause?
How about starting with mountainous environmental impact reports that no one reads?
Theres lots of room for maintaining effective oversight while making the overall processes more efficient.
The problem is the current processes were designed to be onerous due to those lobbying against nuclear power.
Also with new concepts like micro reactors or reviving long abandoned technology like liquid thorium reactors that would burn what we stupidly label “waste” and if the active systems are interrupted coast to a stop on their own instead of running away like our fast breeder water based designs a lot of the existing regulations and requirements are suddenly moot.
Most importantly Nuclear is the only “clean” technology that is predictable and controllable. Until you have a way to reliably meet base load requirements, fossil fuel generation is going to continue.
So if you really do think that climate change represents impending doom, resisting nuclear power is pretty dumb. It’s not perfect - but there isn’t any technology that is perfect or without some risk. Pretending nuclear is the only energy technology with serious issues is also dumb. 50 years of people painting nuclear as the boogie man hasn’t helped either. If you strongest arguments are emotionally based those aren’t very good arguments at all.
Also with new concepts like micro reactors or reviving long abandoned technology like liquid thorium reactors that would burn what we stupidly label “waste” and if the active systems are interrupted coast to a stop on their own instead of running away like our fast breeder water based designs a lot of the existing regulations and requirements are suddenly moot.
Most importantly Nuclear is the only “clean” technology that is predictable and controllable. Until you have a way to reliably meet base load requirements, fossil fuel generation is going to continue.
So if you really do think that climate change represents impending doom, resisting nuclear power is pretty dumb. It’s not perfect - but there isn’t any technology that is perfect or without some risk. Pretending nuclear is the only energy technology with serious issues is also dumb. 50 years of people painting nuclear as the boogie man hasn’t helped either. If you strongest arguments are emotionally based those aren’t very good arguments at all.
From the outside, you have large-scale accidents that caused a lot of fear that killed the drive for us. Notably Three Mile Island in the US and the effects of seeing what happened in Chernobyl that was drummed up by the US government to show failures by the Soviets (even though the Soviet reactor design was far more dangerous). Additionally, I live near a plant and they hold extreme safety training on iodine distribution and such to school children that makes kids fear the plant.
No denying that there's been fearmongering in general. But I'm still asking for an example of what regulation on the construction of nuclear plants should be changed.
What killed the drive for nuclear in the 1970s in the US was more that the costs came in very high, that electric power demand growth suddenly moderated, and that the grid was opened to external non-utility competition by PURPA in 1978 (four months before TMI).
In the documentary 'inside bill's brain', you hear that regulatory problems led his team of physicists to look to China for a manufacturing partner and a location to build a new reactor (which the trade war between US and China also squashed). If they could have built it on US soil, they would have.
A lot of it is chicken-and-egg problem. New nuclear plants are so rare that they each end up with being slightly different from one another, which adds to regulatory requirements.
If we started mass producing plants, there would be stronger push for uniformity in design and that would translate into significant cost savings. But no one is going to start mass producing plants because it's so difficult to get just one plant online.
If we started mass producing plants, there would be stronger push for uniformity in design and that would translate into significant cost savings. But no one is going to start mass producing plants because it's so difficult to get just one plant online.
Their job is to enforce safety, not good business decisions. :)
Whether subsidies are a good idea or not in general for nuclear is an interesting question. The article states that the current plan is to give production tax credits - tax credits for energy produced. Such a subsidy, which does not help mitigate the up front capital costs, would therefore not really address the root problem in the US.
To the more general question though: subsidies are to incentivize people (or companies) to do a thing (or do more of a thing). In the case of nuclear power, the timelines involved in building a power plant are so long, and given the uncertainty of having the same tax credits staying in place for long enough to impact financial plans, it seems unlikely that it would actually have the effect we'd want on nuclear power production.
To the more general question though: subsidies are to incentivize people (or companies) to do a thing (or do more of a thing). In the case of nuclear power, the timelines involved in building a power plant are so long, and given the uncertainty of having the same tax credits staying in place for long enough to impact financial plans, it seems unlikely that it would actually have the effect we'd want on nuclear power production.
Nuclear power requirements (up front) has also a big issue: the cost of money. The only viable solution is to have state-owned nuclear energy, because only states can borrow cheap money (ie. even at negative rates), where private companies are required to bleed interests during decades.
Nuclear is the cheapest energy when state-owned, but struggle to compete against coal/gaz otherwise.
Nuclear is the cheapest energy when state-owned, but struggle to compete against coal/gaz otherwise.
I think nuclear might have been the cheapest in the past, but it needs to be compared to modern technologies again and reassessed if it's going to have that crown now. It never got as cheap as it was claimed it would be, accounting for loan interest or not. And now we have just experienced a decade where intermittent renewables have plummeted in cost to below that of fuel-base energy. And storage is on that trend too, with storage being added to most solar and wind projects these days to increase profitability.
Nuclear is characterized by very low opex compared to capex, but that ratio is even higher with renewables. If we are going to give nuclear the benefit of low capital costs, we should also give renewables that same cheap capital when comparing to nuclear.
Nuclear is characterized by very low opex compared to capex, but that ratio is even higher with renewables. If we are going to give nuclear the benefit of low capital costs, we should also give renewables that same cheap capital when comparing to nuclear.
I know there's a huge "It depends",
But how much does a nuclear plant actually cost?
But how much does a nuclear plant actually cost?
The most recent plant to go online in the US cost $12 billion dollars, and had decades long construction delays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Plant
I'm not saying this *isn't* expensive, but it's way more affordable than I'd imagine.
> It never got as cheap as it was claimed it would be, accounting for loan interest or not.
I would say "citation needed". France typically had a documented public investment plan for nuclear energy, and is enjoying one of the cheapest and low-carbon emission electricity in Europe.
> And now we have just experienced a decade where intermittent renewables have plummeted in cost to below that of fuel-base energy
I still read this here and there, but strangely, solar/wind still need large subsidiaries to exist. How so ?
Other renewable such as hydro are fine, though, but they tend to be already at their max everywhere.
> And storage is on that trend too, with storage being added to most solar and wind projects these days
We don't have real storage solutions for now. Batteries ? Won't scale. Reversible dams ? Doable if you have the chance to have a lot of hydro.
I would say "citation needed". France typically had a documented public investment plan for nuclear energy, and is enjoying one of the cheapest and low-carbon emission electricity in Europe.
> And now we have just experienced a decade where intermittent renewables have plummeted in cost to below that of fuel-base energy
I still read this here and there, but strangely, solar/wind still need large subsidiaries to exist. How so ?
Other renewable such as hydro are fine, though, but they tend to be already at their max everywhere.
> And storage is on that trend too, with storage being added to most solar and wind projects these days
We don't have real storage solutions for now. Batteries ? Won't scale. Reversible dams ? Doable if you have the chance to have a lot of hydro.
I would love to see some documented costs for France, so I agree 100% with "citation needed". As for the US, the historical document I read that gave me the impression that it never got as cheap as claimed was this 1985 article in Forbes:
https://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-...
> but strangely, solar/wind still need large subsidies to exist
Citation needed here, too! The unsubsidized costs of solar and wind are still the cheapest sources, so they don't "need" subsidies to be deployed. The existence of tax breaks subsidies for wind/solar doesn't mean that the subsidies are needed, any more than the special tax break subsidies for oil/gas/coal are needed for those sources to keep on going.
> Batteries? Won't scale
This is a very strange claim! Not only do batteries scale beautifully in theory, we already have scaled them for deployment, with GWh grid batteries that can be scaled at the same site to 5-6GWh (Moss Landing, CA). Batteries can be deployed in homes, at distribution substations, underneath utility scale solar or wind farms, at old decommissioned fossil fuel sites so that the transmission capacity can be reused, on one side of a congested transmission line to avoid massive upgrade costs... Batteries are practically defined by their beautiful scalability, a real Swiss Army knife for any grid application
Current global production capacity for the lithium ion types of batteries is 285GWh, which on a GW completely dwarfs global nuclear deployment. Projections from the battery industry are for this amount to increase 10x every five years. And though lithium ion tech is by far in the lead, there are many other chemistries perfectly suited to grid use (but perhaps not cars), if lithium ion's improvement pace ever slows to let them catch up.
We are in a new era for energy, an era that is far more like tech, and less like the staid commodity industry that energy has been for the past century. Depreciation of grid assets is very slow, far slower than the tech change of energy tech, so we need to start paying very close attention to tech change curves if we don't want to waste massive amounts of money and screw up our fight against climate change.
https://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-...
> but strangely, solar/wind still need large subsidies to exist
Citation needed here, too! The unsubsidized costs of solar and wind are still the cheapest sources, so they don't "need" subsidies to be deployed. The existence of tax breaks subsidies for wind/solar doesn't mean that the subsidies are needed, any more than the special tax break subsidies for oil/gas/coal are needed for those sources to keep on going.
> Batteries? Won't scale
This is a very strange claim! Not only do batteries scale beautifully in theory, we already have scaled them for deployment, with GWh grid batteries that can be scaled at the same site to 5-6GWh (Moss Landing, CA). Batteries can be deployed in homes, at distribution substations, underneath utility scale solar or wind farms, at old decommissioned fossil fuel sites so that the transmission capacity can be reused, on one side of a congested transmission line to avoid massive upgrade costs... Batteries are practically defined by their beautiful scalability, a real Swiss Army knife for any grid application
Current global production capacity for the lithium ion types of batteries is 285GWh, which on a GW completely dwarfs global nuclear deployment. Projections from the battery industry are for this amount to increase 10x every five years. And though lithium ion tech is by far in the lead, there are many other chemistries perfectly suited to grid use (but perhaps not cars), if lithium ion's improvement pace ever slows to let them catch up.
We are in a new era for energy, an era that is far more like tech, and less like the staid commodity industry that energy has been for the past century. Depreciation of grid assets is very slow, far slower than the tech change of energy tech, so we need to start paying very close attention to tech change curves if we don't want to waste massive amounts of money and screw up our fight against climate change.
Where batteries stop scaling you can produce Hydrogen or Methane. The efficiency sucks, but most countries already have infrastructure to store huge amounts of gas.
One can also go to alternate battery chemistries optimized for longer term storage. In particular, this means capital cost is more important, but specific power and efficiency are less important. Electrodes optimized for cost rather than ion mobility, for example.
Hydrogen would still be hard to beat for seasonal storage, though.
Hydrogen would still be hard to beat for seasonal storage, though.
Have the Navy run them, make the land Navy bases (Crane Naval Support [1] near Bloomington, IN comes to mind). Encourage efficiency, require transparency, but have no tolerance for safety deficiencies or shortcuts.
[1] https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Crane/
[1] https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Crane/
We do *not* want naval reactors!
Normal civilian reactors work on low enrichment uranium or even natural uranium--stuff that has no potential to go boom.
Even reprocessing isn't the danger it's made out to be. First, the plutonium from spent reactor fuel has a lot of Pu-240 in it. Bombs need Pu-239, too much Pu-240 will make them malfunction. (If you are trying to make Pu-239 you switch out the fuel rods much more frequently.) Second, the reprocessing plant has access to a lot of very hot stuff. All you actually need to do in reprocessing is strip out the waste products that poison the reaction, a fuel rod heavily "contaminated" with something like Cobalt-60 won't interfere with reactor operation, but it will ensure no thief will make off with it.
Naval reactors, however, are built to be as small as possible. That means very highly enriched uranium. Building a gun-type uranium bomb is easily within the range of what Al Qaeda can do, the limiting factor is obtaining the materials. Thus naval reactor fuel needs to be treated with extreme security.
Normal civilian reactors work on low enrichment uranium or even natural uranium--stuff that has no potential to go boom.
Even reprocessing isn't the danger it's made out to be. First, the plutonium from spent reactor fuel has a lot of Pu-240 in it. Bombs need Pu-239, too much Pu-240 will make them malfunction. (If you are trying to make Pu-239 you switch out the fuel rods much more frequently.) Second, the reprocessing plant has access to a lot of very hot stuff. All you actually need to do in reprocessing is strip out the waste products that poison the reaction, a fuel rod heavily "contaminated" with something like Cobalt-60 won't interfere with reactor operation, but it will ensure no thief will make off with it.
Naval reactors, however, are built to be as small as possible. That means very highly enriched uranium. Building a gun-type uranium bomb is easily within the range of what Al Qaeda can do, the limiting factor is obtaining the materials. Thus naval reactor fuel needs to be treated with extreme security.
Apologies if my thesis wasn't clear. I'm advocating for Navy administration of the commercial nuclear fleet being subsidized by the federal gov, not Naval reactors of the same design you'd put at sea. The value is in accountability and chain of command ("safety culture"), not the marine vessel reactor design.
Or have the government own the plants and lease out operation to a qualified commercial operator with rigorous certification requirements and regular recertification requirements.
I have more faith in the military chain of command versus a contractor who isn’t going to give AF if they lose a contract and the US gov has to pay out to rehabilitate a facility that wasn’t properly maintained.
Contractors have less fear than someone who can be jailed (and let’s be honest, contractors and other commercial entities are never held accountable when they cut corners for profit and pollute with wild abandon leaving us with Superfund sites).
Contractors have less fear than someone who can be jailed (and let’s be honest, contractors and other commercial entities are never held accountable when they cut corners for profit and pollute with wild abandon leaving us with Superfund sites).
> when they cut corners for profit and pollute with wild abandon leaving us with Superfund sites
The military doesn't have a great track record on Superfund sites i.e:
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0...
However, I agree that at least the military has the culture that will follow orders if asked, and more importantly, it's the only government program that the US population is willing to put unchecked amounts of money towards.
As Reagan said: "trust, but verify".
The military doesn't have a great track record on Superfund sites i.e:
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0...
However, I agree that at least the military has the culture that will follow orders if asked, and more importantly, it's the only government program that the US population is willing to put unchecked amounts of money towards.
As Reagan said: "trust, but verify".
Why does it need to be run by a commercial operator at all? What advantage does that confer?
[deleted]
[deleted]
The US Navy is not exactly known for great cost efficiency or safety.
[Citation needed]
Google USS Fitzgerald as well as Fat Leonard, that will put you on the path to understanding the pervasive problems in 7th fleet. They've chopped off heads in leadership, so maybe things are moving towards better, but it's undeniable there's been a huge problem festering for ages.
Familiarize yourself with the Zumwalt and LCS procurement programs. Both are nearly total failures, with the Navy grasping at straws to find ways to make the ships that have been constructed useful. Congress bears some of the blame here, particularly in relation to Zumwalt, but it's also clear Navy leadership has been often incompetent in planning future acquisitions. Those two programs cost US tax payers about $50 billion.
Familiarize yourself with the Zumwalt and LCS procurement programs. Both are nearly total failures, with the Navy grasping at straws to find ways to make the ships that have been constructed useful. Congress bears some of the blame here, particularly in relation to Zumwalt, but it's also clear Navy leadership has been often incompetent in planning future acquisitions. Those two programs cost US tax payers about $50 billion.
Having state-owned utilities also removes the profit motive, which is always at odds with safety and reliability.
[deleted]
This isn't about new reactors, it's about operating subsidies to keep existing ones running.
So don’t build big plants. Micro reactors are far cheaper, easier to maintain and a distributed network of micro reactors would greatly reduce the burden on our already archaic national electric grid.
Kill two birds with one stone and all that…
Kill two birds with one stone and all that…
One issue with micro-reactors is that they make non-proliferation harder. It's much easier to verify that no uranium goes missing from 100 giant reactors than 100,000 small ones.
You could always install the 100,000 small reactors at 100 large sites.
Are there any micro-reactor designs that use non-enriched or minimally enriched uranium? My understanding is that natural uranium isn't really that dangerous, even in a dirty bomb, and then in terms of proliferation it already isn't that hard to get it.
Yeah. Uranium for sale, no permits: https://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&c...
Most reactors use somewhere in the range of 3-5% U235 (compared to .7% naturally). That by itself won't let you make a bomb, but it gets you about 1/8th of the way to 20% which is about where a bomb is possible.
I assume the risk is that a bad actor could make a dirty bomb from the uranium. If that's the case, how does the risk of that compare to the risk of other attacks against our water supplies, pipelines, bridges, or even poison gas attacks?
How do you compare the deaths from a distributed reactor network to the deaths from additional global warming?
How do you compare the deaths from a distributed reactor network to the deaths from additional global warming?
As others pointed out - just because you have lots of micro reactors, they all don’t have to be in individual locations.
And there are far more easily obtainable things than uranium if you want to construct a dirty bomb. Another fantastic anti-nuke red herring.
And there are far more easily obtainable things than uranium if you want to construct a dirty bomb. Another fantastic anti-nuke red herring.
The 100,000 smaller reactors can still be put in the same place as the 100 giant reactors to make inspection and monitoring easier. The modular design makes incremental capacity upgrades easier, makes maintenance and repair easy, and helps to put more testing and QA on the modular design. Just think of it as 100 locations where you can either have 1 giant reactor each or up to 1000 modular micro-reactors.
I love the idea, but how much energy to micro-reactors provide today, on a commercial basis?
NuScale is the furthest along. Their design has been certified by the NRC, their first project is scheduled to come online towards the end of this decade.
As much as you need. Modern designs are modular - chain together as many as you need to provide base load and also provide some overage so you have coverage when they do inevitably need servicing.
Or since they are modular if significant long term loads shift geographically, you can easily move them around to where needed too.
I agree the concepts of massive plants aren’t desireable - luckily there are alternatives if we can ever get past the emotional arguments and actually discuss things rationally.
Or since they are modular if significant long term loads shift geographically, you can easily move them around to where needed too.
I agree the concepts of massive plants aren’t desireable - luckily there are alternatives if we can ever get past the emotional arguments and actually discuss things rationally.
They sound awesome, but as far as I know they still haven't been commercialised so their potential is still largely unknown.
NuScale is still moving, but they have slipped on schedule and budget, far enough some of their project partners have pulled out.
So far everyone who's pursued this small modular reactors built by factories approach has failed in the ambition. Doesn't mean it's impossible but just maybe we should be a bit more bearish than bullish on the idea of this sparking a revolution in the capital costs and time scales of nuclear power.
So far everyone who's pursued this small modular reactors built by factories approach has failed in the ambition. Doesn't mean it's impossible but just maybe we should be a bit more bearish than bullish on the idea of this sparking a revolution in the capital costs and time scales of nuclear power.
Ideas about how to run governments need to be thought of in context of how the government operates. If was emporer of the USA, I would do what you suggest. But if I was president, I probably could not.
I think a better approach is to change some of the regulation. Most of it is good, but some of it is kinda insane. My father worked on nuclear plants in the 70-80's. According to him, from the 80's on it effectively was so much regulation that it was not at all worth building a plant.
With technological advancement, a little change in regulations could go a long way.
With technological advancement, a little change in regulations could go a long way.
If you know, I would love to hear some of the specific regulations that he thought were ineffective and or hampering our nuclear power construction. I've seen it mentioned in this thread without specifics.
According to my father, the unions were requiring some crazy stuff like you had a pipe fitter do X, then a different pipe fitter do Y. Both had to be on seperate days.
My dad actually left his role when he was stuck in a pipe shaft in 120 degree heat. A pipe fitter went up and the person who helped him out of the pipe and was fired for not following protocol.
The regulation came in when they started codifying the union rules. There was also an incident where Westinghouse and GE were faking inspections. I don't have specifics on hand.
Generally though, it seems corrupt. At least at the time, the unions essentially controlled construction and wanted to line their pockets, the politicians also lined their pockets. Eventually, the cost was too high to build.
My dad actually left his role when he was stuck in a pipe shaft in 120 degree heat. A pipe fitter went up and the person who helped him out of the pipe and was fired for not following protocol.
The regulation came in when they started codifying the union rules. There was also an incident where Westinghouse and GE were faking inspections. I don't have specifics on hand.
Generally though, it seems corrupt. At least at the time, the unions essentially controlled construction and wanted to line their pockets, the politicians also lined their pockets. Eventually, the cost was too high to build.
Nuclear radiation safety is assessed using the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" standard, which essentially says that if you make a nuclear power plant produce power at half the price of the next-door coal power plant, you have to spend all of the increased profit on increased safety measures. Nuclear can never out-compete non-nuclear power under that regulatory regime.
I'm fine with subsidies for nuclear power given the absolutely terrifying stakes of unchecked climate change.
Yes, I'd much rather that my taxes go to an up-front long term investment than have it blown away reacting to something that could have been prevented!
It's a good investment for taxpayers, unlike subsidizing dino juice.
It's a good investment for taxpayers, unlike subsidizing dino juice.
Couldn't say it better. Subsidies don't work out the way you want. Look at ethanol: it's an incredibly dirty fuel source (using tons of diesel to make "fuel", smart!) but the ethanol lobby and unions have entrenched themselves permanently so its not worth the fight.
It just occurred to me that the EV transition will also affect food prices, that should be interesting. Big agro and big oil batting against it. Not sure how we are making even the little progress we are.
Indeed, 40% of US corn is used for ethanol so the potential effect could be huge. However, there's a lot of movement afoot in the ethanol industry for using carbon capture. My guess is given the Ag lobby biofuel will be retained for some time.
What unions are involved in ethanol? That's primarily the corn farmer/big ag corps' interest.
According to 2014 Elon Musk, if you cover the same square footage as taken up by a nuclear power plant and its exclusion zone with solar cells, you’ll get more electricity than the nuclear power plant would have supplied.
2014 was a long time ago. It’s possible both technologies have improved since then. I wonder why we don’t hear about this comparison more.
2014 was a long time ago. It’s possible both technologies have improved since then. I wonder why we don’t hear about this comparison more.
Probably because it ignores the fact that solar isn’t predictable (nighttime? clouds? dust?) and nuclear is.
Solar is NOT a replacement for nuclear. It absolutely can augment power generation, but it - especially solar cells - is not a reliable base load provider.
No amount of hand waving by solar cell proponents will change that. If we ever discover a way to reasonably store electrical power that’s far more reliable and cost effective than chemical batteries then that equation will change - but we aren’t there today. Nuclear is here now and there are more than enough designs that are inherently safe and cost effective that never get discussed because everyone emotionally freaks out as soon as the word “nuclear” is uttered :p
Solar is NOT a replacement for nuclear. It absolutely can augment power generation, but it - especially solar cells - is not a reliable base load provider.
No amount of hand waving by solar cell proponents will change that. If we ever discover a way to reasonably store electrical power that’s far more reliable and cost effective than chemical batteries then that equation will change - but we aren’t there today. Nuclear is here now and there are more than enough designs that are inherently safe and cost effective that never get discussed because everyone emotionally freaks out as soon as the word “nuclear” is uttered :p
Solar + hydrogen is just as predictable as nuclear. It costs roughly twice as much (because of 50% loss on electrolysis and back), but ends up providing a stable power output independent of weather.
It’s conparable in place to nuclear if I’m not mistaken, and it’s fault scenarios are less severe.
Especially in US, with vast amounts of deserts, it seems like a no-brainer.
(having said that, climate change is so urgent that I’d say do whatever it takes to get to zero emmissions - be it nuclear or solar)
It’s conparable in place to nuclear if I’m not mistaken, and it’s fault scenarios are less severe.
Especially in US, with vast amounts of deserts, it seems like a no-brainer.
(having said that, climate change is so urgent that I’d say do whatever it takes to get to zero emmissions - be it nuclear or solar)
In support of your point, I’d add that when doing cost comparisons with nuclear, one has to be wary of the accounting tricks they play such as not factoring in the costs of failure scenarios. Or even end of life decommissioning in some cases.
Except if you are pitching it as a solution for the base load problem - where is anyone doing solar+hydrogen at scale? Where is anyone committing to doing it at scale - let alone in the near future? How do we know it will remain economical at scale? All kinds of fun things can happen between theory/demonstration and implementation in the real world.
We do nuclear at scale today. The vast majority of blockers from doing more nuclear at scale today are political; not technical.
That’s the other facet of this that always seems to get overlooked.
We do nuclear at scale today. The vast majority of blockers from doing more nuclear at scale today are political; not technical.
That’s the other facet of this that always seems to get overlooked.
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
You don’t need one huge plant to manage the baseload when we’re talking about renewables.
You can just as well have the same wattage distributed across multiple places in the country, removing a single point of failure and lowering transmission costs (although requiring a redesign of the energy grid).
You don’t need one huge plant to manage the baseload when we’re talking about renewables.
You can just as well have the same wattage distributed across multiple places in the country, removing a single point of failure and lowering transmission costs (although requiring a redesign of the energy grid).
Do you have an example of a specific scaling problem which applies to solar+hydrogen and probably can't easily be surmounted?
Or is your argument just "We're not doing it yet, therefore it can never be done"?
Or is your argument just "We're not doing it yet, therefore it can never be done"?
Solar coupled with modern batteries, obviously.
No hand waving required. It’s fine for other sources (even nuclear) to fill in the gaps. Also no need for accusations of emotional freak outs. I think the nuclear side has its fair share of deluded people who for some reason pretend that both solar and batteries are not improving year by year. And who pretend that solar advocates demand solar-only solutions. It’s just not the case.
No hand waving required. It’s fine for other sources (even nuclear) to fill in the gaps. Also no need for accusations of emotional freak outs. I think the nuclear side has its fair share of deluded people who for some reason pretend that both solar and batteries are not improving year by year. And who pretend that solar advocates demand solar-only solutions. It’s just not the case.
The demand for battery materials could eventually exceed the pace that we can mine them, so the world's grids will need significantly more types of non-battery energy storage like pumped hydro and flywheels. This will ensure that the market for grid storage materials doesn't have to compete with the car market's growing demand for batteries.
There are a few new flywheel plants that have popped up in the US in recent years, and it'll be interesting to compare the material costs and benefits over the coming decades.
There are a few new flywheel plants that have popped up in the US in recent years, and it'll be interesting to compare the material costs and benefits over the coming decades.
Where are you going to get enough batteries?
If batteries were viable Elon wouldn’t just be talking about them.
Batteries are no where near the cost efficiency of, say, pumped hydro. Nor can batteries touch the overall capacity of pumped hydro. And pumped hydro can’t happen just anywhere - you need the right physical environment for it to be effective.
So yeah, unless you have something more concrete than “batteries, obviously” it is hand waving.
If batteries were viable Elon wouldn’t just be talking about them.
Batteries are no where near the cost efficiency of, say, pumped hydro. Nor can batteries touch the overall capacity of pumped hydro. And pumped hydro can’t happen just anywhere - you need the right physical environment for it to be effective.
So yeah, unless you have something more concrete than “batteries, obviously” it is hand waving.
> Elon wouldn’t just be talking about them.
Just talking? He’s making them at scale.
Just talking? He’s making them at scale.
Batteries aren't going to cut it. The last I checked batteries are an expensive source of power even if you can charge them for free. The cost of the battery / cycles it can deliver is already more than the cost of electricity in most places. We need a major breakthrough in storage before renewables are more than a way to reduce fossil fuel use in powerplants. (You still need the plants, just not as much fuel for them.)
There is also somewhat of a use case for renewables for powering things that can make do with highly unreliable power. Consider, for example, a desalination plant. The heart of the plant is pumping water through membranes--but do you really need to do that? Lets build our plant differently, build a storage system high enough up that gravity provides the pressure. When you have power you run the pumps to fill the storage system, when you don't have power you don't run the pumps. You need bigger pumps and you need a big storage tank but it can be done.
Or flip the scenario--don't pump the seawater in the first place. Place your desalination plant on the ocean floor and use your pumps to extract the fresh water. In this case you need fresh water storage underwater rather than salt water storage up high.
There is also somewhat of a use case for renewables for powering things that can make do with highly unreliable power. Consider, for example, a desalination plant. The heart of the plant is pumping water through membranes--but do you really need to do that? Lets build our plant differently, build a storage system high enough up that gravity provides the pressure. When you have power you run the pumps to fill the storage system, when you don't have power you don't run the pumps. You need bigger pumps and you need a big storage tank but it can be done.
Or flip the scenario--don't pump the seawater in the first place. Place your desalination plant on the ocean floor and use your pumps to extract the fresh water. In this case you need fresh water storage underwater rather than salt water storage up high.
Let's look at results from a model.
https://model.energy/
In the 2030 cost model they use, batteries are 142 euro/kWh of capacity and 160 euro/kW of power. This (using 2011 weather data, along with various other assumptions, and also includes use of hydrogen) gives "synthetic baseload" in the US for 53.7 euro/MWh, cheaper than nuclear. The LCOS in batteries and (even more so) in hydrogen is higher than the cost of electricity, but that's ok.
(If you look at other countries, or specific states in the US, the results vary but remain broadly similar. The mix of solar vs. wind can change a lot though. Places like Poland are the worst for renewables in this model.)
https://model.energy/
In the 2030 cost model they use, batteries are 142 euro/kWh of capacity and 160 euro/kW of power. This (using 2011 weather data, along with various other assumptions, and also includes use of hydrogen) gives "synthetic baseload" in the US for 53.7 euro/MWh, cheaper than nuclear. The LCOS in batteries and (even more so) in hydrogen is higher than the cost of electricity, but that's ok.
(If you look at other countries, or specific states in the US, the results vary but remain broadly similar. The mix of solar vs. wind can change a lot though. Places like Poland are the worst for renewables in this model.)
That didn't seem right, so I looked up nuclear exclusion zones -- those things are huge!
[1] https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x1000/00/196800-050-E30A2B4A...
[1] https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x1000/00/196800-050-E30A2B4A...
I think the exclusion zones estabilished after NPP accidents may be different from the exclusion areas as designed as safety precautions (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part100/p...).
I think this is a more realistic example. Note the proximity of houses: https://goo.gl/maps/GJQYr8yg6EYxSmZeA
They are huge, but they're also rare, and excessive. Especially for Chernobyl the exclusion zone includes vast areas no more radioactive than, say, Denver or other high altitude cities, and people kept working at Chernobyl (several of the reactors remained operational) for many years, and people have kept living within the exclusion zones. It was probably the right thing to set it as big as it was given we didn't know better at the time, but if anything Chernobyl has shown that the effects are far less severe than feared.
Yeah, but per the Musk quote, I bet you really could pack enough solar panels into the Chernobyl exclusion zone to overtake the power produced by the plant itself.
Quite possibly. But that is the only plant in the world with an exclusion zone that big, so it doesn't generalize. As such it's meaningless.
It's likely to remain the only one with an exclusion zone that big given what we have learned about how low the lethality of Chernobyl was.
It's likely to remain the only one with an exclusion zone that big given what we have learned about how low the lethality of Chernobyl was.
I don’t think the quote was talking about post-accident Chernobyl though.
The same I would think is true with coal power plants. Our local coal plant has a huge footprint, especially when you consider the cooling pond/lake, scrubbers, support buildings etc. This is not even considering the mining of fissile material/coal to feed these facilities as well, which also often have a large footprint as well. Plus the additional storage of waste, both short term and long term.
That's for conventional nuclear. Small reactors will take a order less as they have structurally safer designs.
Don’t you love vaporware? It can do anything!
Real-life non-vaporware solar + battery combo installations are improving and spreading all the time.
By the time vaporware small nuclear materializes outside of demonstration projects (10 years? 20?) there’s no telling how efficient and ubiquitous solar + batteries will be.
Real-life non-vaporware solar + battery combo installations are improving and spreading all the time.
By the time vaporware small nuclear materializes outside of demonstration projects (10 years? 20?) there’s no telling how efficient and ubiquitous solar + batteries will be.
[deleted]
Sure, but nuclear runs 24/7 with dependable output. Build 100 nuclear power plants and you have 99.9999% uptime and no battery.
If Elon is a willing to start selling power walls at 100$ / kwh retail at scale then we’ll talk.
If Elon is a willing to start selling power walls at 100$ / kwh retail at scale then we’ll talk.
I feel like it would be far more politically practical to add subsidies to Nuclear rather than take away existing subsidies on other things.
The problem is capital doesn't care about the big picture. Nuclear power is an upfront costly measure, you don't see a return for perhaps decades. That's fine if you are a public agency since in time, this will pay for itself, and the concern is about bettering the public in the best way possible, not making a quick return on investment.
It's not fine if you are a private energy company with shareholders who are looking to take on a gain and who are only looking at life one quarter at a time. Executives would rather invest in something cheaper where their investors will see a quicker return, because that's how executives keep their jobs. Executives and shareholders care about themselves and their profit, while the government is designed to care about the collective, although its great power is frequently commandeered by individuals seeking personal profit.
It's not fine if you are a private energy company with shareholders who are looking to take on a gain and who are only looking at life one quarter at a time. Executives would rather invest in something cheaper where their investors will see a quicker return, because that's how executives keep their jobs. Executives and shareholders care about themselves and their profit, while the government is designed to care about the collective, although its great power is frequently commandeered by individuals seeking personal profit.
In the absence of a carbon tax, the next best approach is a subsidy that only applies to non CO2-emitting technologies funded from general taxation.
Since there is not sufficient political consensus for the former in the US, the latter is a good interim solution.
Since there is not sufficient political consensus for the former in the US, the latter is a good interim solution.
Yeah, agreed. And it’s super annoying when people use the fact that a subsidy isn’t as efficient as a carbon tax (or some other broad measure) as justification for ending it (without a carbon tax replacement). For instance, Virginia (a Blue state) passed a usage fee on EVs (that’s actually higher than the typical state gas tax would be for the same distance traveled in a regular vehicle) in order to “compensate” for the fact that EVs don’t pay gas tax. Therefore turning the Pigouvian gas tax into an anti-Pigouvian fee for acting on the desire to use more efficient and lower emissions transportation. (Not to mention you ALSO were taxed on electricity and the battery... plus personal property tax for the battery... just to add insult to injury.) I guess because of the (false) perception that only rich f**ks buy electric cars. “Oh, but it’s JUST for paying for the roads!” Yeah, like the Pigouvian aspect didn’t matter and as if the state gas tax is solely used for roads.
I support serious measures to address climate change and oppose anything that gets in the way of such measures. If the government wants to give a free pony to people who installs solar panels, that's fine by me. More optimal policies are preferably, of course, but that's a secondary concern.
Right now, it seems the most likely outcome is that we keep using fossil fuels, so I'm desperate for anything!
(The exception are measures such as banning plastic straws, which I oppose because it's actually a significant inconvenience—which means spent political capital—but will do exceedingly little for the planet.)
Right now, it seems the most likely outcome is that we keep using fossil fuels, so I'm desperate for anything!
(The exception are measures such as banning plastic straws, which I oppose because it's actually a significant inconvenience—which means spent political capital—but will do exceedingly little for the planet.)
If we're treating this as a world-critical issue, we shouldn't wait for market forces to fix it. Like evolution, market forces may converge on good solutions, but not quickly enough to save a species from near extinction.
So, yeah, stop subsidizing dirty companies, but also subsidize those solutions that get us out of this mess faster.
So, yeah, stop subsidizing dirty companies, but also subsidize those solutions that get us out of this mess faster.
The notion that there are large subsidies for fossil fuels is not backed up by the data.
There are currently more subsidies for solar and wind.
There are currently more subsidies for solar and wind.
> The notion that there are large subsidies for fossil fuels is not backed up by the data.
The absence of Pigovian taxes to internalize te environmental externalities is a de facto subsidy equal to the value of the externalized negative impacts (it's paid by society at large through the externalized impacts rather than through government, but the impact is the same.)
The absence of Pigovian taxes to internalize te environmental externalities is a de facto subsidy equal to the value of the externalized negative impacts (it's paid by society at large through the externalized impacts rather than through government, but the impact is the same.)
Calling it a subsidy makes it seem like it's something governments are doing on purpose. That they can easily say "this subsidy has expired, we're not giving it to you anymore". That is not the case.
Implementing a new tax for CO2 emissions is a much, much bigger political endeavour than simply letting a subsidy expire and not renewing it.
That's why there's not much value in perverting language to somehow argue that fossil fuels are subsidised. They are not, there's no way to "remove subsidies from their dirtier competitors", as the parent poster suggested.
There is a way to tax CO2 emissions, but that's a different discussion altogether.
Implementing a new tax for CO2 emissions is a much, much bigger political endeavour than simply letting a subsidy expire and not renewing it.
That's why there's not much value in perverting language to somehow argue that fossil fuels are subsidised. They are not, there's no way to "remove subsidies from their dirtier competitors", as the parent poster suggested.
There is a way to tax CO2 emissions, but that's a different discussion altogether.
> Calling it a subsidy makes it seem like it's something governments are doing on purpose.
Governments are not unaware of the environmental impacts, so that impression is accurate.
Governments are not unaware of the environmental impacts, so that impression is accurate.
I think you view subsidy a little too narrowly. I'd be inclined to toss in a good chunk of the money spent in Iraq over the past ~20 years as a fossil fuel (and military complex) subsidy.
That doesn't make any sense. US is a net petroleum exporter and the cheapest fuel comes from domestic natural gas.
Domestic natural gas is only “cheap” because the government is allowing frackers to extract resources from the commons without paying for the costs of the problems they cause.
“Cheap” in quotes because anyone who thinks it is cheap is not accounting for some significant hidden costs.
The tragedy of the commons applies here. If you are not familiar with that, it’s worth looking up. I’ll assume you are.
Government can have a role in mitigating the tragedy of the commons by having the industry pay for the problems they create.
Or government can look the other way, which is a defacto subsidy.
We didn’t used to be a net exporter. Part of the reason fracking even got the traction it has now is that government was alarmed by how much money they were paying for the oil wars, and got desperate for any way to stop the bleeding.
“Cheap” in quotes because anyone who thinks it is cheap is not accounting for some significant hidden costs.
The tragedy of the commons applies here. If you are not familiar with that, it’s worth looking up. I’ll assume you are.
Government can have a role in mitigating the tragedy of the commons by having the industry pay for the problems they create.
Or government can look the other way, which is a defacto subsidy.
We didn’t used to be a net exporter. Part of the reason fracking even got the traction it has now is that government was alarmed by how much money they were paying for the oil wars, and got desperate for any way to stop the bleeding.
There are not large "costs of the problems they cause". This is nonsense.
There are only a hand full of temporary cases of local well water contamination with benzene.
There are only a hand full of temporary cases of local well water contamination with benzene.
Burning natural gas releases carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.
Just because you don't think it makes sense doesn't mean it wasn't one of the rationales for the war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#O...
Firstly the US was not a petroleum exporter at the time of the Iraq wars.
Secondly, one take on the Iraq war was that it happened not to obtain fossil fuel resources, but rather to obtain control over them, and prevent them being exploited in a way which threatened the interests of US and/or Saudi oil.
Secondly, one take on the Iraq war was that it happened not to obtain fossil fuel resources, but rather to obtain control over them, and prevent them being exploited in a way which threatened the interests of US and/or Saudi oil.
This assertion doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
Massive repeated bailouts for the fossil fuel auto industry, gutting of EPA regulations to redefine pollution so as to let oil and gas and auto industries avoid financial responsibility for the pollution and other environmental damage (fracking quakes for example) they cause, and multi-trillion-dollar decades-long wars and military engagements all in the service of oil and gas, taxpayer funded, would beg to differ with your claim.
Massive repeated bailouts for the fossil fuel auto industry, gutting of EPA regulations to redefine pollution so as to let oil and gas and auto industries avoid financial responsibility for the pollution and other environmental damage (fracking quakes for example) they cause, and multi-trillion-dollar decades-long wars and military engagements all in the service of oil and gas, taxpayer funded, would beg to differ with your claim.
This is laughable. What do you call the $5T+ cost of the Iraq Wars if not a direct subsidy for oil.
Hell the 2003 invasion was originally called "Operation Iraqi Liberation" - before that blatant of an acronym was deemed unseemly.
Hell the 2003 invasion was originally called "Operation Iraqi Liberation" - before that blatant of an acronym was deemed unseemly.
Yeah, just got down-voted for stating the exact thing in a different part of the thread.
It's amazing that this is being glossed over now when it was such a major part of public discussion at the time. Seems like someone pushing an agenda.
It's amazing that this is being glossed over now when it was such a major part of public discussion at the time. Seems like someone pushing an agenda.
The subsidy is that they get to emit CO2 for free.
Join the club? I mean, if they're doing it for free then we all are - if we're paying then so are they.
Yes, that's why taxing carbon would be useful; it encourages all emitters to find solutions in parallel.
The capital requirements for starting a nuclear company is likely much large than starting, say, an EV company. Subsidies for EV companies greatly helped in getting the technology off the ground. Subsidies might be a necessary evil in this case.
In general I oppose subsidies, but I think it's a good idea here. Nuclear solves some major problems with other types of clean energy - it's just prohibitively expensive. I'm all for exploring all alternatives to fossil fuels in parallel - I think the seriousness of the climate situation warrants it.
But that cost is largely a function of strong regulations and lack of innovation. If the government gets the ball rolling with subsidies it might get to the point where it doesn't need them anymore. Reducing regulation where appropriate could help too - but in general there are risks and regulation is warranted.
And because it makes so much sense - implement a carbon tax that ramps up slowly to the full cost of the externalities of fossil fuels. It's the most effective thing to fight climate change, but instead of doing that we actually subsidize fossil fuels?!? I don't get it.
But that cost is largely a function of strong regulations and lack of innovation. If the government gets the ball rolling with subsidies it might get to the point where it doesn't need them anymore. Reducing regulation where appropriate could help too - but in general there are risks and regulation is warranted.
And because it makes so much sense - implement a carbon tax that ramps up slowly to the full cost of the externalities of fossil fuels. It's the most effective thing to fight climate change, but instead of doing that we actually subsidize fossil fuels?!? I don't get it.
>A better approach is to remove subsidies from their dirtier competitors.
I see this argued a lot for many industries, has it ever actually happened for any of them? It doesn't seem realistic, but I'd love to be wrong.
I see this argued a lot for many industries, has it ever actually happened for any of them? It doesn't seem realistic, but I'd love to be wrong.
[deleted]
Why not both?
I support not destroying the planet. Whatever gets the job done at this point. Removing subsidies is a political shitshow, and you're effectively saying "I support a decades-long political sparring contest while the planet burns."
I think it's safe to say we're not operating under a democracy/republic anymore, so whatever will appease the coroporate/banking overlords the quickest is the best path forward.
I think it's safe to say we're not operating under a democracy/republic anymore, so whatever will appease the coroporate/banking overlords the quickest is the best path forward.
The french didn't need anything fancy. They stadardized and then scaled production of reactors. They now have the cheapest energy on the planet, sell excess to others, and have no carbon output from electricity generation.
"Freedom fries?"
"Freedom fries?"
They now are moving away from nuclear because they are finding it impossible to build new ones affordably.
Also, I think you're confusing cost and price there.
Also, I think you're confusing cost and price there.
Clearly you don't know how to run up $28 trillion in debt.
As someone opposed to nuclear power, I agree with both points. Nuclear power cannot exist without subsidies for development, construction and all the externalities.
It can't exist in a free market or a leveled playing field.
It can't exist in a free market or a leveled playing field.
> It can't exist in a free market or a leveled playing field.
Right, because free markets are not capable of pricing in externalities (and in fact they actively incentivize externalities). If they were capable of this, fossil fuels would be prohibitively expensive, and nuclear would be cheap.
Right, because free markets are not capable of pricing in externalities (and in fact they actively incentivize externalities). If they were capable of this, fossil fuels would be prohibitively expensive, and nuclear would be cheap.
In a free market perhaps, but nuclear power comes with loads of government oversight and regulations (and therefore costs) due to the inherent risk factors. Given that, subsidies seems appropriate.
One would think the ultimate “subsidy” would be making the current regulatory environment more rational, no?
You are assuming the objective is clean power.
But if the objective were to curry favour with as many people as possible, subsidising everything works better than leveling the playing field.
Everybody gets a taste.
But if the objective were to curry favour with as many people as possible, subsidising everything works better than leveling the playing field.
Everybody gets a taste.
Politics is like 25% solving problems and 75% a popularity contest and that's being generous. No sane politician would ever remove something providing a benefit until well after it's outlived it's usefulness.
Both
Nuclear is expensive because of regulatory interference. The NRC literally has a mandate to increase cost.
If nuclear had to compete with coal on actual safety, nuclear would already be cheaper than coal.
If nuclear had to compete with coal on actual safety, nuclear would already be cheaper than coal.
Nuclear makes little sense for climate targets. The construction is too expensive and too slow - allocating capital to nuclear ends up slower than allocating the same capital to renewables for hitting climate targets. If you look at reports of lifetime costs for utility scale energy, Nuclear is the most expensive and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Solar and wind is already 3-4x cheaper than nuclear, and by the time the decade is out it will likely be 10x cheaper even with attendant storage.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
I’ve yet to see any renewable plan that could cover big northern cities.
Where are we going to build a solar farm to cover NYC, DC, and Philadelphia? There is 9 hours of daylight in the dead of winter, and it’s not exactly known for being sunny in January.
NYC alone needs 11,000 megawatt hours per day. My back of the envelope fermi estimate is a solar farm covering approximately 16,000 acres. Forget the metro area, that’s just for NYC. Probably double if you include the entire metro area.
You aren’t going to find that kind of land within 300 miles of NYC.
Where are we going to build a solar farm to cover NYC, DC, and Philadelphia? There is 9 hours of daylight in the dead of winter, and it’s not exactly known for being sunny in January.
NYC alone needs 11,000 megawatt hours per day. My back of the envelope fermi estimate is a solar farm covering approximately 16,000 acres. Forget the metro area, that’s just for NYC. Probably double if you include the entire metro area.
You aren’t going to find that kind of land within 300 miles of NYC.
First of all, did you look at a map? 300 miles from NYC gets you to upstate New York, or western Pennsylvania, or rural West Virginia. Second, NYISO, which covers New York State, already imports lots of power from Quebec, Ontario, New England, and PJM (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and more).
We do need more transmission (another thing the White House is working on: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...), but power import/export over long distances is already commonplace.
Edit: And if you really want to look to the future, you could read the proposal for a North American Supergrid: http://northamericansupergrid.org/
We do need more transmission (another thing the White House is working on: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...), but power import/export over long distances is already commonplace.
Edit: And if you really want to look to the future, you could read the proposal for a North American Supergrid: http://northamericansupergrid.org/
You say 'did you look at a map' but have you looked at a topographical map? I don't see much room that isn't either protected forests or the Appalachian mountains, in some cases it's both.
Well, I don't know enough about the industry to analyze specific locations, but it's easy to find real-world projects in upstate NY and elsewhere: https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/03/large-scale-so.... The projects named in that article will apparently get more than halfway to the "11,000 megawatt hours per day" estimate.
Anyway, the more important point is that we already have large regional grids across the country, and while it's obviously nice to have generation and consumption close to each other, it's not a requirement.
Anyway, the more important point is that we already have large regional grids across the country, and while it's obviously nice to have generation and consumption close to each other, it's not a requirement.
Why do you think solar and wind could not be built in the Appalachian mountains? Wind in particular would benefit there. And the mountains are an excellent place to build off-river pumped hydro storage facilities.
Have you looked at a map? I live in NY, and there is absolutely no place for such a massive solar farm.
The numbers I quoted were just for NYC, and they weren’t adjusted for the winter sunlight problem. To power the entire metro area would likely require 40,000 acres. To cover the entire region likely 60,000 acres. This land does not exist.
The numbers I quoted were just for NYC, and they weren’t adjusted for the winter sunlight problem. To power the entire metro area would likely require 40,000 acres. To cover the entire region likely 60,000 acres. This land does not exist.
40,000 acres is roughly 8 miles by 8 miles.
It isn't that big an area in the scheme of things. If you try to find a single place for it it probably won't work of course, but it is a tiny little fraction of the developed land already devoted to New York.
It isn't that big an area in the scheme of things. If you try to find a single place for it it probably won't work of course, but it is a tiny little fraction of the developed land already devoted to New York.
https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/03/large-scale-so...
New York State is 35 million acres. You don't think 0.2% of that, including rooftops of existing buildings, might be useable for solar/wind/battery storage? And again, NY already uses tons of out-of-state energy.
New York State is 35 million acres. You don't think 0.2% of that, including rooftops of existing buildings, might be useable for solar/wind/battery storage? And again, NY already uses tons of out-of-state energy.
No, I don’t. Even if it were possible to acquire that much land, and it isn’t, the land isn’t suitable for solar.
Why is there a requirement that power be generated within 300 miles? NYC already gets plenty of power from further away than that. With HVDC transmission, we can transmit power thousands of miles efficiently. PNW hydro power is used in LA, for example.
1) Offshore wind
2) Rooftop solar
3) National grid improvements that make transferring power from renewable sources further away more efficient
4) There are massively huge areas of empty land within 100 miles of NYC. This map shows roughly the 100 miles west of NYC. Take note of all of that unused space, which is most of it: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7560624,-75.4552232,170414m/...
2) Rooftop solar
3) National grid improvements that make transferring power from renewable sources further away more efficient
4) There are massively huge areas of empty land within 100 miles of NYC. This map shows roughly the 100 miles west of NYC. Take note of all of that unused space, which is most of it: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7560624,-75.4552232,170414m/...
offshore wind...
You need baseload power. On a dark windless night, when everyone is charging their electric cars, you can't just have brownouts and blackouts.
And sure, you can imagine a power grid that's smart enough to handle all of that, but implementation of something like that isn't any faster than the construction of more nuclear power.
And sure, you can imagine a power grid that's smart enough to handle all of that, but implementation of something like that isn't any faster than the construction of more nuclear power.
Most countries are pretty far away from the amount of renewables where you start requiring lots of storage. You can easily do 50% renewables for electricity with hardly any storage at all.
I agree, but not with the "50%" number.
“Without technological breakthroughs in efficient, large scale energy storage, it will be difficult to rely on intermittent renewables for much more than 20-30 percent of our electricity.” Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy - 2010.
https://grist.org/article/2010-02-22-energy-secretary-steven...
“Without technological breakthroughs in efficient, large scale energy storage, it will be difficult to rely on intermittent renewables for much more than 20-30 percent of our electricity.” Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy - 2010.
https://grist.org/article/2010-02-22-energy-secretary-steven...
The how does Denmark manage 60%, and Germany 50%?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewab...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewab...
Technically, from your own numbers... Denmarks intermittent renewables (wind + solar) is 43%. Germany is 34%. Biofuel & Hydro are not intermittent.
I don't know, that's pretty impressive. Maybe they have international connectors with other countries? I think Germany buys Nuclear power from France? or maybe they have a super stable kind of wind.
I don't know, that's pretty impressive. Maybe they have international connectors with other countries? I think Germany buys Nuclear power from France? or maybe they have a super stable kind of wind.
Germany is a net-exporter of electricity to France. Especially in summer when nuclear reactors have to be shut down, because the water temperature in the streams they use already is too high or when the tide is too low, or in winter when the rivers freeze.
They export cheap wind-generated power to Norway when the wind is blowing, and import it back for a higher price when it isn't.
Norway has a lot of hydro which they used the revenues from North Sea oil to install. (Their geography and population density also helps.)
Norway has a lot of hydro which they used the revenues from North Sea oil to install. (Their geography and population density also helps.)
"This article is a list of countries and territories by electricity generation from renewable sources every year. Note that most countries import and/or export electricity, so the percentage figures do not reflect the percentage of consumption that is renewable based. "
Increasingly, nations are analyzing their grid requirements and concluding that 100% renewables is feasible, the baseload concept ends up being a constraining requirement that nuclear plants levy upon the rest of a future grid design.
Here in Sweden we have a date when nuclear plants will be gone. We got a date for when internal combustion engines will be gone from the roads. We have a plan for when the sum of green exports of energy will exceed that of total consumption of energy.
We do not have a date for when fossil fuels will be removed from the energy grid. No date, no plan, no strategy, nothing. What we do have is three distinct plans in order to address the stability problem from renewables.
1: Continuing subsidize fossil fuel plants to operate in ready mode for when demands exceeds that of renewables. Oil for now, natural gas in the future.
2: Expand the ability to buy fossil fueled energy from nearby countries for which we sell our green energy. One can pretend that the import of dirty energy does not exist if the total amount of green export over a year is higher than the import.
3: Future technology that does not exist yet and tend to change from year to year based on what currently sounds like interesting-but-decades-from-being-invested-in tech. This year it is wind to hydrogen in dedicated ocean windfarms with massive pipelines of hydrogen, burned in retrofitted natural gas power plants. It has the upside that more natural gas power plants (and pipelines for natural gas) can be built in the pretense that at some later date we can use that wind produced hydrogen if it ever get built.
The result is investments and subsidies goes to mix of renewables and fossil fuels, which is a far cry from 100% renewables.
We do not have a date for when fossil fuels will be removed from the energy grid. No date, no plan, no strategy, nothing. What we do have is three distinct plans in order to address the stability problem from renewables.
1: Continuing subsidize fossil fuel plants to operate in ready mode for when demands exceeds that of renewables. Oil for now, natural gas in the future.
2: Expand the ability to buy fossil fueled energy from nearby countries for which we sell our green energy. One can pretend that the import of dirty energy does not exist if the total amount of green export over a year is higher than the import.
3: Future technology that does not exist yet and tend to change from year to year based on what currently sounds like interesting-but-decades-from-being-invested-in tech. This year it is wind to hydrogen in dedicated ocean windfarms with massive pipelines of hydrogen, burned in retrofitted natural gas power plants. It has the upside that more natural gas power plants (and pipelines for natural gas) can be built in the pretense that at some later date we can use that wind produced hydrogen if it ever get built.
The result is investments and subsidies goes to mix of renewables and fossil fuels, which is a far cry from 100% renewables.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Coun...
I am reminded of the quote attributed to Arthur C Clarke.
If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
There are scientists and engineers who say getting to a 100% renewable grid is possible.
I am reminded of the quote attributed to Arthur C Clarke.
If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
There are scientists and engineers who say getting to a 100% renewable grid is possible.
Is it possible to create enough gas powered power plants and hydrogen storage facilities to have 100% of a nations capacity running for several weeks during the winter? Yes. Can it all be generated from ocean based windfarms with pipelines? Yes. Will it be cheap? No.
Just the production side, the cost in a 2019 study put the numbers around $7-9 per kg of hydrogen. This does not take into the account the cost of the pipeline, the storage facility, or the gas powered power plant. Remember that return of investment only occurs when demands actually exceeds that of cheaper renewable production, unless government steps in and adds subsidies like it does today with oil.
Is massive amounts of hydrogen a cheaper and safer alternative to nuclear? Given the lack of commercial built and operated hydrogen wind farms I suspect the answer is no on the commercial side. On the safety side it would be interesting to hear about operating large liquid hydrogen pipelines and storage facilities.
Just the production side, the cost in a 2019 study put the numbers around $7-9 per kg of hydrogen. This does not take into the account the cost of the pipeline, the storage facility, or the gas powered power plant. Remember that return of investment only occurs when demands actually exceeds that of cheaper renewable production, unless government steps in and adds subsidies like it does today with oil.
Is massive amounts of hydrogen a cheaper and safer alternative to nuclear? Given the lack of commercial built and operated hydrogen wind farms I suspect the answer is no on the commercial side. On the safety side it would be interesting to hear about operating large liquid hydrogen pipelines and storage facilities.
> Will it be cheap? No.
Any energy system large enough to power the world will be a very expensive thing. Fortunately, the world economy is also a very large thing, and can pay for it.
We can say with some confidence that while this renewable energy system will be expensive, it will be less expensive than a nuclear energy system that serves the same purpose, and likely cheaper than a system with any substantial amount of nuclear energy.
> Given the lack of commercial built and operated hydrogen wind farms
This is a completely bogus argument in an environment where natural gas is still plentiful and legal and its carbon largely untaxed. The CO2 tax needed to get to wind farms + hydrogen being competitive is likely much less than the CO2 needed to get nuclear to be competitive (against natural gas).
Any energy system large enough to power the world will be a very expensive thing. Fortunately, the world economy is also a very large thing, and can pay for it.
We can say with some confidence that while this renewable energy system will be expensive, it will be less expensive than a nuclear energy system that serves the same purpose, and likely cheaper than a system with any substantial amount of nuclear energy.
> Given the lack of commercial built and operated hydrogen wind farms
This is a completely bogus argument in an environment where natural gas is still plentiful and legal and its carbon largely untaxed. The CO2 tax needed to get to wind farms + hydrogen being competitive is likely much less than the CO2 needed to get nuclear to be competitive (against natural gas).
Theoretically, yes.
With enough batteries and 2x-3x power production over demand you can have 100% renewable grid.
It might require to cut amazon forest and cover it with solar panels, but possible, yes.
With enough batteries and 2x-3x power production over demand you can have 100% renewable grid.
It might require to cut amazon forest and cover it with solar panels, but possible, yes.
One does not need 2-3x average power production over average demand. With some combination of transmission, batteries, and (importantly) hydrogen storage, the overcapacity and curtailment needed can be quite modest.
Are any of those nations comparable in both population and land mass to the US?
As the Texas power outage demonstrated, the US grid is not monolithic. Having more interconnected regional grids actually makes it easier to get individual regions to high renewable percentages while allowing the market to continue to mature lower cost storage. Storage is slightly behind the solar manufacturing S-curve in terms of dropping costs, but once a number of EV supply plants start ramping up, I think that cost optimization will strongly drop storage costs.
Is there a reason to believe that a solution that works on the scale of a reasonably sized country suddenly stops working on the scale of a tight federation of states or comparable size?
With renewables your base load comes from stored power or potentially trade; that is, connecting Americas to Africa or Asia.
As long as you are able to scale your storage, you'll be able to fill it up with solar energy.
As long as you are able to scale your storage, you'll be able to fill it up with solar energy.
That’s only because nuclear hasn’t seen serious investment in generations. That’s why solar and wind has come down.
Casey Handmer has a related take: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/06/21/is-nuclear-pow...
> The reason solar is winning is because the manufacturing technology can be iterated every six months, so the learning curve is much faster. Nuclear power plant technology is iterated roughly every 25 years, or twice in the lifetime of a plant. Many first generation plants are still operational, while few third generation plants have been commissioned, and fourth generation plants are still in the planning stage. Even if every design iteration was a factor of 10 better than the previous one, solar, iterating 50 times faster, could outdo this improvement over the same timescale with a mere 5% improvement per iteration. Since this is roughly the solar learning rate, we can now ask if each nuclear design iteration is 10x better than its immediate predecessor. Obviously not.
There's definitely an argument that some part of that slow iteration speed for nuclear is political and unnecessary. Clearly if we built more plants they would iterate faster. But realistically at this point...is it going to happen?
> The reason solar is winning is because the manufacturing technology can be iterated every six months, so the learning curve is much faster. Nuclear power plant technology is iterated roughly every 25 years, or twice in the lifetime of a plant. Many first generation plants are still operational, while few third generation plants have been commissioned, and fourth generation plants are still in the planning stage. Even if every design iteration was a factor of 10 better than the previous one, solar, iterating 50 times faster, could outdo this improvement over the same timescale with a mere 5% improvement per iteration. Since this is roughly the solar learning rate, we can now ask if each nuclear design iteration is 10x better than its immediate predecessor. Obviously not.
There's definitely an argument that some part of that slow iteration speed for nuclear is political and unnecessary. Clearly if we built more plants they would iterate faster. But realistically at this point...is it going to happen?
China seriously invested in it heavily, met a modicum of success in building a wave of nuclear plants, but near the middle of the full plan decided to halt any new construction. I think even with low regulation, and a focused investment it was turning out more expensive than the alternatives.
Personally, I think looking at the data so far, we should just stop investing in fission plants, continue research of fusion plants, but put a practical focus on building renewables to meet climate targets to get the most reduction for the buck.
Personally, I think looking at the data so far, we should just stop investing in fission plants, continue research of fusion plants, but put a practical focus on building renewables to meet climate targets to get the most reduction for the buck.
Loan subsidies passed under GWB were supposed to result in a nuclear renaissance in the form of Westinghouse's AP1000 GEN III+ reactor. The 2 projects started under Obama have been unmitigated financial disasters. One was cancelled after spending $9B on a hole in the ground, the other is about to come online after going 2x+ over money and time budget.
All other AP1000 projects in the US have been cancelled. No one in the US is going to order an AP1000 unless the government takes on construction risk.
All other AP1000 projects in the US have been cancelled. No one in the US is going to order an AP1000 unless the government takes on construction risk.
You're not responding to the premise of the article: subsidize existing nuclear, not new nuclear. You're taking on an easier argument, but instead you need to clarify: how is allowing carbon-free existing nuclear fall due to price a good thing for the climate?
I am perhaps missing it, but my takeaway from the article was that doesn't seem to actually specify existing nuclear, preferring to talk about nuclear subsidy. If it were only existing nuclear I would mostly agree on keeping it save for certain certain end of life reactors (e.g diablo canyon built near an earthquake fault).
Solar and wind are nuclear power. We keep the reactor 93 million miles away, in a huge gravitational containment system, and even so tens of thousands of people die from cancer caused by the radiation every year in the United States alone, despite two layers of shielding and multiple kinds of voluntary prevention protocols.
There is no renewable energy source that is faster than simply maintaining existing nuclear capacity. Lots of nuclear power plants are at risk of closing. A small subsidy to keep them open until we build out sufficient renewables to shut down all fossil fuels is a freaking steal considering the effects of climate change.
> Nuclear makes little sense for climate targets.
I do not care only about the climate - I care about the environment. The entire planet should not be covered with solar panels and wind turbines. Whether or not it is more expensive, I support nuclear because it is the right thing to do.
I do not care only about the climate - I care about the environment. The entire planet should not be covered with solar panels and wind turbines. Whether or not it is more expensive, I support nuclear because it is the right thing to do.
Rooftop photovoltaics alone could produce 40% of US electricity: https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/eyes-on-environment/the...
You don’t need to cover the whole planet.
You don’t need to cover the whole planet.
Current US electricity. To decarbonize transportation and industry, we will need 200-300% more. That drops rooftops to 10%, and that does not account for night and winter (overbuilding and storage).
I guess you also don't need insurances for nuclear plants. Nobody will be able to pay in the worst case.
Nuclear power plants aren't just an all-or-nothing kind of risk. There is plenty that could go wrong and either halt its operations or affect its environment.
For instance, a lot of plants increase the average temperature of the rivers they dump their cooling water in. That issue has become more threatening over time since climate change is doing the same.
US plants have to insure for disaster up to $200 million. The taxpayer is on the hook for the rest.
In Fukushima total cleanup costs could go up to a trillion dollars : https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-...
In Fukushima total cleanup costs could go up to a trillion dollars : https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-...
Actually, nuclear power plant operators have special liability protections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Act
Butter and guns my friend
A better idea - have the navy build them and then sell the completed, operational plant (say, after a year of successful operation) to the highest bidder in an auction. Put whatever constraints are needed on the sale, and guarantee the construction for a decade.
At that point, they should create a government-owed corporation to hand off operation to.
End-of-life for plants is a huge issue. The owners of plants are obligated to collect fees for cleanup, decommissioning, and remediation of power plant sites. But what has happened (unsurprisingly) is that operators will sell these plants to someone else, who signs a contract, accepting all future legal liability for any issues resulting from operations or cleanup, then those cleanup fees (which total in the hundreds of millions) get put into an escrow account.
Of course, these new owners are limited liability corporations who find that it's cheaper to provide campaign donations to high-level state officials who then pressure state agencies to allow half-assed measures to be used for containment of toxic chemicals. This is an ongoing issue in right now because so many coal plants have been driven out of business.
If these people won't spend an extra million bucks to line coal ash containment ponds appropriately, I have no faith they will do so with significantly more expensive nuclear waste.
End-of-life for plants is a huge issue. The owners of plants are obligated to collect fees for cleanup, decommissioning, and remediation of power plant sites. But what has happened (unsurprisingly) is that operators will sell these plants to someone else, who signs a contract, accepting all future legal liability for any issues resulting from operations or cleanup, then those cleanup fees (which total in the hundreds of millions) get put into an escrow account.
Of course, these new owners are limited liability corporations who find that it's cheaper to provide campaign donations to high-level state officials who then pressure state agencies to allow half-assed measures to be used for containment of toxic chemicals. This is an ongoing issue in right now because so many coal plants have been driven out of business.
If these people won't spend an extra million bucks to line coal ash containment ponds appropriately, I have no faith they will do so with significantly more expensive nuclear waste.
> At that point, they should create a government-owed corporation to hand off operation to.
The difference is that rightly or wrongly, the public doesn't see the military spending as wasteful government spending in the way they see spending on the Postal Service or for some, health programs like Medicaid.
There's an argument that a way to sell renewables to the climate change denying sections of the population is to have the military involved in its implementation.
If you think about it, the military has functions of 1) protecting the US against existential threats and 2) providing a path toward a dignified livelihood for a lot of the population. Climate change also poses existential threats, and there is an opportunity to create a path to a dignified livelihood for many people by tackling it with renewables.
The difference is that rightly or wrongly, the public doesn't see the military spending as wasteful government spending in the way they see spending on the Postal Service or for some, health programs like Medicaid.
There's an argument that a way to sell renewables to the climate change denying sections of the population is to have the military involved in its implementation.
If you think about it, the military has functions of 1) protecting the US against existential threats and 2) providing a path toward a dignified livelihood for a lot of the population. Climate change also poses existential threats, and there is an opportunity to create a path to a dignified livelihood for many people by tackling it with renewables.
The military isn't going to want anything to do with renewables. They run on oil, almost exclusively. The military's exalted position in society is also largely artificial. Yes it serves to defend the country but it could be far smaller and still achieve that. No this should be a civilian effort, although it could be a state one.
US Naval reactors are not a substitute for commercial power plants. They use highly enriched fuel, and are optimized for small volume and low maintenance costs, not net generation efficiency. They're at least one if not two orders of magnitude smaller than what's economic in power plants, and they are not in any way built with an efficient "model T" style production line.
US Naval reactors are not some silver bullet no one has thought of. They're a different tool, and it's not clear the Navy would be particularly more effective in creating a future of factory built small modular reactors vs any other company that's attempted it so far.
US Naval reactors are not some silver bullet no one has thought of. They're a different tool, and it's not clear the Navy would be particularly more effective in creating a future of factory built small modular reactors vs any other company that's attempted it so far.
Exactly, people who bring this up don't understand the different one-off reactor designs used in maybe a handful of vessels, or that the Navy reactors are meant to go without refueling for up to 25 years. They are also made by third-party contractors, not hand-built by the Navy itself.
The complexity, capital costs and liability risks make commercial "small nuclear" unfeasible. It's "go big or go home".
The complexity, capital costs and liability risks make commercial "small nuclear" unfeasible. It's "go big or go home".
Yeah, I learned this harsh lesson doing deeper research in recent years. I was really hopeful for NuScale and similar SMR style approaches, but now I understand more clearly why that's so unlikely to work out.
I'd love it if someone shows up tomorrow with some clever idea that changes the capital costs and long timelines, but I don't think we should be allocating significant capital towards that as hope alone.
I'd love it if someone shows up tomorrow with some clever idea that changes the capital costs and long timelines, but I don't think we should be allocating significant capital towards that as hope alone.
[deleted]
Do they ever use a parked carrier to power something? It seems like it would be useful to run at least a portion of a base using a carrier anchored in the harbor, or as response to downed power infrastructure after a natural disaster. Quick googling indicates an aircraft carrier allegedly could be able to power 12,000 homes.
No. The naval plants are optimized to generate steam for the propulsion turbines first, and electric generation capacity second. Plugging generation capacity into a grid is far more complex than plugging in a consumer appliance. It'd require a lot of dedicated infrastructure on the carrier, and suitable tie in points from the grid.
The US did have a floating nuclear power plant for a while, intended for disaster response and such. It ultimately didn't prove to be useful enough vs the cost and complexity of keeping it running. Russia recently completed fabrication of a modern take on the same idea, but it's not clear how useful that will be to them other than being as part of a suite of nuclear technologies they're marketing militarily.
The US did have a floating nuclear power plant for a while, intended for disaster response and such. It ultimately didn't prove to be useful enough vs the cost and complexity of keeping it running. Russia recently completed fabrication of a modern take on the same idea, but it's not clear how useful that will be to them other than being as part of a suite of nuclear technologies they're marketing militarily.
It's a neat idea; based on the fact that the Navy has a lot of operational experience with nuclear power (especially small heat sources)? How well does that experience translate to a large-scale reactor? And is the Navy particularly good at building things? I would imagine that the (private) shipbuilder has at least as much knowledge around the tech.
The Navy acquires many reactors annually and operates a ton of small to medium reactors. I think they mostly buy the reactors from contractors, but either way, they have a ton of operational experience.
Maybe funding it via the navy is politically palatable.
Maybe funding it via the navy is politically palatable.
I think its more fund the navy under the guise of a defense spending bill that ends up going for an RFP to energy companies to build the reactors "for the navy"
I was talking to an ex-navy reactor man at a bar once. He said one of the most important things for naval reactors is to make sure you were making the "right kind of bubbles." I never found out if this was some kind of navy joke or if he was talking about Nucleate boiling.
Naval reactors are currently built by GE and Bechtel. They are designed at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, a national lab of DOE, operated by Fluor. Fluor is a parent company of NuScale which just got a license from the NRC to be able to build a civilian small modular reactor (SMR). Their first project is scheduled to come online at the end of the decade.
Hmm. That's an interesting idea. Seems like they are experts in building relatively small nuclear plants and maintaining them in harsh conditions for years. Wonder if it's feasible though. Maybe they are too slow to build. Maybe they are too expensive.
Is it legal for the military to manufacture and sell products to the public?
I think the manufacturing is required to be contracted out. The military can and does sell many things if they no longer have need for them. You can find some of that stuff in surplus shops, but they even sell old aircraft and other vehicles.
Why Navy ? Does it have to be in the sea ? If on land then Westinghouse or Duke could build it just as well if not better.
Because of this guy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover
Because they're already doing it regularly
They don’t contract it out to Westinghouse or other similar companies?
Its actually really complicated on the supplier end. There is a lot of joint stuff with contractors and the DOE.
Yeah I'm not sure why they think the Navy is doing it… I think the Navy is "just" the customer. Of course there's a lot involved in being the customer too.
I think the premise is that the US Navy is quite good at building nuclear power plants as multiple reactors power each and every submarine and Aircraft carrier we have. By the numbers the Navy has more nuclear powered ships than the US has nuclear power plants. There's also precedent for smaller scale plants that are lower maintenance and less dangerous.
I wouldn't necessarily say they are less dangerous. The designs can be very different and might even require more maintenance and safely procedures than the land based ones.
Also, the Navy isn't the the one actually building it. The contracting companies do that. Many of the people who run the systems in the Navy leave and become contractors/consultants for the higher pay.
Also, the Navy isn't the the one actually building it. The contracting companies do that. Many of the people who run the systems in the Navy leave and become contractors/consultants for the higher pay.
the US Navy is quite good at building nuclear power plants
They are also really good at the operational aspects.
They are also really good at the operational aspects.
“for a decade”
There’s the problem, this kind of short term thinking that is just long enough to let someone else deal with it.
Also, guarantees on paper don’t mean as much as physical reality. Ask any native American or Fukashima resident about how much guarantees are worth.
There’s the problem, this kind of short term thinking that is just long enough to let someone else deal with it.
Also, guarantees on paper don’t mean as much as physical reality. Ask any native American or Fukashima resident about how much guarantees are worth.
Fukasima was a dumb design from the start, and plenty of people pointed it out before it was built. Holding it up as the poster child for why all talk about nuclear power generation should not even be discussed is beyond disingenuous.
What you said shows exactly why the point was valid.
This is what happens with nuclear power projects: They can take a dumb design, as you said, and people point out the problems beforehand, as you said, then it is built, as you said, regardless.
It's important that it was still built even though people said, beforehand, that it was, as you say, dumb. This is a key point really. These things are still built regardless of the quality of the design.
And then later, reality and physics have their say.
And all the guarantees and promises are broken, and the costs are way higher than were accounted for.
Of course some designs are better, and that is fantastic. I'm all for safety and predictability. I have other problems with nuclear, having nothing to do with radiation or safety, but I agree that there are much safer designs.
Even though there are better and worse designs, and Fukashima may be a bad design with a bad placement, this lack of full accounting for potential costs is a recurring pattern with these huge boondoggle projects.
This is what happens with nuclear power projects: They can take a dumb design, as you said, and people point out the problems beforehand, as you said, then it is built, as you said, regardless.
It's important that it was still built even though people said, beforehand, that it was, as you say, dumb. This is a key point really. These things are still built regardless of the quality of the design.
And then later, reality and physics have their say.
And all the guarantees and promises are broken, and the costs are way higher than were accounted for.
Of course some designs are better, and that is fantastic. I'm all for safety and predictability. I have other problems with nuclear, having nothing to do with radiation or safety, but I agree that there are much safer designs.
Even though there are better and worse designs, and Fukashima may be a bad design with a bad placement, this lack of full accounting for potential costs is a recurring pattern with these huge boondoggle projects.
So because we did some dumb things in the past we can never do new things in the future?
Great argument.
Great argument.
The title should be:
White House eyes subsidies for existing nuclear plants to help meet climate targets.
White House eyes subsidies for existing nuclear plants to help meet climate targets.
You mean a title for those who don't read the article but still vote or comment as if they did? But as far as I know, the purpose of titles is to make you want to get the paper or visit the site and read the article, not fully summarize the topic. .
LoL, 40 years too late. The irony is that if the anti-nuclear environmentalist movement hadn't had as much strength in the 80's, we would be electric carbon neutral and just have transportation to go.
anti-nuclear environmentalist movement
This movement was heavily pushed along by the established fossil fuel power industry. It's much less "grass roots" than it appeared to be on a surface level.
This movement was heavily pushed along by the established fossil fuel power industry. It's much less "grass roots" than it appeared to be on a surface level.
I’d prefer to see continuing or additional tax credits for solar and battery storage directly to the consumer. This would dovetail nicely with an infrastructure plan by making the incentives higher for panels made in the U.S.A. Keeping the incentives directly to the consumer would take a good deal of the chances of corruption and back room deals out of the equation I.E. the Solyndra scandal.
100%. We should be promoting energy sources that don't have catastrophic outcomes when somebody inevitably makes a serious operational error.
We have come a long way since the RBMK reactors in use at Chernobyl. Generation III reactors are significantly safer than the older nuclear reactors. They are now passively safe, in that they shut themselves down without operator intervention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
My major beef with nuclear is the water impact [1], not waste fuel - latter of which we have good solutions to. Not to mention exclusion zones.
If all Nuclear had desalination, it still wouldn't offset it's waste heat capture problem which ruins downstream ecologies.
[1] https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consump...
If all Nuclear had desalination, it still wouldn't offset it's waste heat capture problem which ruins downstream ecologies.
[1] https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consump...
You are correct. And there’s other good research going on too, but people like this won’t hear it.
The issue with solar is that there are a lot more deaths for a given amount of energy than for nuclear. Yes, they're spread out so it's less dramatic, but overall nuclear is safer and also produces very useful medical isotopes.
What's really missing for nuclear is economics of scale. If we could just organize a repeatable build model so many operational challenges would be solved.
That said, I'll take anything. Wind, solar, batteries, tidal, nuclear. They're all far, far better than coal or oil from a public health and climate change standpoint. It's such a shame so much was wasted on the Iraq War, since the entire USA could have been powered by green energy with half what was spent.
What's really missing for nuclear is economics of scale. If we could just organize a repeatable build model so many operational challenges would be solved.
That said, I'll take anything. Wind, solar, batteries, tidal, nuclear. They're all far, far better than coal or oil from a public health and climate change standpoint. It's such a shame so much was wasted on the Iraq War, since the entire USA could have been powered by green energy with half what was spent.
This is some cockamamie figure that is based on rooftop solar panel installers having accidents and falling down.
A fall from a rooftop while installing a solar panel is preventable; it is not a necessary consequence of solar energy. That worker didn't have to die for the sake of two terawatts; he or she could have used safety equipment and common sense.
If we are counting deaths that way per amount of energy, we must count electrocutions among the energy user base too, not only installation and production side deaths.
If there are health risks and accidents working in a solar panel factory, that ought to be counted.
Installations and deaths across the entire grid should be counted: deaths of all electricians installing any sort of residential and commercial wiring, transformers on poles down the street, and everything else.
Possibly deaths arising form unreliable electricity should also be counted as risks of energy use. If a few people die in a heatwave because their AC cuts out due to a blackout, maybe those are energy-related deaths.
Health problems and accidents in solar panel factories should be counted, as well those in mines for nuclear ore, and industries that produce all grid components: wiring, switch boxes, transformers, you name it.
Deaths in every vehicular accident involving an electrician en route to a repair job should also be counted (whether the electrician was at fault or not).
A fall from a rooftop while installing a solar panel is preventable; it is not a necessary consequence of solar energy. That worker didn't have to die for the sake of two terawatts; he or she could have used safety equipment and common sense.
If we are counting deaths that way per amount of energy, we must count electrocutions among the energy user base too, not only installation and production side deaths.
If there are health risks and accidents working in a solar panel factory, that ought to be counted.
Installations and deaths across the entire grid should be counted: deaths of all electricians installing any sort of residential and commercial wiring, transformers on poles down the street, and everything else.
Possibly deaths arising form unreliable electricity should also be counted as risks of energy use. If a few people die in a heatwave because their AC cuts out due to a blackout, maybe those are energy-related deaths.
Health problems and accidents in solar panel factories should be counted, as well those in mines for nuclear ore, and industries that produce all grid components: wiring, switch boxes, transformers, you name it.
Deaths in every vehicular accident involving an electrician en route to a repair job should also be counted (whether the electrician was at fault or not).
I mean, yes? We should seek to contrast fatalities across every major energy source if we can?
But given that we don't have perfect numbers we have to go off of the ones we have, and solar installations are over 4x the death rate than nuclear. The only reason I bring it up is this constant barrage of anti-nuclear sentiment even though nuclear works great in countries where it is approached correctly. Canada and France, for example, have professional, reasonable cost nuclear that create the medical isotopes we need.
It's all besides the point though, because coal is 1000x more fatal than nuclear, and like I said in my original comment, I'll take anything but coal and oil.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
But given that we don't have perfect numbers we have to go off of the ones we have, and solar installations are over 4x the death rate than nuclear. The only reason I bring it up is this constant barrage of anti-nuclear sentiment even though nuclear works great in countries where it is approached correctly. Canada and France, for example, have professional, reasonable cost nuclear that create the medical isotopes we need.
It's all besides the point though, because coal is 1000x more fatal than nuclear, and like I said in my original comment, I'll take anything but coal and oil.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
And we should recognize that solar that powers an entire society will be mostly utility scale, because that's so much cheaper. Utility scale solar is installed at ground level, not on roofs.
Right. So anyway, can we talk about fatalities per billion lines of code by programming language? :)
Which ones are those? As far as I can see, ALL “clean energy” has some trade offs.
Mining lithium is a horrible, polluting process that wastes tons of fresh water. One thing to put small quantities into phones and computers. Another to suggest that they should be used for all cars (unless the end goal is to have only the super rich driving cars).
Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) and quartz, and will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so.
Wind turbines can’t be repurposed after their useful and short (comparatively) life and will pile up as junk.
It’s not even a question of “don’t have catastrophic outcomes”, it’s a question of a slow-moving guaranteed catastrophic outcome, or the possibility of a fast catastrophic outcome.
Mining lithium is a horrible, polluting process that wastes tons of fresh water. One thing to put small quantities into phones and computers. Another to suggest that they should be used for all cars (unless the end goal is to have only the super rich driving cars).
Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) and quartz, and will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so.
Wind turbines can’t be repurposed after their useful and short (comparatively) life and will pile up as junk.
It’s not even a question of “don’t have catastrophic outcomes”, it’s a question of a slow-moving guaranteed catastrophic outcome, or the possibility of a fast catastrophic outcome.
> Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy)
I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel, so is your argument here that manufacturing anything uses electricity and therefore coal?
That doesn't seem like a good argument. Especially given that a nuclear plant tends to involve a huge quantity of concrete (which gives off major amounts of greenhouse gases and requires mining as well).
> will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so.
The lifespan of a commercial panel is 25-30+ years (most look to be warrantied to 25)
Failure rates appear to be very low, per NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-de...
And in reality, many will continue producing power longer than that, just at a lower rate than their original nameplate capacity. I expect most of those solar farms will wind up in service for many decades.
Claiming that their lifespan is 10 years is something I feel needs some sort of supporting evidence.
I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel, so is your argument here that manufacturing anything uses electricity and therefore coal?
That doesn't seem like a good argument. Especially given that a nuclear plant tends to involve a huge quantity of concrete (which gives off major amounts of greenhouse gases and requires mining as well).
> will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so.
The lifespan of a commercial panel is 25-30+ years (most look to be warrantied to 25)
Failure rates appear to be very low, per NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-de...
And in reality, many will continue producing power longer than that, just at a lower rate than their original nameplate capacity. I expect most of those solar farms will wind up in service for many decades.
Claiming that their lifespan is 10 years is something I feel needs some sort of supporting evidence.
> I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel
Silicon is produced by carbothermic reduction of silica in arc furnaces. Charcoal can be used, though (and is use by some producers; I think the porosity helps silicon monoxide gas react with the carbon.)
Silicon is produced by carbothermic reduction of silica in arc furnaces. Charcoal can be used, though (and is use by some producers; I think the porosity helps silicon monoxide gas react with the carbon.)
Why not both?
Someone once told me don’t make the perfect be the enemy of the good.
We're not talking about the perfect vs. the good here. We're talking about a power source (nuclear) that can result in virtually unlimited harm to human life in cases of serious failure vs. power sources that, while not as well-developed, are much lower-risk long-term.
Nuclear is still better than coal and gas. At this rate we will never limit temperature below 2.1C pre-industrial, so anything that gets helps getting rid of fossil fuels ASAP is a good deal.
Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad. Several natural disasters in the 2000's have killed way more than it did.
Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad. Several natural disasters in the 2000's have killed way more than it did.
> Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad.
The problem with statements like this is that we don't actually know what a worst case scenario truly looks like. The day before Chernobyl, the worst-cast scenario, by definition, not as bad as Chernobyl. Similarly, the engineers who built Fukishima were aware of tsunamis and earthquakes and built the plant to withstand what was considered the worst case scenario at the time. Then an even worse case scenario happened.
The problem with statements like this is that we don't actually know what a worst case scenario truly looks like. The day before Chernobyl, the worst-cast scenario, by definition, not as bad as Chernobyl. Similarly, the engineers who built Fukishima were aware of tsunamis and earthquakes and built the plant to withstand what was considered the worst case scenario at the time. Then an even worse case scenario happened.
It's fairly simple to find an upper bound for the damage a nuclear incident can cause. Take all the radioactive material in the reactor and put it in the most dangerous location, like the air or an underground aquifer. I don't understand why you think that the worst case scenario somehow got worse after Chernobyl.
Wasn’t that bad. Wow. Maybe in a Excel spreadsheet kind of way it wasn’t that bad but what a horrific experience for those involved - humans, animals and the environment.
Ah yes, unlimited harm to human life in cases of failure, versus the unlimited harm to human life and planet earth that comes guaranteed everyday with the use of coal and gas.
Don't put up a straw man. Folks who question the safety of nuclear are not advocating for coal and gas, they're advocating for increased investment in myriad other clean energy sources. Suggesting that anyone who questions nuclear is advocating for coal and gas is a bad faith argument.
There are no other clean technologies that can deliver power at scale on their own.
Solar and wind and hydro takes up immense amounts of what should be undisturbed natural environment. Solar and wind needs storage, in the form of hydro or batteries.
Nuclear is a proven, safe tech that pumps out steady, squeaky-clean energy. People imagine that it’s dangerous because of high-profile accidents but don’t see the daily small catastrophes caused by every other tech.
Nuclear wins, hands down. It’s just such a no-brainer. It’s like we’re back in the days of Edison and Tesla and AC vs DC.
Nuclear is a proven, safe tech that pumps out steady, squeaky-clean energy. People imagine that it’s dangerous because of high-profile accidents but don’t see the daily small catastrophes caused by every other tech.
Nuclear wins, hands down. It’s just such a no-brainer. It’s like we’re back in the days of Edison and Tesla and AC vs DC.
Note that this is for keeping existing reactors open, not build new ones.
Yeah While on one hand I am supportive of more money going to clean energy tech / infra build out, I can’t help but be disappointed that this legislation ISN’T technology agnostic.
We are at the point now where there are enough “options on the table” (solar, onshore offshore wind, hydro, nuclear, various storage applications ) that incentives should go towards the cheapest “clean electrons”, regardless of technology. This way the money contributed as subsidy can go the furthest distance.
Nuclear power’s Achilles heel on the economics side are particularly problematic for new builds. With increasing construction costs (compared to declining solar and wind), an almost 10 year timeframe to build out, and potentially half a century operating lifespan, it can be hard to ultimately pencil out. That said, nuclear refurbs and upgrades of existing setups is probably a better direction, even if life extension is likely to be more limited.
We are at the point now where there are enough “options on the table” (solar, onshore offshore wind, hydro, nuclear, various storage applications ) that incentives should go towards the cheapest “clean electrons”, regardless of technology. This way the money contributed as subsidy can go the furthest distance.
Nuclear power’s Achilles heel on the economics side are particularly problematic for new builds. With increasing construction costs (compared to declining solar and wind), an almost 10 year timeframe to build out, and potentially half a century operating lifespan, it can be hard to ultimately pencil out. That said, nuclear refurbs and upgrades of existing setups is probably a better direction, even if life extension is likely to be more limited.
Brief and speculative but very timely[1]. Displacement of carbon is critical, as well as permanent carbon economies that tax at 50-100 $/tCO2. Systemic and sub-systemic shock is one core. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/white-... [2] https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/9-9-20%20Re...
Brief and speculative but very timely[1]. Displacement of carbon is critical, as well as permanent carbon economies that tax at 50-100 $/tCO2. Systemic and sub-systemic shock is one core.[2]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/white-... [2] https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/9-9-20%20Re...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/white-... [2] https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/9-9-20%20Re...
Totally support it.
The doomsday clock is ticking and we don't have time to waste debating. We must buy time now
The doomsday clock is ticking and we don't have time to waste debating. We must buy time now
What happened to nuclear being so much cheaper than coal? Is it really just subsidies for coal that tip the balance? Then the logical consequence would be to remove subsidies from that. But I suspect the "nuclear=cheap" mantra is not the end of the story.
Nuclear is cheaper than coal, which is why coal market share is collapsing way faster than nuclear’s is shrinking. But they’re both having trouble competing against cheap gas and solar.
Nuclear is cheaper to operate, so existing reactors mostly keep running. Construction costs are high for nuclear though. Given the current interest rate environment, nuclear should be looking more attractive.
What is the TCO of nuclear, factoring in waste disposal and eventually cleaning up the site? The one thing Germany learnt from exiting nuclear, is that proper demolishing and removal of nuclear power plants is quite costly. Plus, there's nowhere to safely store the waste.
Didn't France, a nuclear power plant "superpower" produce like only a half of Wembley Stadium of waste in like 50 years?
If this is a price of clean air and pushing the global warming further into the future we can build a couple of mini pyramids of nuclear doom and call it day.
If this is a price of clean air and pushing the global warming further into the future we can build a couple of mini pyramids of nuclear doom and call it day.
I am pretty sure the reason is that France did not ban nuclear fuel reprocessing for several decades, and thus recycled large amounts of spent fuel elements. In the US reprocessing was banned and power plants built up large piles of spent fuel rods as a result.
Reprocessing was banned in the US for a few years. Carter banned it, Reagan lifted the ban. But reprocessing didn't pick up again because it's economically absurd. The plutonium separated from spent fuel has negative value -- it costs more to produce fuel rods containing it than you save in enriched uranium.
Reprocessing may have made sense in a world where enrichment was expensive, uranium resources becoming limited, and fast reactors practical. We do not live in a world with any of those properties. Enrichment prices crashed with gas centrifuges; uranium resources are ample; and fast reactors have turned out to be difficult to make competitive even with thermal nuclear reactors.
Reprocessing may have made sense in a world where enrichment was expensive, uranium resources becoming limited, and fast reactors practical. We do not live in a world with any of those properties. Enrichment prices crashed with gas centrifuges; uranium resources are ample; and fast reactors have turned out to be difficult to make competitive even with thermal nuclear reactors.
Still you have to put that half Wembley stadium somewhere. It's not like you can just put it in landfill with the toxicity levels you get from some of the stuff is in the micrograms.
You dig a hole into impermeable bedrock, and put the waste there. Or if you're the Soviets, you just dump it into the Arctic ocean.
I think humanity can build half a wembley stadium somewhere :) I can store some in my basement if that would help
> Plus, there's nowhere to safely store the waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository#Nuc...
There's also no good reason to dispose of waste at the moment, since we don't reprocess our nuclear fuel. Existing waste is a future source of fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository#Nuc...
There's also no good reason to dispose of waste at the moment, since we don't reprocess our nuclear fuel. Existing waste is a future source of fuel.
You can easily store waste underground, the democrats wouldnt allow it in arizona.
Storing nuclear waste safely underground requires having a rock formation that is geologically stable over 100,000+ years. Not easy to find. Otherwise the waste will eventually enter ground water and from there inevitably the food chain.
For the sake of argument, suppose it leaks after only 1000 years. The radioactivity will have diminished dramatically, although it will be quite a bit higher than background. It's possible that it would contaminate the local water table somewhere in the middle of the desert.
This assumes that the people 1000 years from now won't be much more technologically sophisticated than us and figure out a better way to deal with it in the meantime.
If that's true, and there are humans, but something terrible has happened in the meantime, my guess is that they would much rather some aquifer in the middle of nowhere be polluted than have massive global ecosystem devastation due to pumping CO2 into the air.
In general, the risks from nuclear power are not something to dismiss, but they pale in comparison to the risks of currently acceptable alternatives. Even the very fact that radioactivity decays over some time scale seems to be used against nuclear -- if you pollute the groundwater with cadmium or lead or some other heavy metal, it literally never goes away, so we just accept the risk since no containment can last forever. If fission products decay after 100,000 years though, we have to guarantee containment for that length of time.
This assumes that the people 1000 years from now won't be much more technologically sophisticated than us and figure out a better way to deal with it in the meantime.
If that's true, and there are humans, but something terrible has happened in the meantime, my guess is that they would much rather some aquifer in the middle of nowhere be polluted than have massive global ecosystem devastation due to pumping CO2 into the air.
In general, the risks from nuclear power are not something to dismiss, but they pale in comparison to the risks of currently acceptable alternatives. Even the very fact that radioactivity decays over some time scale seems to be used against nuclear -- if you pollute the groundwater with cadmium or lead or some other heavy metal, it literally never goes away, so we just accept the risk since no containment can last forever. If fission products decay after 100,000 years though, we have to guarantee containment for that length of time.
Where I live, coal is being used less not because of nuclear, but because of natural gas.
Nuclear promised to be cheaper than coal - but it never materialized - not in decades if ever.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
Nuclear has very low marginal cost per watt produced, but has a very high upfront cost and very high cost for plant shutdown.
Due to increased regulation the capital cost of building nuclear power plants has gone up about 400% since 1970. It was much cheaper than coal, but now it's a wash.
Make individual consumer grid energy taxpayer provided and pay the cost to optimize cost down and make long term investments to provide renewable energy. Do the same with internet and water and target wasteful bitcoin miners with asset liquidation.
The current strategy in many countries is to first generate as cheap energy as possible, and then subside alternative sources to be ready when the cheaper energy can't fulfill demand. The cheapest energy source get determined by market forces, while the alternative is about the government buying stability.
I would suspect that the nuclear subsidies is taken from the later strategy and not the former. Companies can still compete on the market to produce the cheapest possible energy, while the government are moved away from fossil fuels and into alternatives that are clean and provide the desired stability for which existing subsidies are paying for.
I would suspect that the nuclear subsidies is taken from the later strategy and not the former. Companies can still compete on the market to produce the cheapest possible energy, while the government are moved away from fossil fuels and into alternatives that are clean and provide the desired stability for which existing subsidies are paying for.
I think we should switch to some of the newer nuclear reactor implementation. There is one that Bill Gates was funding which is supposed to substantially safer according but other similar ones should be evaluated.
It's time we understand that renewables have a poor benefit/cost ratio when you compare it to nuclear.
Renewables + batteries will NEVER supply enough energy in a world that will require more electricity if it uses electric vehicles and move away from fossil fuels. The coal and gaz industry love renewables because you NEED gaz and coal if there's no wind or sun.
Please look at the number.
Renewables + batteries will NEVER supply enough energy in a world that will require more electricity if it uses electric vehicles and move away from fossil fuels. The coal and gaz industry love renewables because you NEED gaz and coal if there's no wind or sun.
Please look at the number.
I've been ardently pro nuclear for decades now.
> Renewables + batteries will NEVER supply enough energy
NEVER is a long, long time. We definitely need nuclear to step in for quite a while, but it's plausible that we can be completely renewable and non-nuclear some time in the future.
> Renewables + batteries will NEVER supply enough energy
NEVER is a long, long time. We definitely need nuclear to step in for quite a while, but it's plausible that we can be completely renewable and non-nuclear some time in the future.
Some time can be a very long time. The goal of the current administration is to be net zero emission by 2050. If after a certain time, let’s say 2025, there are no major break throughs in storage technology, then we have to start building nuclear plants. It’s good that we are preparing for that scenario right now.
> ... If after a certain time...
Why wait? I'm quite aware of the various downsides of nuclear. Yes, it's currently expensive. But one way or another, every functional nuclear power plant displaces several natural gas and coal plants.
It's really that simple.
If we assume that CH4 and CO2 emissions have a strong chance of being an existential threat to our civilization, then we can make no other option but to embrace nuclear ASAP, even with all of its problems.
At the same time, pour funding into research: there's all kinds of fission technologies that show promise in safety, cost and in minimizing byproducts.
Even more important, pour funding into batteries and other energy storage technologies.
As far as renewables have come, we they have hardly scratched the surface for base load requirements. Except for hydro in some locations.
Why wait? I'm quite aware of the various downsides of nuclear. Yes, it's currently expensive. But one way or another, every functional nuclear power plant displaces several natural gas and coal plants.
It's really that simple.
If we assume that CH4 and CO2 emissions have a strong chance of being an existential threat to our civilization, then we can make no other option but to embrace nuclear ASAP, even with all of its problems.
At the same time, pour funding into research: there's all kinds of fission technologies that show promise in safety, cost and in minimizing byproducts.
Even more important, pour funding into batteries and other energy storage technologies.
As far as renewables have come, we they have hardly scratched the surface for base load requirements. Except for hydro in some locations.
The time is just an example. But I see that you get my point. We need concrete climate goals. We can't wait forever for a breakthrough in storage tech to happen "someday". To meet these climate goals, there has to be a deadline, maybe even tomorrow, where we have to place a bet on nuclear.
It seems like everybody is. Obama admin, Trump admin were both pro-nuclear, too. Maybe the issue is that nobody wants it near them?
I’m curious about the assumptions that lead to that conclusion. I suspect you’re approaching this from a viewpoint of energy austerity; if we only consume so many gigawatts of power, we can sustainably supply that many gigawatts with renewables without needing any nuclear. Sure—but why would that be our goal? Why assume that we wouldn’t have some valuable use for all the energy we can cleanly produce?
> I suspect you’re approaching this from a viewpoint of energy austerity
Not really. I'm just saying that all renewable, non-nuclear is possible...some time in the future.
Realistically, I think even in some kind of idealized future, there will be a lot of nuclear power in the mix. Hopefully it's safe, low cost and produces minimal harmful byproducts.
In truth, if nuclear can get excellent enough, which is a real possibility, then it becomes effectively more clean than solar and wind, right? The energy density is so high, there is a LOT less to build.
Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed.
Not really. I'm just saying that all renewable, non-nuclear is possible...some time in the future.
Realistically, I think even in some kind of idealized future, there will be a lot of nuclear power in the mix. Hopefully it's safe, low cost and produces minimal harmful byproducts.
In truth, if nuclear can get excellent enough, which is a real possibility, then it becomes effectively more clean than solar and wind, right? The energy density is so high, there is a LOT less to build.
Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed.
Sounds reasonable enough.
> Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed.
From my perspective, there are a lot of things that become significantly easier to do if we can produce as much energy as possible, ranging from synthesizing liquid fuels from air and water (chemically possible but energy-intensive) to extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in some sterile chemical sludge that we can pump into empty oil wells to large-scale water desalination (combined with removing the salt). And that’s just in the realm of climate change and sustainability—we are also going to need energy to do new things, not just to do the same things we’re doing now with less ecological impact, or even reversing the ecological impacts we’ve already caused.
We’re going to find productive uses of energy faster than we’re going to be able to develop the energy production needed to sustain them. So I’m not sure we’ll be given the choice—we’ll need to do both. The main difference being that a high amount of nuclear baseload would obviate the need for batteries.
> Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed.
From my perspective, there are a lot of things that become significantly easier to do if we can produce as much energy as possible, ranging from synthesizing liquid fuels from air and water (chemically possible but energy-intensive) to extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in some sterile chemical sludge that we can pump into empty oil wells to large-scale water desalination (combined with removing the salt). And that’s just in the realm of climate change and sustainability—we are also going to need energy to do new things, not just to do the same things we’re doing now with less ecological impact, or even reversing the ecological impacts we’ve already caused.
We’re going to find productive uses of energy faster than we’re going to be able to develop the energy production needed to sustain them. So I’m not sure we’ll be given the choice—we’ll need to do both. The main difference being that a high amount of nuclear baseload would obviate the need for batteries.
Preach!
Seriously large amounts of sustainably created energy opens all kinds of doors, and might actually be one of the only ways out of our current and upcoming climate crisis.
Seriously large amounts of sustainably created energy opens all kinds of doors, and might actually be one of the only ways out of our current and upcoming climate crisis.
This is not reflected in the actual electricity market prices.
It's not clear to me how current market prices contain enough information to support or refute the assertion that renewables won't be able to supply enough for a hypothetical future where fossil fuels are no longer used even for transportation. I think you need to also demonstrate that renewable energy prices can remain low even when required to scale up significantly beyond current levels, and that we won't run out of locations amenable to cheap and easy deployment of wind, solar and hydro power.
Drop the solar subsidies and then let’s talk about “market” prices.
There are many solar plants around the world that produce cheap power without subsidies.
Yup - but they aren’t everywhere. Power transmission doesn’t happen without loss.
One of the many issues with solar that doesn’t get addressed.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m a huge proponent of solar when it make sense. I grew up in the Desert Southwest so it can make a lot of sense there in particular.
But solar is NOT a replacement for technology like nuclear energy.
One of the many issues with solar that doesn’t get addressed.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m a huge proponent of solar when it make sense. I grew up in the Desert Southwest so it can make a lot of sense there in particular.
But solar is NOT a replacement for technology like nuclear energy.
That is not true. Not by a long shot.
We don't need nuclear at all.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Coun...
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Coun...
I would rather have seen downvoters approach the merits of this claim in comments first. We do not need HN to turn into devolving to ad populum for every contentious topic.
OK - here’s a key question - where do they talk about base load and predictable generation? Indeed, they hand wave it off with “The present study does not examine grid stability, since it is evaluated in separate work”.
Well since they are countering the unreliable generation arguments with “unreliable generation isn’t a problem if you have enough diverse sources” - if you can’t interconnect those diverse sources then you don’t have much of a solution, do you?
Nice theory, zero discussion of how you make the theory practical reality.
Edited after cooler head prevailed.
Well since they are countering the unreliable generation arguments with “unreliable generation isn’t a problem if you have enough diverse sources” - if you can’t interconnect those diverse sources then you don’t have much of a solution, do you?
Nice theory, zero discussion of how you make the theory practical reality.
Edited after cooler head prevailed.
I was willing to take the downvote hits.
This narrative of "we need a baseload" or "the sun doesn't always shine" is just not countered often enough.
WWS would be sufficient for the majority of countries around the world including the US and all it takes is the political will to implement this. Not technology.
WWS would be sufficient for the majority of countries around the world including the US and all it takes is the political will to implement this. Not technology.
WWS doesn’t work without your diverse and distributed sources being interconnected.
Which they conveniently hand wave off since that was a subject for another paper.
If they had confidence in their ideas, they would at least summarize the findings of that paper that justify their implying the grid as not being an issue in the practicality of their plan. For example: even if the grid is 100% reliable (which - spoiler - it’s not), what are the sizing implications due to transmission loss? How do you get power across continents to have true geographic diversity? This paper presents all upside with no downside? Ha!
Again, nice theory in a perfect world. We do not live in a perfect world.
Which they conveniently hand wave off since that was a subject for another paper.
If they had confidence in their ideas, they would at least summarize the findings of that paper that justify their implying the grid as not being an issue in the practicality of their plan. For example: even if the grid is 100% reliable (which - spoiler - it’s not), what are the sizing implications due to transmission loss? How do you get power across continents to have true geographic diversity? This paper presents all upside with no downside? Ha!
Again, nice theory in a perfect world. We do not live in a perfect world.
This is an article, not a paper.
My understanding that is wind/solar are significantly cheaper than nuclear is on a cost basis. The costs required to build and safely dismantle nuclear plants are major cost contributors. The downside of course is lack of baseload, which nuclear can cover quite happily, albeit at a higher cost.
But are they cheaper when you add the batteries? Doubtful. I hear maybe by 2030.
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-buil...
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-buil...
So run easily-tunable gas turbines when needed, nuclear if you need it, and renewables for the bulk of your energy. Perfect is the enemy of good here.
That's not a particularly good solution, since it doesn't halt climate change. We're already starting to hit during peak renewable production in several states. We're reaching the point where those peaker gas plants are the main source of emissions that we're trying to eliminate.
Renewables are better on a raw $/KW measure. But that's a naive way of assessing intermittent sources. Once you start saturating the market during peak production, only part of the newly installed capacity actually displaces fossil fuels. Non-intermittent sources of energy like hydroelectricity and nuclear power aren't subject to this constraint
Renewables are better on a raw $/KW measure. But that's a naive way of assessing intermittent sources. Once you start saturating the market during peak production, only part of the newly installed capacity actually displaces fossil fuels. Non-intermittent sources of energy like hydroelectricity and nuclear power aren't subject to this constraint
If nuclear can handle what we currently use gas for, all the better, and I'd be totally down with that.
> We're already starting to hit during peak renewable production
What do you mean by that?
> We're already starting to hit during peak renewable production
What do you mean by that?
Solar panels produce energy in a sine wave. Once the peak of the sine wave exceeds energy demand, you start hitting diminishing returns. The fluctuations in wind production are more complicated, but it's subject to the same problem. You can over-produce to make up for the troughs in energy demand, but the nature of overproduction means that a portion of generated energy goes to waste. This is already happening in California: daytime energy production is saturated.
This is why most renewable plans assume that there will be some silver bullet that makes energy storage effectively free. Without some way to turn an intermittent source into a consistent source, it'll be very difficult to decarbonize with wind and solar.
This is why most renewable plans assume that there will be some silver bullet that makes energy storage effectively free. Without some way to turn an intermittent source into a consistent source, it'll be very difficult to decarbonize with wind and solar.
That’s the real problem today - there is no ability to compromise. Everything is a zero sum game :(
Nuclear can replace fossil fuels today. If we finally get other renewables to a place where they can address issues like predictability and reliability, then we look at de-commissioning nuclear.
But preemptively removing a very viable tool from your toolset is just bananas.
Nuclear can replace fossil fuels today. If we finally get other renewables to a place where they can address issues like predictability and reliability, then we look at de-commissioning nuclear.
But preemptively removing a very viable tool from your toolset is just bananas.
Which is an unfair point because we have yet to see what costs are associated with safely dismantling and replacing all those miles upon miles of solar panels and wind turbines will be. Nuclear has been deployed on a larger scale for a long time so the costs are known.
How many miles of solar panels, wind turbines, and battery backup are needed to produce the same amount of energy as a single nuclear plant? I imagine if you do the math at scale, it turns out to be negligible, if not more expensive for renewables.
How many miles of solar panels, wind turbines, and battery backup are needed to produce the same amount of energy as a single nuclear plant? I imagine if you do the math at scale, it turns out to be negligible, if not more expensive for renewables.
Old wind power plants are often repowered. Wind turbines that have reached their EOL are replaced with newer and more efficient ones, significantly incrasing the output of the plant:
> “Repowering is happening and will increase. It’s a great opportunity to get more energy from today’s wind farms. Repowering reduces the number of turbines by a third while tripling the electricity output. And it preserves the existing wind farm sites which often have the best wind conditions. Governments need repowering strategies that set the right framework and ensure efficient permitting procedures for repowering”, says WindEurope CEO Giles Dickson.
Most of the material used in wind turbines can be recycled:
> Wind turbines are a valuable source of resources which can be reused in the circular economy. 85-90% of a dismantled wind turbine are recycled today, including the towers, foundations, generators and gearboxes. Most of these materials are made up of concrete, steel and cast iron which are easy to recycle and for which there is an active circular economy market in Europe.
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/what-happens-...
> “Repowering is happening and will increase. It’s a great opportunity to get more energy from today’s wind farms. Repowering reduces the number of turbines by a third while tripling the electricity output. And it preserves the existing wind farm sites which often have the best wind conditions. Governments need repowering strategies that set the right framework and ensure efficient permitting procedures for repowering”, says WindEurope CEO Giles Dickson.
Most of the material used in wind turbines can be recycled:
> Wind turbines are a valuable source of resources which can be reused in the circular economy. 85-90% of a dismantled wind turbine are recycled today, including the towers, foundations, generators and gearboxes. Most of these materials are made up of concrete, steel and cast iron which are easy to recycle and for which there is an active circular economy market in Europe.
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/what-happens-...
We've been running electric wind turbines for 70+ years (and non-electric for thousands) at this point, the costs are well-known. Less so for solar panels, but still decades. And the bonus here is that neither can fail catastrophically the way nuclear plants do.
As for size, sure, nuclear plants are more compact. But you can't build nuclear plants on top of people's houses, or in the North Sea. Investors and actuaries have done the math, and renewables are just plain cheaper per Kwh, at least in today's landscape.
As for size, sure, nuclear plants are more compact. But you can't build nuclear plants on top of people's houses, or in the North Sea. Investors and actuaries have done the math, and renewables are just plain cheaper per Kwh, at least in today's landscape.
This rebuttal doesn't measure up.
You can't compare wind turbines from 70 years ago to today. (I noticed the convenient deemphasizing of solar farms. Look up issues with abandoned solar farms.)
The last point is moot. Land is abundant in America. I also question the hand-wavy "investors have done the math"
You can't compare wind turbines from 70 years ago to today. (I noticed the convenient deemphasizing of solar farms. Look up issues with abandoned solar farms.)
The last point is moot. Land is abundant in America. I also question the hand-wavy "investors have done the math"
No kidding. Search for abandoned wind farm - it’s pretty frighting. Fiberglass is not easy to recycle.
Same with solar cells. I see them putting up thousands of acres of solar cells in the Nevada desert - will be fun to see what happens 20 years from now. Local cities who leased the land out to those farms are making money now - but are they going to get stuck with an expensive clean up if those companies go bust in 20 years because the market changes, subsidies have ended, etc? It’s nuts.
Same with solar cells. I see them putting up thousands of acres of solar cells in the Nevada desert - will be fun to see what happens 20 years from now. Local cities who leased the land out to those farms are making money now - but are they going to get stuck with an expensive clean up if those companies go bust in 20 years because the market changes, subsidies have ended, etc? It’s nuts.
Besides the material wastage you mention, also think of the habitat destruction this causes. One small nuclear plant can replace many acres of noisy, ugly, inefficient and bird-killing windmills and panels
> inefficient
Ironically, wind turbines are more efficient than nuclear power plants. Solar panels are not, but at least they do direct energy conversion from sunlight (whereas the nameplate efficiency of nuclear power plants additionally ignores the requirements of the fuel processing chain that starts with removing mountains of ~500ppm ore these days).
Ironically, wind turbines are more efficient than nuclear power plants. Solar panels are not, but at least they do direct energy conversion from sunlight (whereas the nameplate efficiency of nuclear power plants additionally ignores the requirements of the fuel processing chain that starts with removing mountains of ~500ppm ore these days).
If wind farms are so wonderful why isn’t there a huge one off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard?
People bristle at terms like “virtue signal” - here’s an opportunity for our “elites” to show some real leadership.
I won’t hold my breath.
People bristle at terms like “virtue signal” - here’s an opportunity for our “elites” to show some real leadership.
I won’t hold my breath.
Nuclear is more expensive per KWH basically entirely because of the regulatory environment. Not because of anything physical about the method or its fuel; it's not more expensive in France, for example. Get the costs of regulatory compliance down and nuclear becomes the cheapest power source for both capital and ongoing costs.
France's reliance on nuclear is almost 100% government-and-geopolitics driven, to avoid relying on foreign states for energy imports, the market has little to do with it. I can't speak for how much regulation is needed or not, but given nuclear failure is catastrophic, I can see why we should err on the regulated side. Nuclear is incredibly safe, but only because we made it safe by spending on it. Solar/wind just doesn't have the same risk profile.
The other elephants in the room are (1) the material requirements (required metals, plastics, glass, electronics and reinforced concrete) per GWh, and (2) the required space per GWh (less space for buildings, fields or nature).
And solar/wind are also "cheap" because they are mostly produced in mainland China, with coal and cheap labor (including "very cheap labor": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/business/economy/china-so...). Not a very sustainable solution...
And solar/wind are also "cheap" because they are mostly produced in mainland China, with coal and cheap labor (including "very cheap labor": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/business/economy/china-so...). Not a very sustainable solution...
At this point it seems like, for nuclear to play a big role in the future power mix, someone needs to fund a program to develop carbon neutral concrete that still meets or exceeds the construction parameters for part - or preferably all - of the concrete used in building these plants.
Since they use so much of it, that would build up capacity for other uses, and the subsidy doesn't even have to necessarily go straight to nuclear power, which might improve the optics.
Here's a discount for specialty concrete that only nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams would be interested in...
Since they use so much of it, that would build up capacity for other uses, and the subsidy doesn't even have to necessarily go straight to nuclear power, which might improve the optics.
Here's a discount for specialty concrete that only nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams would be interested in...
> Renewables + batteries will NEVER supply enough energy in a world that will require more electricity if it uses electric vehicles and move away from fossil fuels. The coal and gaz industry love renewables because you NEED gaz and coal if there's no wind or sun.
Let's see - the per capita total energy consumption - which includes transportation, industry, agriculture (everything) in the US is 80 MWh yearly[0]. The global population is expected to peak at 10 billion. Assuming the whole world consumes energy like a drunk sailor like the US does (and by the way, BEVs, for example, are twice as energy-efficient per mile than gasoline vehicles [1]) - that comes to 800 PWh.
The average solar cell produces 150 watts per square meter[2]. Running at 6 hours per day for a year, thus a square meter produces 0.3285 MWh. Therefore you need 2.4 million sq. km of land to supply the total global energy consumption (where the average consumption is 15 times higher than current consumption) only through solar. How much land is it? Quite a lot - twice that of India, and a quarter of the Sahara desert[3]. But remember this is spread all over the world. As a percentage of the total land area, it's not even a single percent. Agriculture itself consumes 60 times more area than this.
However, this is only from solar. The current state-of-the-art offshore turbines produce 15MW peak power already. Such a turbine has a rotor diameter of 236m. The optimal distance between turbines is 10D, where D is the rotor diameter [5]. Thus assuming a 50% capacity factor, an offshore wind farm produces 11.8 kWh per square meter per year. You would also need 12 million such turbines to supply the entire world's energy consumption per year. Assuming we get half of our annual energy consumption from offshore wind, you would need 33 million square kilometers covered in wind turbines. When it comes to areal efficiency wind, it is an order of magnitude worse than solar - however, the advantage is that the area is mostly free. Offshore turbines spaced kilometers apart can coexist easily with shipping lanes, while onshore turbines can and do exist without issues with ranches and farmland. By the way, the US coastline itself is 150,000km [6]. Thus, if you cover the coastline with turbines (only five deep), you can only generate the entire combined US energy demand from offshore wind.
And we have not touched on rooftop solar and onshore wind at all. So I fail to see how renewables will NEVER supply enough energy to the world.
References:
[0] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=85&t=1
[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml#:~:text=EVs%20h....
[2] https://www.solar-electric.com/learning-center/solar-insolat....
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
[4] https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1706915/vestas-laun...
[5] https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14495
[6] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/shorelength.html#:~:text....
Let's see - the per capita total energy consumption - which includes transportation, industry, agriculture (everything) in the US is 80 MWh yearly[0]. The global population is expected to peak at 10 billion. Assuming the whole world consumes energy like a drunk sailor like the US does (and by the way, BEVs, for example, are twice as energy-efficient per mile than gasoline vehicles [1]) - that comes to 800 PWh.
The average solar cell produces 150 watts per square meter[2]. Running at 6 hours per day for a year, thus a square meter produces 0.3285 MWh. Therefore you need 2.4 million sq. km of land to supply the total global energy consumption (where the average consumption is 15 times higher than current consumption) only through solar. How much land is it? Quite a lot - twice that of India, and a quarter of the Sahara desert[3]. But remember this is spread all over the world. As a percentage of the total land area, it's not even a single percent. Agriculture itself consumes 60 times more area than this.
However, this is only from solar. The current state-of-the-art offshore turbines produce 15MW peak power already. Such a turbine has a rotor diameter of 236m. The optimal distance between turbines is 10D, where D is the rotor diameter [5]. Thus assuming a 50% capacity factor, an offshore wind farm produces 11.8 kWh per square meter per year. You would also need 12 million such turbines to supply the entire world's energy consumption per year. Assuming we get half of our annual energy consumption from offshore wind, you would need 33 million square kilometers covered in wind turbines. When it comes to areal efficiency wind, it is an order of magnitude worse than solar - however, the advantage is that the area is mostly free. Offshore turbines spaced kilometers apart can coexist easily with shipping lanes, while onshore turbines can and do exist without issues with ranches and farmland. By the way, the US coastline itself is 150,000km [6]. Thus, if you cover the coastline with turbines (only five deep), you can only generate the entire combined US energy demand from offshore wind.
And we have not touched on rooftop solar and onshore wind at all. So I fail to see how renewables will NEVER supply enough energy to the world.
References:
[0] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=85&t=1
[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml#:~:text=EVs%20h....
[2] https://www.solar-electric.com/learning-center/solar-insolat....
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
[4] https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1706915/vestas-laun...
[5] https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14495
[6] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/shorelength.html#:~:text....
Nuclear power in the united states can never be economical because the laws are designed to make it so. I am not being hyperbolic. Literally, the standards call for all emissions to be ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable.
https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26836075
https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26836075
The WH needs to push congress for a carbon tax (which, unfortunately, they are too cowardly to even try). We don't even need to be subsidizing nuclear, it will miraculously become profitable when fossil fuels' externalities are properly priced in.
Nuclear energy is one answer to the question of how to supply 24/7 base load, especially in the night in all conditions.
Cheap high capacity energy storage is needed to make renewables competitive as a base load. Until that happens, nuclear is better than goal or gas.
Cheap high capacity energy storage is needed to make renewables competitive as a base load. Until that happens, nuclear is better than goal or gas.
I guess subsidies make sense but I think it could make a lot more sense of the government acted as capital investors or something of the sort.
Regardless I'm very curious to see how this goes. It'd be neat if they used thorium.
Really? Just spend the billions to build them directly and cut out the bloat.
Even in the super unlikely case that we institute a (much needed) carbon tax, I just can't see nuclear ever being competitive in a free market. By "competitive" I mean no insurance subsidies.
Imho, if we want to move forward as a species into something like the "next level" of civilization, we need to pour trillions of dollars of effort into building a full stack of nuclear energy.
University programs, technical schools, research labs, and a robust supply chain for plant construction and maintenance.
The energy density of nuclear fuel would have convinced any higher rational society to do this decades ago. There is no contest, not with solar, not with coal or NG. Pound for pound (including all of the cladding, reactor vessels, and everything else), nuclear plants produce just so much energy.
University programs, technical schools, research labs, and a robust supply chain for plant construction and maintenance.
The energy density of nuclear fuel would have convinced any higher rational society to do this decades ago. There is no contest, not with solar, not with coal or NG. Pound for pound (including all of the cladding, reactor vessels, and everything else), nuclear plants produce just so much energy.
I have seen this argument about energy density before, I still don't understand it. Why is the density of energy generation so important?
The quantity of easily extractable energy available from nuclear fuel dwarfs anything else known. A single nuclear fuel pellet contains the same amount of energy as a ton of coal. 20 tons if all of the energy is extracted.
How many tons of easily exploitable coal/ng/etc exist in the world? Nevermind easily exploitable: how much energy exists, period, in fossil deposits?
It's dwarfed by nuclear fuel. 1 cm3 to 20 tons.
Energy density also makes things easier. You can transport a year's worth of energy on one train. You can ship it to remote areas. To get a lot of energy out of the ground, you don't need a huge extraction process like fracking or strip mining.
How many tons of easily exploitable coal/ng/etc exist in the world? Nevermind easily exploitable: how much energy exists, period, in fossil deposits?
It's dwarfed by nuclear fuel. 1 cm3 to 20 tons.
Energy density also makes things easier. You can transport a year's worth of energy on one train. You can ship it to remote areas. To get a lot of energy out of the ground, you don't need a huge extraction process like fracking or strip mining.
I'm not being obtuse - I still don't understand why this is important. Is 'ability to transport a lot of energy on a train' really key? Renewables have a completely different model for how they are distributed and how their supply is constrained.
There are two "renewable" sources of power: solar (wind and hydro are there with solar, but their energy potential is smaller and their downsides larger) and nuclear*.
Solar makes a lot of energy, but:
- you need a lot of land to make energy
- energy generation scales poorly with materials required
- you lose efficiency because you have to transport the power from the optimal place to every other place
By contrast, nuclear can be built anywhere regardless of climate (greatly reducing transmission loss), fuel is fairly widely distributed (i.e. every big political bloc has a good source of uranium), it provides continuous power, and material costs are low to build massive plants. And there is a lot of energy stored in the world's nuclear reserve. Way more energy than is stored in coal/ng/oil. Because of the energy density of nuclear fuel, if you add a little bit more material input, you get a lot more power. Not true with solar or any other source.
You can't run an entire advanced economy on solar, or even majority on solar. By contrast, you can have a 100% zero emissions economy run entirely on nuclear. My main point would be that if we want to continue to grow technologically, energy production must be centered on nuclear, with enhancements to efficiency provided by solar energy. Energy is the ultimate constraint on human development.
That's not what we have, though. Most people think that we can completely de-carbonize using solar energy which is false. Running an entire grid on batteries at night is a pipe dream -- the US grid has 3 seconds of energy storage total. By contrast, the technology for a completely de-carbonized modern economy exists right now with nuclear.
* I consider nuclear "renewable" because there's so much energy that in the short term, it may as well be.
Solar makes a lot of energy, but:
- you need a lot of land to make energy
- energy generation scales poorly with materials required
- you lose efficiency because you have to transport the power from the optimal place to every other place
By contrast, nuclear can be built anywhere regardless of climate (greatly reducing transmission loss), fuel is fairly widely distributed (i.e. every big political bloc has a good source of uranium), it provides continuous power, and material costs are low to build massive plants. And there is a lot of energy stored in the world's nuclear reserve. Way more energy than is stored in coal/ng/oil. Because of the energy density of nuclear fuel, if you add a little bit more material input, you get a lot more power. Not true with solar or any other source.
You can't run an entire advanced economy on solar, or even majority on solar. By contrast, you can have a 100% zero emissions economy run entirely on nuclear. My main point would be that if we want to continue to grow technologically, energy production must be centered on nuclear, with enhancements to efficiency provided by solar energy. Energy is the ultimate constraint on human development.
That's not what we have, though. Most people think that we can completely de-carbonize using solar energy which is false. Running an entire grid on batteries at night is a pipe dream -- the US grid has 3 seconds of energy storage total. By contrast, the technology for a completely de-carbonized modern economy exists right now with nuclear.
* I consider nuclear "renewable" because there's so much energy that in the short term, it may as well be.
> You can't run an entire advanced economy on solar, or even majority on solar.
Sure you can. Defend this claim.
Sure you can. Defend this claim.
If you want power at night, what do you do? If it's cloudier one day than another, what do you do? You need baseline production to flatten the peaks and valleys.
If you want to run on solar, you need to provision far more supply of energy than demand (and use a ton of material/land to do so), and then melt rocks or something when there's too much supply. Or build a continental power distribution grid that wastes all the energy you've made to get a trickle of power from over-provisioned areas to under-provisioned ones. Or, you can store it all in batteries. OK? What are losses? How many batteries do we need to build for grid-wide ~12h of storage? The answer is, a lot. What are the costs of mining, building, installing, replacing all those batteries?
The key thing I'm driving at is efficiency. Losses. The efficiency in batteries is not good. The efficiency in moving energy 1000's of miles is not good. Those are required for a majority solar grid.
The conversation here is not about whether it's possible, but whether it is efficient. It is possible after all to power the whole grid with coal.
If you want to run on solar, you need to provision far more supply of energy than demand (and use a ton of material/land to do so), and then melt rocks or something when there's too much supply. Or build a continental power distribution grid that wastes all the energy you've made to get a trickle of power from over-provisioned areas to under-provisioned ones. Or, you can store it all in batteries. OK? What are losses? How many batteries do we need to build for grid-wide ~12h of storage? The answer is, a lot. What are the costs of mining, building, installing, replacing all those batteries?
The key thing I'm driving at is efficiency. Losses. The efficiency in batteries is not good. The efficiency in moving energy 1000's of miles is not good. Those are required for a majority solar grid.
The conversation here is not about whether it's possible, but whether it is efficient. It is possible after all to power the whole grid with coal.
None of that argument justifies your claim. Yes, storage is needed. No, that doesn't mean solar cannot power civilzation. Simply raising questions doesn't prove your point. It's up to you to show that all the various storage technologies, alone or combination, along with transmission and dispatchable demand, cannot do the job.
No, it IS about whether it's possible. You didn't claim it wasn't "efficient", you claimed it wasn't possible. "Can't." I'm not sure why efficiency matters -- is agriculture impossible because its average efficiency at converting sunlight to food energy is less than 1%?
No, it IS about whether it's possible. You didn't claim it wasn't "efficient", you claimed it wasn't possible. "Can't." I'm not sure why efficiency matters -- is agriculture impossible because its average efficiency at converting sunlight to food energy is less than 1%?
Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker, but verbs that could be nouns in a title always has me doing 3 takes to get it right. Kind of annoying.
What ever happened to those shed sized fission generators that were going to be safely running under or next to our houses? Did we forget about them?
There are a variety of small modular reactors (SMRs) under development, not shed sized more like small town sized. NuScale is the furthest along, they are licensed by the NRC and have a project due to come online towards the end of the decade.
Thank you, I couldn't remember what they were called. There were stories of 1kW vSMRs which would be placed near a house:
https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/mini-reactor-builders-...
Seems like this idea didn't get traction.
https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/mini-reactor-builders-...
Seems like this idea didn't get traction.
Give green power a chance - fully invest in solar, kinetic energy power projects for 10 years and only then decide if nuclear power is needed.
It's safer to invest both in green power and nuclear. As long as we get rid of fossil fuels ASAP it's a victory, we can always replace those nuclear plants with solar/wind in 50 years if that seems to make sense by then.
[deleted]
Yes, for ten years we should mine lithium in massive quantities and dump the toxic dirt into the waterways surrounding the mining sites.
1. Ensure that ALARA based regulations keep new entrants out of the nuclear market.
2. Subsidize existing, inefficient providers.
3. Profit! (for entrenched players, not us)
2. Subsidize existing, inefficient providers.
3. Profit! (for entrenched players, not us)
There’s a power plant near me that might be closing. Hope this is able to save them.
If it's a 1950s-1960s design, it's probably best to let it close, or be retrofitted.
It takes long enough to build a nuclear reactor that it makes more sense to build it somewhere else than on the site of an operating reactor which is still viable to continue operations. Keep all the existing plants that can reasonably be kept operating online until after the last coal plant is shut down, then start retrofitting existing reactors.
by then, it might be easier to retrofit them with solar panels and batteries, or H2 power to gas, who knows? Not joking, the lines and transformers are a very big part of a new plant cost, and you already have that setup in place.
So retrofit the existing coal power plants into being new nuclear power plants.
not sure that's going to work, because nuclear requires some massive concrete insulation bubbles. Also the cooling is wildly different, nuclear power plants are built on large bodies of water, If there isn't one, sometimes they built a large dammed lake to have enough water to cool down the reactors in case of an emergency.
Instead, there are coal-> gas and coal->biomass retrofits. Gas works because the installations are TINY compared to coal. Look at Drax, this plan would have replaced the entire capacity of the coal plant. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/30/uk-sued-...
(I think the plan was dropped eventually).
Nuclear to solar I think there is Chernobyl as an example.
New nuclear is a challenge right now, because they're not standardized and the costs and timings are insane. Also, everyone wants nuclear, unless it's in their county. I think we have a good chance of seeing factory produced small nuclear reactors that are easier, cheaper and faster to install than what we have now.
Instead, there are coal-> gas and coal->biomass retrofits. Gas works because the installations are TINY compared to coal. Look at Drax, this plan would have replaced the entire capacity of the coal plant. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/30/uk-sued-...
(I think the plan was dropped eventually).
Nuclear to solar I think there is Chernobyl as an example.
New nuclear is a challenge right now, because they're not standardized and the costs and timings are insane. Also, everyone wants nuclear, unless it's in their county. I think we have a good chance of seeing factory produced small nuclear reactors that are easier, cheaper and faster to install than what we have now.
> not sure that's going to work, because nuclear requires some massive concrete insulation bubbles.
That implies you might need somewhat more land. Take a look around most coal power plants. It's commonly unimproved land because ain't nobody want to live next to that.
> Also the cooling is wildly different, nuclear power plants are built on large bodies of water, If there isn't one, sometimes they built a large dammed lake to have enough water to cool down the reactors in case of an emergency.
You sure it's that different? They both operate on the principle of generating heat to turn water into steam and run turbines. That implies the same amount of generating capacity would require approximately the same amount of water.
With the implication that most of the existing coal power plants are already on bodies of water.
> New nuclear is a challenge right now, because they're not standardized and the costs and timings are insane.
But this is chicken and egg. If you've built none then the first installation you do of its kind has high costs. Build a hundred and that isn't true.
That implies you might need somewhat more land. Take a look around most coal power plants. It's commonly unimproved land because ain't nobody want to live next to that.
> Also the cooling is wildly different, nuclear power plants are built on large bodies of water, If there isn't one, sometimes they built a large dammed lake to have enough water to cool down the reactors in case of an emergency.
You sure it's that different? They both operate on the principle of generating heat to turn water into steam and run turbines. That implies the same amount of generating capacity would require approximately the same amount of water.
With the implication that most of the existing coal power plants are already on bodies of water.
> New nuclear is a challenge right now, because they're not standardized and the costs and timings are insane.
But this is chicken and egg. If you've built none then the first installation you do of its kind has high costs. Build a hundred and that isn't true.
> competition from plentiful natural gas, wind and solar power, which are rapidly becoming less pricey.
No one questions whether the zero emissions target is rational. Natural gas in North America should complement the variability of wind and solar, IMO.
No one questions whether the zero emissions target is rational. Natural gas in North America should complement the variability of wind and solar, IMO.
what are we doing with the nuclear waste? I mean in reality not in theory. Aren't renewables cheap enough also with energy storage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2RxWtF4Ds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM2RxWtF4Ds
We should be burning it instead of burying a viable energy source.
What could go wrong?
Probably very little? Modern reactor designs do not have the same risk of catastrophic failure that older designs like the Fukushima plant had.
Folks thought the same thing about Fukushima at the time. If history has shown us anything, it's that we're consistently not as smart as we think we are.
It is not as though the Fukushima operators were blindsided. They knew exactly what would happen if they could not restore power within a certain period of time; they could not restore power and the disaster proceeded as anticipated. What makes modern reactors different is that the worst case is not a catastrophe, and a loss of power does not cause a catastrophe. With older reactors the design philosophy was to make the worst case sufficiently unlikely; with newer designs the philosophy is to not have a catastrophic worst case.
This won’t end well
Maybe they could sneak the funding into the F-35 program.
The biggest joke about this is that subsidies are not what's preventing nuclear power. It's your states DNR, the EPA, NIMBY's, and the market containing very few people to employ for the job. How is getting a subsidy gonna help when the EPA protects wetlands? How is a cheaper reactor for a power company going to help when the DNR says you have to fulfill absurd rules when constructing in an area that ruins wildlife but satisfies the NIMBY's? What about NIMBY's who get to petition construction near them? Nuclear power just isn't gonna happen here and subsidies are just gonna be trickle up kickbacks to CEO's. There is too much government mandated bureaucracy involved that prevents this. Environmentalists and pro nuclear power people typically want their cake and eat it too. Too bad to make for "greener" energy, you have to destroy a significant part of the world to do it meaning lax EPA regulations. But to do that would be an affront for some outrageous impossible to maintain morality system. Sometimes you gotta bend the rules to get good things done.
This should not happen without a long term plan for where are they are going to put the waste.
The long-term "waste" is Plutonium. Half-life 24,000 years. We don't want to have to secure it for that long, but we already have tons of it, so the answer is to permanently destroy it, because Plutonium is fissionable. It can be used as reactor fuel.
So the answer for what to do with the waste is to build reactors that use it as fuel. That not only doesn't create more long-lived waste, it gives us a way to get rid of what we already have.
So the answer for what to do with the waste is to build reactors that use it as fuel. That not only doesn't create more long-lived waste, it gives us a way to get rid of what we already have.
I thought that was what fast breeder reactors did.
They have only low grade waste. The disadvantage is that you don't get free plutonium to put in your nukes
There are some political ramifications to admitting that you use plutonium from civilian reactors to make nuclear weapons. It's possible that they're doing this without admitting it and that's the reason reactors that consume rather than produce plutonium are disfavored. But in that case you still don't have a "waste storage problem" -- you know what you're doing with the plutonium, you're just not admitting to it.
But I don't think the scale adds up for that. We don't need this amount of plutonium to make weapons, even if that's what we're doing with some of it. So still destroy the rest of it.
But I don't think the scale adds up for that. We don't need this amount of plutonium to make weapons, even if that's what we're doing with some of it. So still destroy the rest of it.
What is your long term plan for what to do with all of the carbon dioxide we're putting into the atmosphere?
Both are immense problems with immense dangers, but it seems to me that one is clearly easier to solve.
Both are immense problems with immense dangers, but it seems to me that one is clearly easier to solve.
"Repair an entire planet's atmosphere" vs "store a few hundred tons of radioactive material safely" are definitely very different levels of problems.
Not to mention the possibility that spent fuel could be of use to future generations for some kind of future science and it would all conveniently be in one place.
Not to mention the possibility that spent fuel could be of use to future generations for some kind of future science and it would all conveniently be in one place.
or if you burn today’s “waste” in reactors that can easily do so, you not only don’t have to securely store it while also getting carbon neutral energy that will displace existing fossil fuel derived sources.
Nuclear is predictable which means it’s perfect for base load generation. Something all the other “clean” technologies are not.
Nuclear is predictable which means it’s perfect for base load generation. Something all the other “clean” technologies are not.
so we didn't plan for the problem in the past, so we shouldn't bother this time? that's pure whataboutism and not helpful
The urgency is different. You don't earthquake-proof your house while the living room is on fire.
An even more apt analogy might be: if your living room is on fire, you should dump water on it. You shouldn't let the fire rage because the water could damage the carpet.
it's not an apt analogy. We can do both! There's no reason that we can't legislate proper waste handling with the subsidies. No reason whatsoever.
You can either let the fire rage while you make a plan for how to repair the carpet, or you can pour the water now and deal with the carpet later.
There is in fact a limit to how much you can get legislatures to do at once. I’m all for coming up with policies for nuclear waste, I just don’t think it should hold up the construction of reactors. The world is on fire.
There is in fact a limit to how much you can get legislatures to do at once. I’m all for coming up with policies for nuclear waste, I just don’t think it should hold up the construction of reactors. The world is on fire.
why fight so hard against even trying???
We should try! But I think the logical end result of "we should do X hard thing before Y" will be that Y never gets done!
It's almost like a form of bike shedding—except that the bike shed is in fact important, but its construction can trail launch, and launch is on a tight deadline.
It's almost like a form of bike shedding—except that the bike shed is in fact important, but its construction can trail launch, and launch is on a tight deadline.
[deleted]
Nuclear waste handling is a non-issue. The volume are totally manageable, and future generations of nuclear plants won't product much (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor)
You mean Yucca Mountain, that sits largely unused to this day?
new nuclear technologies have long answered this question. some of the new reactors even run on spent fuel from older reactors. Keep reading!
Do you know how much waste in m^3 do we actually produce?
So cheap it needs huge subsidies. So safe no one will insure it. So clean we have no idea how to deal with the waste. So simple they take decades to build.
Nuclear + Solar + Wind + Storage + Hydrogen + Biogas + Small hydro. Subsidize all of the above to the point that they are on an even playing field of coal and O&G (who are heavily subsidized).
To everyone's point removing subsidies is politically challenging (especially as this is almost a red / blue state issue) - however subsidizing something else so that it has a competitive advantage is essentially the same thing albeit the money flow is a bit different.
Edit: Why is this getting downvoted so much without any negative comments? weird...
To everyone's point removing subsidies is politically challenging (especially as this is almost a red / blue state issue) - however subsidizing something else so that it has a competitive advantage is essentially the same thing albeit the money flow is a bit different.
Edit: Why is this getting downvoted so much without any negative comments? weird...
I was very much for hydro until I joined a wildlife society in college and saw how incredibly destructive it is to habitats.
Agreed - hence small hydro! It takes the energy out of the river systems which very much need to keep that majority in there.
I fail to see how "removing energy" from a river system isn't directly destroying a habitat. Things like water surges play an important role in create sand bars and other microhabitats. It's best to leave them alone.
I think you misread my comment. I was agreeing with you in that we need to keep the energy in the water systems. Only small hydro which doesn't destroy rivers / ecosystems make sense.
I ask this out of ignorance: How is coal heavily subsidized? Do you mean it's subsidized because they're not being charged for the emissions that they generate?
I think that the lack of pollution taxes is the main subsidy, but it should not be brushed aside just because it is not a direct payment. Coal emissions (not just CO2) are really, really bad and kill many thousands of people every year. Imagine if the main source of organ transplants was kidnapping young people and stealing their organs. Now imagine that the government knew who was doing the kidnapping and just let them do it because it allowed for an abundant supply of cheap organ replacements. Not to mention, all of the kidnappers would be out of a job if the government cracked down.
Coal power was probably a net benefit in the beginning, but there are much better alternatives now.
Coal power was probably a net benefit in the beginning, but there are much better alternatives now.
Direct subsidies are from deductions made on taxes and direct government investment into modernizing the equipment on older coal power plants.
One way they do this is Percentage Depletion. A mine take out 10% of the available coal, they can deduct 10% of the value of the mine, to the point where the total deductions can exceed capital costs.
There is also deduction that came about because they wanted to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign energy fuel, which between the year 2002-2010 awarded $12.2 billion in tax credit to coal alone.
One way they do this is Percentage Depletion. A mine take out 10% of the available coal, they can deduct 10% of the value of the mine, to the point where the total deductions can exceed capital costs.
There is also deduction that came about because they wanted to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign energy fuel, which between the year 2002-2010 awarded $12.2 billion in tax credit to coal alone.
There are actual direct subsidies for fossil fuels in the US mostly as preferential tax treatment.
The Wikipedia page has a nice breakdown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy
The Wikipedia page has a nice breakdown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy
[deleted]
Why subsidize those sources when they are taking over the market today?
The faster we can move off of polluting sources, the better.
Building a startup for on-demand nuclear plant submarines for coastal cities worldwide.
Coastal mayors and governors have access dashboard to order nuclear submarines and pay by the hour. Submarine plant comes within a week, plugs itself to the local grid from the shore and electricity flows in. You may want to reserve an instance for a year or the submarine may move to a higher bidder municipality. Emergency cooling handled by construction even in worst case scenarios, no pumping necessary.
Regulations are fine because the submarine plants are not built in your country. Nuclear waste moves out of the country with the submarine when submarine is done powering your local grid. A real-time marketplace lets cities and countries worldwide bid to host the waste for good money.
Coastal mayors and governors have access dashboard to order nuclear submarines and pay by the hour. Submarine plant comes within a week, plugs itself to the local grid from the shore and electricity flows in. You may want to reserve an instance for a year or the submarine may move to a higher bidder municipality. Emergency cooling handled by construction even in worst case scenarios, no pumping necessary.
Regulations are fine because the submarine plants are not built in your country. Nuclear waste moves out of the country with the submarine when submarine is done powering your local grid. A real-time marketplace lets cities and countries worldwide bid to host the waste for good money.
Cute idea, but nuclear submarines aren't that powerful. Output for ballistic submarine reactors are in the 150-250MW range.
For reference, natural gas power plants can hit the GW range easily. Even those diesel backup generators you see outside of hospitals and such are about 1kW. You could throw a bunch of those on a tanker ship and probably provide more power output than a nuclear sub reactor.
For reference, natural gas power plants can hit the GW range easily. Even those diesel backup generators you see outside of hospitals and such are about 1kW. You could throw a bunch of those on a tanker ship and probably provide more power output than a nuclear sub reactor.
This is misleading. Gas turbines used for power plants usually put out 100-250mw. Most gas plants just stack 3-5 of them together in a common location - same thing could be done for small reactors.
Nuclear power isn't safe.
If it were, then massive amounts of money and time wouldn't go into trying to make it safe. Nuclear control rooms wouldn't be locked down like Fort Knox. And every major population center would have a nuclear power station nearby.
There's this idea that the only thing stopping nuclear from saving the world is a bunch of hippies perpetuating a myth that it's not safe — like nuclear energy is a genetically modified tomato.
It's not that. It's actually just not safe — or rather, the only way of making it safe is by having round the clock security, big brains monitoring it the whole time, and lots of money.
So, given that climate change will bring with it more pandemics, civil unrest, and natural disasters, is it wise to assume that there will always be people around who know how to look after nuclear power stations? Or people who can stop terrorists who want to make dirty bombs from the waste?
There's a reasonable argument to be made that it's a risk we should take to avoid worse distasters.
But, given that there are cheaper alternatives, that don't take a decade to build, why don't we just not build nuclear?
Let's generate non-controversial power, while massively reducing our usage.
If it were, then massive amounts of money and time wouldn't go into trying to make it safe. Nuclear control rooms wouldn't be locked down like Fort Knox. And every major population center would have a nuclear power station nearby.
There's this idea that the only thing stopping nuclear from saving the world is a bunch of hippies perpetuating a myth that it's not safe — like nuclear energy is a genetically modified tomato.
It's not that. It's actually just not safe — or rather, the only way of making it safe is by having round the clock security, big brains monitoring it the whole time, and lots of money.
So, given that climate change will bring with it more pandemics, civil unrest, and natural disasters, is it wise to assume that there will always be people around who know how to look after nuclear power stations? Or people who can stop terrorists who want to make dirty bombs from the waste?
There's a reasonable argument to be made that it's a risk we should take to avoid worse distasters.
But, given that there are cheaper alternatives, that don't take a decade to build, why don't we just not build nuclear?
Let's generate non-controversial power, while massively reducing our usage.
It's the safest energy, even safer than solar or wind
Source: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-te...
Source: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-te...
Sure, but that's sort of absurdly missing the point.
0.04 deaths per TWH of nuclear vs 0.01 deaths per TWH of solar in 2012!
Am I seriously supposed to ignore the fact that nuclear metldowns have the potential to kill millions of people — because they didn't in 2012?
Edit: sorry that sounded mean.
0.04 deaths per TWH of nuclear vs 0.01 deaths per TWH of solar in 2012!
Am I seriously supposed to ignore the fact that nuclear metldowns have the potential to kill millions of people — because they didn't in 2012?
Edit: sorry that sounded mean.
> Am I seriously supposed to ignore the fact that nuclear metldowns have the potential to kill millions of people — because they didn't in 2012?
Can you elaborate on how meltdowns are supposed to be able to kill millions of people? We've already experienced the worst-case scenario in a nuclear catastrophe: Chernobyl.
I'm not exaggerating when I say this was a worse-case scenario: A complete reactor containment failure with no secondary containment. Burning fuel rods were directly exposed to the atmosphere for days. In the end this directly killed 50 people. A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident. But to date only 60 people are known to have died due to radiation exposure from Chernobyl.
So yeah I think you're several orders of magnitude off in your risk assessment of nuclear power.
Can you elaborate on how meltdowns are supposed to be able to kill millions of people? We've already experienced the worst-case scenario in a nuclear catastrophe: Chernobyl.
I'm not exaggerating when I say this was a worse-case scenario: A complete reactor containment failure with no secondary containment. Burning fuel rods were directly exposed to the atmosphere for days. In the end this directly killed 50 people. A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident. But to date only 60 people are known to have died due to radiation exposure from Chernobyl.
So yeah I think you're several orders of magnitude off in your risk assessment of nuclear power.
By giving a city radiation poisoning.
> A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident.
How many people could conceivably be downwind of a nuclear meltdown? I think it could be much much more than that.
I can't imagine why we would not include the people who eventually die of cancer.
That's just meltdowns. Given that you can also use nuclear material to create weapons, I'd also point you toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples.
The point I was making in my original comment, is that it's only safe when the systems are in place to keep it safe.
Which is not something you can guarantee.
> A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident.
How many people could conceivably be downwind of a nuclear meltdown? I think it could be much much more than that.
I can't imagine why we would not include the people who eventually die of cancer.
That's just meltdowns. Given that you can also use nuclear material to create weapons, I'd also point you toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples.
The point I was making in my original comment, is that it's only safe when the systems are in place to keep it safe.
Which is not something you can guarantee.
> > A few thousand were estimated to eventually die from cancer related to the incident.
> How many people could conceivably be downwind of a nuclear meltdown? I think it could be much much more than that. I can't imagine why we would not include the people who eventually die of cancer.
The several thousand figure does include the people who are predicted to eventually die from cancer.
Only 31 people died as a direct consequence of the meltdown.
> How many people could conceivably be downwind of a nuclear meltdown? I think it could be much much more than that. I can't imagine why we would not include the people who eventually die of cancer.
The several thousand figure does include the people who are predicted to eventually die from cancer.
Only 31 people died as a direct consequence of the meltdown.
Nuclear power is very safe - far safer in aggregate impacts to the environment than any other technology. And even more important, it’s predictable - something most other “clean” energy sources are not.
As for “cheaper” - citation needed. Especially for handling base load requirements in reliable and predictable ways. Most of the cost around nuclear power, especially in the United States, is from bloated, ineffectual policy decisions designed to artificially suppress it.
I do agree we should be doing more with the existing “waste” - we should be burning it in better reactor designs instead of burying or storing it. Note I didn’t say newer or modern designs - we have had the technology since the 50’s to burn what we (ridiculously) term “waste” today but it wasn’t pursued for numerous political and ill informed social issues. These designs also coast to a natural stop if their support systems are interrupted, negating the problems of active systems (like cooling) failing leading to problems in most of our currently deployed reactors.
As for “cheaper” - citation needed. Especially for handling base load requirements in reliable and predictable ways. Most of the cost around nuclear power, especially in the United States, is from bloated, ineffectual policy decisions designed to artificially suppress it.
I do agree we should be doing more with the existing “waste” - we should be burning it in better reactor designs instead of burying or storing it. Note I didn’t say newer or modern designs - we have had the technology since the 50’s to burn what we (ridiculously) term “waste” today but it wasn’t pursued for numerous political and ill informed social issues. These designs also coast to a natural stop if their support systems are interrupted, negating the problems of active systems (like cooling) failing leading to problems in most of our currently deployed reactors.
> Nuclear power is very safe
But is it only safe, because lots of time and energy goes into making it safe? If the systems keeping it safe no longer exist — let's say all the security staff are killed by a pandemic, or there's a civil war, or society collapses, is it still safe?
I can put a solar panel on my roof and not have to worry about it destroying my neighbourhood — even in the event of a disaster.
> cheaper
It's well documented now that solar is the cheapest energy source.
That may well be because it's had a lot of investment — maybe if people weren't so afraid of nuclear it would be the cheapest instead — but given that it isn't and we're on the clock...
Using old waste to power nuclear reactors sounds like a good idea — but is it possible in our time frame? If yes, then I'd be on board, but I suspect the answer is that it that it isn't.
But is it only safe, because lots of time and energy goes into making it safe? If the systems keeping it safe no longer exist — let's say all the security staff are killed by a pandemic, or there's a civil war, or society collapses, is it still safe?
I can put a solar panel on my roof and not have to worry about it destroying my neighbourhood — even in the event of a disaster.
> cheaper
It's well documented now that solar is the cheapest energy source.
That may well be because it's had a lot of investment — maybe if people weren't so afraid of nuclear it would be the cheapest instead — but given that it isn't and we're on the clock...
Using old waste to power nuclear reactors sounds like a good idea — but is it possible in our time frame? If yes, then I'd be on board, but I suspect the answer is that it that it isn't.
A almost 1% failure rate is not safe.
Not by a long shot.
Would you fly planes that had these failure rates?
Also, it is the potential of catastrophic events that is the issue here.
Look at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant on the central coast in California. This thing sits on a fault line. Without a retrofit, it wouldn't have survived a Fukushima event.
If this thing would have blown up, half a million people would have been directly affected and massive cleanup costs.
That is unacceptable risk and it is economically unjustified to add more risk by building additional plants.
Also, it is the potential of catastrophic events that is the issue here.
Look at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant on the central coast in California. This thing sits on a fault line. Without a retrofit, it wouldn't have survived a Fukushima event.
If this thing would have blown up, half a million people would have been directly affected and massive cleanup costs.
That is unacceptable risk and it is economically unjustified to add more risk by building additional plants.
> A almost 1% failure rate is not safe.
Especially when to power the world we might be talking about 100,000 SMRs.
Especially when to power the world we might be talking about 100,000 SMRs.
I think OP meant nuclear is only safe because of massive capital expenditure making it safe. A community of almost any size can run a bank of solar panels or wind turbines safely, but a nuclear planet needs an well-trained and expensive staff on standby to monitor and address any issues.
This is exactly what I meant.
You don’t have to stop or even slow renewables deployment to do this. They are fairly different industries with different workforce’s, so there are resources to do both simultaneously without significant interference. And you’re not going to get “too much” electricity as cheap abundant electricity will help accelerate decarbonization of other things like building heat and transport and industrial processes.
Existing nuclear ESPECIALLY must be protected. And existing hydro. Number 1 and number 2 (tied with wind) clean energy sources.
Nuclear power produces as much energy in our country as coal. We can phase out coal twice as fast if we at very least keep nuclear around a few years longer.