Why has nuclear power been a flop? (2021)(blog.rootsofprogress.org)
blog.rootsofprogress.org
Why has nuclear power been a flop? (2021)
https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
104 comments
> And all the time the cost of the project has been going up, the cost of renewables has been falling.
This is the #1 reason why I'm a bit more pessimistic on nuclear than I used to be.
I still think it has a place in a modern power grid and probably increasingly so as available sites for renewables go down. However, we simply aren't there yet. Both renewables and batteries have seen precipitous drops in pricing which ultimately means they make more sense as they are both cheaper and faster to deploy.
This is the #1 reason why I'm a bit more pessimistic on nuclear than I used to be.
I still think it has a place in a modern power grid and probably increasingly so as available sites for renewables go down. However, we simply aren't there yet. Both renewables and batteries have seen precipitous drops in pricing which ultimately means they make more sense as they are both cheaper and faster to deploy.
Something I haven’t seen discussed in the nuclear debate is that NPPs become a high risk target in times of war.
Look at what’s happened in Ukraine regarding the Zaporizhzhia power plant. The IAEA has been crapping itself the entire time while both Ukraine and Russia have haphazardly been shooting and bombing around it. If Russia were forced out of their position, they could adopt a scorched earth policy and destroy it, potentially irradiating the area.
Whether Russia would actually do that doesn't even matter - just being a possibility allows them to take the area hostage much more easily.
I am well aware that it would not detonate like a nuclear bomb or like Chernobyl. It doesn’t have to, it could still contaminate a huge area and harm a lot of people.
Look at what’s happened in Ukraine regarding the Zaporizhzhia power plant. The IAEA has been crapping itself the entire time while both Ukraine and Russia have haphazardly been shooting and bombing around it. If Russia were forced out of their position, they could adopt a scorched earth policy and destroy it, potentially irradiating the area.
Whether Russia would actually do that doesn't even matter - just being a possibility allows them to take the area hostage much more easily.
I am well aware that it would not detonate like a nuclear bomb or like Chernobyl. It doesn’t have to, it could still contaminate a huge area and harm a lot of people.
Russia has five thousand nuclear warheads. If they want to turn Ukraine into a post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland they can do so today.
A nuclear plant getting bombed would result in some nuclear contamination but not _that_ much, and accidental bombing of a nuclear power plant won't result in a mushroom cloud. Taking a nuclear plant out of commission with bombs is easy, re-creating Chernobyl is very hard even if you bomb it intentionally.
Nuclear plants are not weapons of war and they serve no military purpose. The press has written repeatedly -- completely without basis in reality -- about Russia going to turn Ukrainian nuclear power plants into bombs. Nuclear feels scary to people, and that's why those narratives gain traction.
A nuclear plant getting bombed would result in some nuclear contamination but not _that_ much, and accidental bombing of a nuclear power plant won't result in a mushroom cloud. Taking a nuclear plant out of commission with bombs is easy, re-creating Chernobyl is very hard even if you bomb it intentionally.
Nuclear plants are not weapons of war and they serve no military purpose. The press has written repeatedly -- completely without basis in reality -- about Russia going to turn Ukrainian nuclear power plants into bombs. Nuclear feels scary to people, and that's why those narratives gain traction.
>Russia has five thousand nuclear warheads
Nuclear weapons are barely relevant to the conversation other than that they also use fissile material.
>accidental bombing of a nuclear power plant won't result in a mushroom cloud
Yes... as I stated.
>Nuclear plants are not weapons of war and they serve no military purpose
That's incorrect. Once again, the Zaporizhzhia NPP has played quite a large role in the war in that region. Whether Russia intends to do anything is irrelevant, the threat implicitly limits Ukraine's military response. The plant itself can, and has been used as a military outpost, shielded from intense bombing.
Not only all this, but the loss of the power plant to Russia meant Ukraine lost 20% of it's total electricity generation at all once[0]. From an energy security POV this is a disaster. This would not be possible with distributed wind turbines or solar arrays.
[0]: https://www.gem.wiki/Zaporizhzhia_nuclear_power_plant#Backgr...
Nuclear weapons are barely relevant to the conversation other than that they also use fissile material.
>accidental bombing of a nuclear power plant won't result in a mushroom cloud
Yes... as I stated.
>Nuclear plants are not weapons of war and they serve no military purpose
That's incorrect. Once again, the Zaporizhzhia NPP has played quite a large role in the war in that region. Whether Russia intends to do anything is irrelevant, the threat implicitly limits Ukraine's military response. The plant itself can, and has been used as a military outpost, shielded from intense bombing.
Not only all this, but the loss of the power plant to Russia meant Ukraine lost 20% of it's total electricity generation at all once[0]. From an energy security POV this is a disaster. This would not be possible with distributed wind turbines or solar arrays.
[0]: https://www.gem.wiki/Zaporizhzhia_nuclear_power_plant#Backgr...
A nuclear power plant has strategic importance like an airport or a bridge.
Ukraine's military response is limited because the power plant is extremely valuable (monetarily as well as energy it produces) and they don't want to break it. But that's not what you argued.
I get the impression your argument changed from radiation risk to risk of electricity shortage. But if that is your concern you presumably would be fine with a country having many small nuclear reactors instead of a handful of large ones. But I suspect you'll change your argument again to make the case that small nuclear reactors are somehow bad, too.
Ukraine's military response is limited because the power plant is extremely valuable (monetarily as well as energy it produces) and they don't want to break it. But that's not what you argued.
I get the impression your argument changed from radiation risk to risk of electricity shortage. But if that is your concern you presumably would be fine with a country having many small nuclear reactors instead of a handful of large ones. But I suspect you'll change your argument again to make the case that small nuclear reactors are somehow bad, too.
[deleted]
Fully agreed. When the Ukraine war broke out, in Germany we had discussions how we could no longer rely on cheap russian gas and there we politicians actively demanding NPP to be reactivated. At the same time our government decided to spent 100 bilion € for the military and defense. This is surreal, when experts explain how "safe" NPPS are, the safety assumptions never asume a war going on around that NPP. If you factor this in all NPP would immetiately fall into the very unsafe category and all other energy sources would gain precedence.
Making your plans around existential crises happening to your nation is foolish.
There isn't going to just be "a war" in Germany - there never was. A war in germany is a war with NATO, which is a nuclear war, and thus "what if the nuclear powerplant is hit" is rather mundane compared to "our cities and citizens have been incinerated".
There isn't going to just be "a war" in Germany - there never was. A war in germany is a war with NATO, which is a nuclear war, and thus "what if the nuclear powerplant is hit" is rather mundane compared to "our cities and citizens have been incinerated".
> A war in germany is a war with NATO, which is a nuclear war
Nuclear war is only one option of many, and the last one among all of them. It's a skewed perspective to think that NATO involvement would end up in a nuclear war.
Also, a nuclear war does not automatically mean the end of humankind, as some like to portray it. Most will still be alive, even lead a healthy, unaffected life. The negative effects of a broken internet and broken supply chains would be the bigger problems.
Nuclear war is only one option of many, and the last one among all of them. It's a skewed perspective to think that NATO involvement would end up in a nuclear war.
Also, a nuclear war does not automatically mean the end of humankind, as some like to portray it. Most will still be alive, even lead a healthy, unaffected life. The negative effects of a broken internet and broken supply chains would be the bigger problems.
> m. It's a skewed perspective to think that NATO involvement would end up in a nuclear war.
of course it would end up in a nuclear war. NATO is encircling Russia and if Russia feels cornered you should expect them to use anything available to them.
of course it would end up in a nuclear war. NATO is encircling Russia and if Russia feels cornered you should expect them to use anything available to them.
Russia is encircling themselves with NATO by bullying everyone around them.
This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation;
1 - Nato was formed as a defence block against the "second Russian Empire" i.e. the Soviet Union and is still around to counter the budding "third Russian Empire".
2 - even since being conquered by the Mongol Empire Russia has been paranoid about the possibility of some conquering entity crossing its long border to rush into its vast territory. They want mountain ranges, sea or some other barrier between them and that potential enemy. If none of the sort can be had they want a buffer zone - they call it neutral states but in reality they mean vassal states, e.g. Belarus - between them and "the others". Those vassal states were gathered into a "counter-NATO" in the form of the Warsaw Pact.
3 - after the dissolution of the "second Russian Empire" and with that of the Warsaw Pact the former vassal states, fed up with being subservient to their oppressive neighbour bully took their chances and ran with it by joining NATO.
4 - Meanwhile Russia depopulated, was taken over by a new (old) gang of kleptocrats under first Yeltsin, then Putin while "the West" was busily "spreading democracy" by bombing and invading countries which were deemed to be essential for their economies by virtue of them being rich in natural resources. Some people and companies got richer, many people died and democracy was far to be found. This provided the Russian kleptocrats with a credible excuse for creating a new version of the old "us versus them" narrative: NATO is just like the Mongol Empire out on conquering our land to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. The recent flurry of "gender" and "alfabet soup" propaganda pushed by the current US regime just adds fuel to this fire and has given Putin a plausible (if false) cover of being the one who "defends traditional Christian values", going so far as to offer "asylum" to those who want to "flee corrupted Western values" [1].
5 - This gives the kleptocrats in "the East" the excuse they needed to make a push for creating the "third Russian Empire" to keep out the "new Mongol Empire" while their counterparts in "the West" have all the excuse they need to expand NATO to keep the "Russian bear" at bay.
6 - rinse and repeat
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-russia-safe-haven-for-...
1 - Nato was formed as a defence block against the "second Russian Empire" i.e. the Soviet Union and is still around to counter the budding "third Russian Empire".
2 - even since being conquered by the Mongol Empire Russia has been paranoid about the possibility of some conquering entity crossing its long border to rush into its vast territory. They want mountain ranges, sea or some other barrier between them and that potential enemy. If none of the sort can be had they want a buffer zone - they call it neutral states but in reality they mean vassal states, e.g. Belarus - between them and "the others". Those vassal states were gathered into a "counter-NATO" in the form of the Warsaw Pact.
3 - after the dissolution of the "second Russian Empire" and with that of the Warsaw Pact the former vassal states, fed up with being subservient to their oppressive neighbour bully took their chances and ran with it by joining NATO.
4 - Meanwhile Russia depopulated, was taken over by a new (old) gang of kleptocrats under first Yeltsin, then Putin while "the West" was busily "spreading democracy" by bombing and invading countries which were deemed to be essential for their economies by virtue of them being rich in natural resources. Some people and companies got richer, many people died and democracy was far to be found. This provided the Russian kleptocrats with a credible excuse for creating a new version of the old "us versus them" narrative: NATO is just like the Mongol Empire out on conquering our land to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. The recent flurry of "gender" and "alfabet soup" propaganda pushed by the current US regime just adds fuel to this fire and has given Putin a plausible (if false) cover of being the one who "defends traditional Christian values", going so far as to offer "asylum" to those who want to "flee corrupted Western values" [1].
5 - This gives the kleptocrats in "the East" the excuse they needed to make a push for creating the "third Russian Empire" to keep out the "new Mongol Empire" while their counterparts in "the West" have all the excuse they need to expand NATO to keep the "Russian bear" at bay.
6 - rinse and repeat
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-russia-safe-haven-for-...
It would be more complete if you would account for the kleptocrats in the West.
You seem to be missing some events between 13th century Mongols and USSR _collapse_. Last one happened somewhere between 1922 and 1941. Patton had the right idea to drop third nuke on Moscow and clean up WW2 mess for good.
Just look at the explosion of the north stream pipelines. Whether this were government actors, terrorists, or a rogue military interest group independent of government decisions is unknown. But the very same can happen with nuclear plants. Yes they are protected against terrorist attacks (to some extend), but once you factor in military grade capability, the security assumptions crumble. No need for a full-blown nuclear war to happen at all, NPPs are a risk to national safety.
That argument is exclusively used for nuclear. Hydroelectric is far more vulnerable to bombing, but we don't pearl clutch about that risk. And yes, a capable military can -- if they so choose -- turn a nuclear plant into a dirty bomb with sufficient explosives. But why go through that trouble when you can just drop a dirty bomb directly on top of a city center? That's a far more effective way of spreading nuclear radiation. However, capable militaries don't use dirty bombs because they make no strategic sense.
You asume intent. A NPP is a threat if it is in an active warzone, even if no party intents to damage it. It is just in the chaotic nature of war.
Europe is already engaged in a hybrid war. The next escalation isn't necessarily nuclear. It would most likely look like mutual sabotage to infrastructure, including energy and water supplies. Nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, neither side will be eager to launch, and especially not before intense conventional warfare.
>Making your plans around existential crises happening to your nation is foolish
Foolish is not being prepared for the worst.
>Making your plans around existential crises happening to your nation is foolish
Foolish is not being prepared for the worst.
In Ukraine alone, there have been two major instances of military destruction of hydroelectric dams (Dnieper Hydroelectric Station during WWII and Kakhovka Dam during the current war) with the number of casualties far greater than that of all nuclear power incidents in history combined. Somehow, nobody's using that as an argument against hydro power.
If anything, Germany's reliance on Russian gas did a lot more to put the country in danger of war.
If anything, Germany's reliance on Russian gas did a lot more to put the country in danger of war.
I wonder if it would make sense to house these reactors in underground facilities to the extent possible to harden them against at least accidental threats?
This was already done in Sweden [1] and is something the Swedish defence forces have suggested for the coming nuclear expansion in the country.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85gesta_Nuclear_Plant
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85gesta_Nuclear_Plant
how do you cool them if they are underground?
That was a weird thought I had when the Japanese had problems actively cooling the destroyed Fukushima reactors: :Could one build reactors underground, so that in the case of need you can cool them by gravity alone without futzing around with diesel generators and high volume pumps?
(I'm sure there are 500 reasons why that’s a bad idea)
(I'm sure there are 500 reasons why that’s a bad idea)
Much easier to target one NPP than thousands of windmills and solar panels distributed throughout the country too.
Weird thing to say considering russians didnt bomb any NPPs yet, but did actually brick Viasat disabling "remote monitoring access to over 5,800 wind turbines"
.. in Germany of all places
https://cyberconflicts.cyberpeaceinstitute.org/law-and-polic...
.. in Germany of all places
https://cyberconflicts.cyberpeaceinstitute.org/law-and-polic...
[deleted]
> NPPs become a high risk target in times of war.
In certain geographic areas, it could be said that nuclear energy presupposes stable peace.-
In certain geographic areas, it could be said that nuclear energy presupposes stable peace.-
This sounds like typical security fearmongering using a lot of scarewords and little base. Why exactly is this a concern that is somehow different than for other big infra projects? ThE zaporozhnia powerplant is still standing despite the war.
> d it. If Russia were forced out of their position, they could adopt a scorched earth policy and destroy it, potentially irradiating the area.
thats not how nuclear power plants work. bombing them dont magically turn them into nuclear bombs or something.
thats not how nuclear power plants work. bombing them dont magically turn them into nuclear bombs or something.
That is literally what I stated in the following sentence.
I don't really think he understands why the safety paradigm is the way it is.
The problem is fear. Fear generated by individual incidents that have terrible local harmful effects. And the (perhaps inaccurate) perception that plants may still have issues. Plus the fairly unsolved waste storage problem.
Fukushima, 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl were existential for the nuclear industry. Like it or lump it, they made nuclear feel less safe.
When will we know that the new nuclear power plants are safe enough? Not for a decade or more.
Pretending that the industry isn't taking a rationale line based on the same tired stats about radiation is pointless. Humans are bad at judging risk, but your job as a power plant operator is to deal with the risk people perceive as well as the risk that actually exists.
(And the fact he links to LessWrong which is a site that overemphasises rational thinking to the extent it ignores the human condition says a lot to me).
The problem is fear. Fear generated by individual incidents that have terrible local harmful effects. And the (perhaps inaccurate) perception that plants may still have issues. Plus the fairly unsolved waste storage problem.
Fukushima, 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl were existential for the nuclear industry. Like it or lump it, they made nuclear feel less safe.
When will we know that the new nuclear power plants are safe enough? Not for a decade or more.
Pretending that the industry isn't taking a rationale line based on the same tired stats about radiation is pointless. Humans are bad at judging risk, but your job as a power plant operator is to deal with the risk people perceive as well as the risk that actually exists.
(And the fact he links to LessWrong which is a site that overemphasises rational thinking to the extent it ignores the human condition says a lot to me).
What terrible local harmful effects? Only Chernobyl had any and they were very modest. Compare that to the hydroelectric plants. There we can talk real incidents with harmful local effects. If people actually feared incidents they would campaign against hydroelectric power. And the last such incident was last year in Ukraine. Also just building a hydro plant can ruin the local ecosystem even if there is no incident.
Fro the record I am pro-hydroelectric, pro-nuclear and pro-wind (I am a bit more skeptical towards solar but that is probably just me being from Sweden where solar isn't really an option). None of these are perfect but nuclear is by far the safest. The issues with nuclear do not relate to safety.
Fro the record I am pro-hydroelectric, pro-nuclear and pro-wind (I am a bit more skeptical towards solar but that is probably just me being from Sweden where solar isn't really an option). None of these are perfect but nuclear is by far the safest. The issues with nuclear do not relate to safety.
Are you saying Fukushima had none or less than modest harmful effects? I don't know what the parent meant, but the whole Fukushima disaster management and clean up will take decades and people had to leave their homes.
To add, I agree about your point about hydro in general. It's a complicated comparison, though.
To add, I agree about your point about hydro in general. It's a complicated comparison, though.
Nuclear, per TwH, is basically tied with solar and wind if you use decade old data.
Why do you think it's "by far the safest"?
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Why do you think it's "by far the safest"?
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
> Plus the fairly unsolved waste storage problem.
I don't think it is unsolved, is it?
> Fukushima, 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl were existential for the nuclear industry. Like it or lump it, they made nuclear feel less safe.
I don't think Fukushima made nuclear feel less safe. The terrible reporting and existing mindsets might have, but how could a single death when a tsunami hits a reactor make people feel unsafe in and of itself?
I don't think it is unsolved, is it?
> Fukushima, 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl were existential for the nuclear industry. Like it or lump it, they made nuclear feel less safe.
I don't think Fukushima made nuclear feel less safe. The terrible reporting and existing mindsets might have, but how could a single death when a tsunami hits a reactor make people feel unsafe in and of itself?
Someone in Germany pointed out that on their TV coverage of Fukushima they had German Nuclear Scientists who were correctly describing based on 3rd party observations what was happening while official spokespeople were claiming there was no issue and downplaying risks. That's a killer blow to credibility, doubly so if you have a high respect for Japanese industry.
If they're lying/mistaken about stuff obvious to scientists half a globe away then who can you trust with nuclear?
edit to add some sources to back up this third hand anecdote:
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/communicating-science/
> The government was telling us nothing. TEPCO [Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the plant] was telling us nothing. We had very little input from the scientific community in Japan. Here we are trying to figure this out, and we had first one, then two, then three explosions.”
Fackler had to talk with scientists overseas to learn that what he had witnessed were likely hydrogen explosions, which probably meant partial meltdowns of the affected reactors. “But when we reported this, we had so much criticism from the Japanese side for using the word ‘meltdown,’ ” he said.
If they're lying/mistaken about stuff obvious to scientists half a globe away then who can you trust with nuclear?
edit to add some sources to back up this third hand anecdote:
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/communicating-science/
> The government was telling us nothing. TEPCO [Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the plant] was telling us nothing. We had very little input from the scientific community in Japan. Here we are trying to figure this out, and we had first one, then two, then three explosions.”
Fackler had to talk with scientists overseas to learn that what he had witnessed were likely hydrogen explosions, which probably meant partial meltdowns of the affected reactors. “But when we reported this, we had so much criticism from the Japanese side for using the word ‘meltdown,’ ” he said.
Sure, but this is you finding very specific stuff. Most of the world wasn't watching German TV and seeing that difference.
There's only so many countries with nuclear and that the two most technically respected countries in the world both shut their entire fleets down as a result of Fukishima is a fairly strong signal even for those not paying attention.
LessWrong emphasises taking human factors into account all the time. Maybe you're thinking of RationalWiki or some such site?
> Plus the fairly unsolved waste storage problem.
Is it more or less solved than the waste storage problem of fossil fuel generation?
Is it more or less solved than the waste storage problem of fossil fuel generation?
I'm a huge fan of nuclear power at a technological level, but we have to acknowledge that fundamentally the safety of nuclear power depends on trust. If a NPP is designed, built, and operated correctly, it's perfectly safe to have one next door. I would personally be entirely happy to live next to one in my country (the UK).
There's not much that an individual can do to verify the safety of any given nuclear installation, however, and, bluntly, the global track record isn't great. Even countries with regulatory environments that we'd expect to be very effective have had INES 4+ incidents, and some of those could have been far worse were it not for pure luck. You could rightfully counter that any large civil engineering project relies on trust in a similar way, but a bridge collapse or even dam collapse, while horrifying, cannot conceivably render a large area uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
I think the reason that regulations in nuclear power have become overly burdensome is ultimately an attempt to try to build trust and demonstrate to the public that the risks are being taken as seriously as possible, in an attempt to prove that a worst-case nuclear disaster will never happen. You could think of it as safety theatre or something, but were it not for these regulations, in a democratic country, the public would simply not allow NPPs to be built, and therefore complying with these regulations is just an inescapable cost of that form of power generation. Arguably we even give NPPs a pretty significant subsidy by limiting their total public liability.
There's not much that an individual can do to verify the safety of any given nuclear installation, however, and, bluntly, the global track record isn't great. Even countries with regulatory environments that we'd expect to be very effective have had INES 4+ incidents, and some of those could have been far worse were it not for pure luck. You could rightfully counter that any large civil engineering project relies on trust in a similar way, but a bridge collapse or even dam collapse, while horrifying, cannot conceivably render a large area uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
I think the reason that regulations in nuclear power have become overly burdensome is ultimately an attempt to try to build trust and demonstrate to the public that the risks are being taken as seriously as possible, in an attempt to prove that a worst-case nuclear disaster will never happen. You could think of it as safety theatre or something, but were it not for these regulations, in a democratic country, the public would simply not allow NPPs to be built, and therefore complying with these regulations is just an inescapable cost of that form of power generation. Arguably we even give NPPs a pretty significant subsidy by limiting their total public liability.
> There is a great conflict between two of the most pressing problems of our time: poverty and climate change.
This wasn't true in 2021 and has been getting less true over time.
Not one mention of Solar or Wind in the whole article.
This wasn't true in 2021 and has been getting less true over time.
Not one mention of Solar or Wind in the whole article.
I agree that it's stupid not to take the game-changer of solar and wind (and batteries) into account.
Even though I believe that nuclear no longer has a role in energy (fuel sources, disposal, concentration of risk into few small units), the statement is still correct and it has another dimension:
There is a conflict between poverty, climate change, gravity of climate change harms and the speed at which we can reduce climate change impacts.
The problem is that there is a shrinking window to limit harm, and the harms will disproportionally affect poor nations which at the same time lack resources to mitigate. I'd definitely call that a gordian knot.
Even though I believe that nuclear no longer has a role in energy (fuel sources, disposal, concentration of risk into few small units), the statement is still correct and it has another dimension:
There is a conflict between poverty, climate change, gravity of climate change harms and the speed at which we can reduce climate change impacts.
The problem is that there is a shrinking window to limit harm, and the harms will disproportionally affect poor nations which at the same time lack resources to mitigate. I'd definitely call that a gordian knot.
Is it really a game changer though ? AFAIK countries that made the shift to solar and wind can't still store they energy and have to rely on fossil still to power they country (e.g. Germany). On top of that, if the whole world made the shift to solar, wind and batteries, I assume the scarcity of some materials will become an issue. According to this [1] Lithium for example is expected to have a shortage by 2025. There are also challenges like usable surface, and making all the intermittent, non-controllable energy work together. I mean, I am open to the idea of solar/wind, but "game changer"... Doesn't seem so easy
[1]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/electric-vehicles-wor...
[1]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/electric-vehicles-wor...
Watching what China does is always instructive. Despite platitudes to the contrary, climate change is a tertiary concern of theirs. What they care most about is (1) energy independence and (2) cost. So 10-15 years ago they started building a lot of nuclear, solar and coal.
As the cost of solar plummeted and nuclear went up they significantly scaled back their nuclear ambitions. For the last 5 years they've built several TW's of solar capacity and a similar amount of coal peaker plants to run when the sun isn't shining.
Now in 2024 they're starting to scale back coal and they're building massive batteries instead. IOW, batteries are now cheaper than coal to offset the intermittency of solar.
Also, the lithium shortage has come and gone already: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium
As the cost of solar plummeted and nuclear went up they significantly scaled back their nuclear ambitions. For the last 5 years they've built several TW's of solar capacity and a similar amount of coal peaker plants to run when the sun isn't shining.
Now in 2024 they're starting to scale back coal and they're building massive batteries instead. IOW, batteries are now cheaper than coal to offset the intermittency of solar.
Also, the lithium shortage has come and gone already: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium
> they significantly scaled back their nuclear ambitions.
Currently (June 2024) they're all the way down to:
Which is quite the wind down from . . . ?
Currently (June 2024) they're all the way down to:
China intends to build 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035, with 27 currently under construction and the average construction timeline for each reactor about seven years, far faster than for most other nations.
China has commenced operation of the world’s first fourth-generation nuclear reactor, for which China asserts it developed some 90 percent of the technology.
China is leading in the development and launch of cost-competitive small modular reactors (SMRs).
From 2008 to 2023, China’s share of all nuclear patents increased from 1.3 percent to 13.4 percent, and the country leads in the number of nuclear fusion patent applications.
Which is quite the wind down from . . . ?
If they want 150 online by 2035, most of them would have been started by now and/or you would expect to see capacity accelerating. Instead, capacity additions appear to be slowing down, in contrast to the massive additions in the 2010's.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
Article with much more info about China's nuclear pull back: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/08/22/china-still-hasnt-learn...
They were aiming for 15% by 2035, 25% in 2050 then ramping up to 45%.
Now they're aiming for 18% by 2060, by which time they will also be net zero carbon.
Now they're aiming for 18% by 2060, by which time they will also be net zero carbon.
A guardian or a gordian knot [0]?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot
? Those are very much two of the world's most pressing problems, both accelerating currently. Though I'd phrase the 'poverty' one as 'wealth inequality' instead as whilst people are getting poorer their access to resources has been scaling well enough to keep them above the poverty line. That may not remain true for much longer though.
And the article is about nuclear energy and the premise of it being a flop and why that might be, based on a book about the topic. I don't think it has to mention solar and wind. Though I can see, as competing energy sources, why it would be useful to look at their impact on political momentum for nuclear, or how they reduce economic demand for the extra energy nuclear can supply.
And the article is about nuclear energy and the premise of it being a flop and why that might be, based on a book about the topic. I don't think it has to mention solar and wind. Though I can see, as competing energy sources, why it would be useful to look at their impact on political momentum for nuclear, or how they reduce economic demand for the extra energy nuclear can supply.
> whilst people are getting poorer their access to resources has been scaling well enough to keep them above the poverty line
Defining poverty as "wealth relative to the richest person on earth" or whatever you're doing here is unproductive crab-bucket envy, not a useful definition. If you're talking about wealth, all that matters is if the baseline is going up. If you're talking about status, be honest and say that explicitly instead of dressing it up as a wealth issue.
Defining poverty as "wealth relative to the richest person on earth" or whatever you're doing here is unproductive crab-bucket envy, not a useful definition. If you're talking about wealth, all that matters is if the baseline is going up. If you're talking about status, be honest and say that explicitly instead of dressing it up as a wealth issue.
Wealth distribution is important, because very rich people disproportionately buy up limited-supply assets in order to earn passive income on them. In densely populated places, that includes assets like homes, which pushes up housing costs.
Housing costs often aren't included in popular measures of inflation. If you do use an inflation measure that includes housing and all other everyday expenditure, then I think it's a reasonable to argue the baseline going up is good enough.
Housing costs often aren't included in popular measures of inflation. If you do use an inflation measure that includes housing and all other everyday expenditure, then I think it's a reasonable to argue the baseline going up is good enough.
Unless someone buys up so many properties they can start unilaterally increasing prices, the problem with housing going up isn't rich people buying them and renting them at a market rate. It's the amount of demand vs supply that does it.
And you're right - this is possibly the single biggest issue that's a downgrade for people vs their parents/grandparents, and it's a huge one. But the problem needs to be attributed correctly.
And you're right - this is possibly the single biggest issue that's a downgrade for people vs their parents/grandparents, and it's a huge one. But the problem needs to be attributed correctly.
More very rich people looking for somewhere to park their money and earn returns means more competition when you want to buy a home.
I agree it doesn't necessarily mean rents rises. You might actually expect higher price to earnings ratio with more wealthy people competing to buy assets (see also stocks).
But it will lead to the shrinking of the home-owning middle class.
That's not to say there isn't also a problem with lack of supply.
I agree it doesn't necessarily mean rents rises. You might actually expect higher price to earnings ratio with more wealthy people competing to buy assets (see also stocks).
But it will lead to the shrinking of the home-owning middle class.
That's not to say there isn't also a problem with lack of supply.
Well you have hedge fund money buying homes and stuff like this: https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
Seems to be mostly an American problem, like many others.
Seems to be mostly an American problem, like many others.
I think you missed my definition by a wide mile.
On a world-scale we've been reducing the overall number of people below the poverty line each decade, however there is a discussion to be had around inflation and whether the poverty line itself needs to move (there a re lots of poverty lines used in analysis, I'm not referring to any single definition).
And I'm not talking specifically about wealth. Wealth is fine in a vacuum. Looking at excessive wealth and means to recirculating it can be helpful when addressing the issues the poorest people in society are facing.
And I'm not talking about status, no idea how you got that impression. I'm re-reading my comment and trying to figure out where you got that fantasy from.
On a world-scale we've been reducing the overall number of people below the poverty line each decade, however there is a discussion to be had around inflation and whether the poverty line itself needs to move (there a re lots of poverty lines used in analysis, I'm not referring to any single definition).
And I'm not talking specifically about wealth. Wealth is fine in a vacuum. Looking at excessive wealth and means to recirculating it can be helpful when addressing the issues the poorest people in society are facing.
And I'm not talking about status, no idea how you got that impression. I'm re-reading my comment and trying to figure out where you got that fantasy from.
Isn't the most useful definition of rich/poor how much access to resources you can buy?
As in, how can someone be both getting poorer but also enjoying increasing access to resources? Buying power is a pretty good measure here unless I've missed something?
(I'm talking about this in a global context where we can assume asset wealth is pretty much negligible, i.e. it's not a case of people burning through savings to access resources)
As in, how can someone be both getting poorer but also enjoying increasing access to resources? Buying power is a pretty good measure here unless I've missed something?
(I'm talking about this in a global context where we can assume asset wealth is pretty much negligible, i.e. it's not a case of people burning through savings to access resources)
I agree, but in practise this has been difficult to measure, thus the existence of 'poverty lines' which have been defined as $1/day, $2/day etc, and been fairly static for a long time.
For a poverty line definition then, as I mentioned, we can observe fewer people being below the poverty line as time goes on, but we're ignoring inflation and buying power. Fewer people being under the $1/day poverty line is great, unless essential purchases have doubled in price.
What we've seen in recent decades has been a mix of inflation and basic resources becoming more assessible/cheaper. So when I say people are getting poorer, I'm saying poverty lines ignore this the access angle unless they adjust for inflation, but then also counter to that some essentials have become more accessible, like access to medicine, education and energy. So whilst buying power may get worse for some, they're 'wealthier' in terms of things that they have increased cost-free/low-cost access to.
There have been attempts to use definitions that do adjust for access but they're a lot more difficult to normalise across countries. Something like the Big Mac Index is a quick and dirty tool but obviously it focusses on a single item in a single category (food) so it can't provide a very detailed picture of access to resources, buying power, and poverty on the whole.
For a poverty line definition then, as I mentioned, we can observe fewer people being below the poverty line as time goes on, but we're ignoring inflation and buying power. Fewer people being under the $1/day poverty line is great, unless essential purchases have doubled in price.
What we've seen in recent decades has been a mix of inflation and basic resources becoming more assessible/cheaper. So when I say people are getting poorer, I'm saying poverty lines ignore this the access angle unless they adjust for inflation, but then also counter to that some essentials have become more accessible, like access to medicine, education and energy. So whilst buying power may get worse for some, they're 'wealthier' in terms of things that they have increased cost-free/low-cost access to.
There have been attempts to use definitions that do adjust for access but they're a lot more difficult to normalise across countries. Something like the Big Mac Index is a quick and dirty tool but obviously it focusses on a single item in a single category (food) so it can't provide a very detailed picture of access to resources, buying power, and poverty on the whole.
Ok,that makes sense. My country (UK) uses a definition of poverty that's based on a % of median household income, which doesn't tell you anything about buying power.
If your income is below 60% of median, you're in poverty per the government's definition.
If your income is below 60% of median, you're in poverty per the government's definition.
Nuclear Power is a complex thing, as any complex thing it require attention and commitment. Therefore it is more prone to destablization by a small number of individuals.
Russia have been quietly lobbying against nuclear in the EU for a long time (looking at you german Green Party).
Russia have been quietly lobbying against nuclear in the EU for a long time (looking at you german Green Party).
> Russia have been quietly lobbying against nuclear in the EU for a long time
And, given this, they might even have a perverse incentive to destroy nuclear facilities, if only as yet another form of pro-oil, pro-gas propaganda.-
And, given this, they might even have a perverse incentive to destroy nuclear facilities, if only as yet another form of pro-oil, pro-gas propaganda.-
The conclusions of the article is very good. I mostly agree with them. But there are two major flaws in the article:
1. “we need more like 25 TW”. That seems too high to me. Is that based on a direct conversion of the primary energy consumption today? The alternatives solutions needed for decarbonisation is generally much more energy efficient than the fossil fuel based solutions we use today. In addition, the energy used per capita to live a European lifestyle is decreasing year over year. And finally, the energy use will drop dramatically as we shift from primarily making stuff out of mined virgin materials to using recycled materials. For instance, commercial EV battery recycling is ramping up rapidly already today. Making virgin concrete is energy and CO2 intensive but that might not be a viable option for the long term anyway, as it requires sand that we’re also running out of. There’s already huge pressure to reduce the use of concrete.
It should also be said that 25TW or more of nuclear thermal power will contribute to thermal forcing of the planet that we probably can’t afford when the planet is already on the precipice of dangerous climate tipping points. The global warming effect of the thermal power plants we have today is already on the same order of magnitude as greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes.
2. I miss a discussion about the labour costs when it comes to nuclear. I think one of the reasons it was cheap to build in the past was access to cheap labour in the countries building the nuclear power plants. Changing demographics is an irreversible trend that will keep these labour costs high. Solar lets you outsource much of the labour costs of the production of the panels, and that production will probably end up being fully automated and then on-shored in the end anyway.
1. “we need more like 25 TW”. That seems too high to me. Is that based on a direct conversion of the primary energy consumption today? The alternatives solutions needed for decarbonisation is generally much more energy efficient than the fossil fuel based solutions we use today. In addition, the energy used per capita to live a European lifestyle is decreasing year over year. And finally, the energy use will drop dramatically as we shift from primarily making stuff out of mined virgin materials to using recycled materials. For instance, commercial EV battery recycling is ramping up rapidly already today. Making virgin concrete is energy and CO2 intensive but that might not be a viable option for the long term anyway, as it requires sand that we’re also running out of. There’s already huge pressure to reduce the use of concrete.
It should also be said that 25TW or more of nuclear thermal power will contribute to thermal forcing of the planet that we probably can’t afford when the planet is already on the precipice of dangerous climate tipping points. The global warming effect of the thermal power plants we have today is already on the same order of magnitude as greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes.
2. I miss a discussion about the labour costs when it comes to nuclear. I think one of the reasons it was cheap to build in the past was access to cheap labour in the countries building the nuclear power plants. Changing demographics is an irreversible trend that will keep these labour costs high. Solar lets you outsource much of the labour costs of the production of the panels, and that production will probably end up being fully automated and then on-shored in the end anyway.
Have you got some sources for that? Thermal forcing from existing plants (and thermal sink from their energy output) seems like it'd be tiny compared to solar thermal forcing.
I realise GHG from their waste gases is a huge problem, but direct thermal forcing?
I realise GHG from their waste gases is a huge problem, but direct thermal forcing?
I don't know how this constantly comes up on HN but I have seen it mentioned across every type of energy thread.
And people could trivially disprove the notion in mere seconds by Googling the solar irradiance of the sun over the Earth, but for some reason they never do before posting.
And people could trivially disprove the notion in mere seconds by Googling the solar irradiance of the sun over the Earth, but for some reason they never do before posting.
Not all irradiance translates into heat, but even if it's only a few W/m2, that's megawatts per sq km, and terawatts for a France sized area.
If the 25 TW can offset the current worldwide production which is 20 TW IIRC, is it such a big deal? Any greenhouse gas emission displaced is going to leverage thermal increase multiple times over.
Solar insolation is about 120 000 TW or something like that I think.
Solar insolation is about 120 000 TW or something like that I think.
The article is too US-centric to a fault. Basically all project's costs after 1970s balloon to an extent. Japan's cost has risen. French, while only slightly, has risen. Same for India. Only S. Korea have seen construction prices fall, but notice the price bottoming out after the 1990s. It's only maintaining the price, not getting lower.
Regardless, these other countries didn't contribute that much to increase global nuclear power capacity. In both India and China nuclear doesn't even count as the majority in their low-carbon energy mix, which is still dwarfed by the massive deployment of coal. S. Korea is slacking on low-carbon sources in general. Japan has lost trust (rightfully) on nuclear and decided to reset their entire nuclear generation capacity. No country has expanded their energy grid with nuclear. Except France, who only did it because of the oil crisis.
Regardless, these other countries didn't contribute that much to increase global nuclear power capacity. In both India and China nuclear doesn't even count as the majority in their low-carbon energy mix, which is still dwarfed by the massive deployment of coal. S. Korea is slacking on low-carbon sources in general. Japan has lost trust (rightfully) on nuclear and decided to reset their entire nuclear generation capacity. No country has expanded their energy grid with nuclear. Except France, who only did it because of the oil crisis.
> Japan (rightfully) has lost trust on nuclear and decided to reset their entire nuclear generation capacity.
bullshit. Japan is in the process of restarting all of their nuclear plants. Price of energy had doubled after the grid went off nuclear.
bullshit. Japan is in the process of restarting all of their nuclear plants. Price of energy had doubled after the grid went off nuclear.
I have clarified my original comment. Regarding your comment:
> Japan is in the process of restarting all of their nuclear plants.
They are still "in the process" after 12 years, and their capacity is still less than half of pre-Fukushima level. Japan has had more solar generation than nuclear since 2014.
> Japan is in the process of restarting all of their nuclear plants.
They are still "in the process" after 12 years, and their capacity is still less than half of pre-Fukushima level. Japan has had more solar generation than nuclear since 2014.
if solar was the answer then ask yourself why they even bother restarting the nuclear plants
> Or they were—costs are so high now that we don‘t even build plants anymore.
That's factually wrong. France has a program of nuclear building. We don't build a lot of plants in Europe, but we do.
That's factually wrong. France has a program of nuclear building. We don't build a lot of plants in Europe, but we do.
The French nuclear program was started without public or parliamentary discussion, read up on the Messmer plan, it was a spontaneous reaction to the oil crisis of 1973 and new deployments haven't happened in the 25 years. France has a plan to extend it's nuclear plants by another 10 years, but really it would have to replace them sooner or later.
Even in France the trend visible in other European countries will happen: Wind, solar combined with large-scale batteries or pumped storage hydropower. Those are more simple to construct with less resistance from today's public.
Even in France the trend visible in other European countries will happen: Wind, solar combined with large-scale batteries or pumped storage hydropower. Those are more simple to construct with less resistance from today's public.
It is not going to happen. France's existing nuclear fleet will not replaced by new nukes when they reach end of life.
It is clear after three EPR projects have massively overrun in a row that Areva/EDF can't do it, and when faced by paying a foreign company to do it they will choose solar and wind instead.
It is clear after three EPR projects have massively overrun in a row that Areva/EDF can't do it, and when faced by paying a foreign company to do it they will choose solar and wind instead.
Does the US not legislate that a NPP should be built with certain minimum amount of concrete that is far higher than needed? I read somewhere that lobbies inflate the cost so they will not be built, IDK if that's true.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with having to maintain a nuclear stockpile, because France unlike other nations in the European Union doesn't have nuclear weapons. /s
Come on man, everybody knows France has their own nuclear weapons, have had for many decades.
/s stands for sarcasm
Has it been a flop? They should ask France.
About the trains too...
About the trains too...
The 1970s: When you have cheap coal and gas it would be financially stupid to invest in nuclear. Which is why most countries never did.
Today: when a single nuclear powerplant is estimated at 20 billion you calculate how many windmills you can build for that money. Ironically wind power is now the proven technology.
Today: when a single nuclear powerplant is estimated at 20 billion you calculate how many windmills you can build for that money. Ironically wind power is now the proven technology.
Windpower is shit, and it's on the way out. It's also polluting in all kinds of ways (visually and materially).
This article is missing the biggest elephant in the room: The unsolved problem of safe nuclear waste disposal. Everyone is in favor of nuclear power until the state decides to dispose the nuclear waste near your house: for a hundred thousand years.
Because of the existential threat they pose. They require a military to defend.
More specifically, everything requires a military to defend, but some targets (nuclear power plants) are much harder to defend.
I don't think so. These plants are super volatile and can meltdown forever.
[deleted]
A lot of what is said about nuclear power fails to drill down to the bare essentials: how do you de-risk building nuclear power and how do you get the cost down. A lot of smug mumbo-jumbo written by industry insiders who have their heads too far up their own behinds tends to take attention away from the fact that, so far, we've gone about it in ways that don't make sense. You don't actually need to know anything about nuclear power to understand why the approach of building large nuclear power plants doesn't work. Some basic knowledge of financing and the statistical chances of "black swan events" when you stretch out projects in time suffices.
Or in short: if you don't understand the goals you must navigate towards, it doesn't matter how much of the technical implementation you know.
"How Big Things Get Done" by Flyvbjerg and Gardner zooms out a bit (well, a lot) and draws a relatively clear picture of what approximate shape the solution space has for nuclear. Yes, the book gives a high level perspective. And yes, transforming the industry so it can fit within the constraints outlined in the book will be expensive and time-consuming. But it is worthy of serious consideration.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61327449-how-big-things-...
I tend to point out that the country where I live is uniquely suited to design and build reactors precisely because we don't have a nuclear industry. (We had a research reactor, but that's an entirely different matter and you would NOT want to involve the cowboys who ran that)
Or in short: if you don't understand the goals you must navigate towards, it doesn't matter how much of the technical implementation you know.
"How Big Things Get Done" by Flyvbjerg and Gardner zooms out a bit (well, a lot) and draws a relatively clear picture of what approximate shape the solution space has for nuclear. Yes, the book gives a high level perspective. And yes, transforming the industry so it can fit within the constraints outlined in the book will be expensive and time-consuming. But it is worthy of serious consideration.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61327449-how-big-things-...
I tend to point out that the country where I live is uniquely suited to design and build reactors precisely because we don't have a nuclear industry. (We had a research reactor, but that's an entirely different matter and you would NOT want to involve the cowboys who ran that)
too expensive and never built on time, only countries where it's cheap are dictatorships where you can hide problems
That's wrong. France's electricity is 70 % nuclear, on plants that were never built during a dictatorship phase.
The fossil industry is doing a fantastic job hiding problems in "free societies" and dictatorships alike.
France?
They were able to build them in the past. It is unclear if they can still do it. It seems even for France the issues are piling up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Because nuclear competency is a strategic asset that the long march has been very successful in degrading.
Simple, people found out the reactors get retired after 50 years and its an absolute shit show. Totally not worth it.
Then there's the unforgiving accidents.
Then there's the unforgiving accidents.
......
Ok, this is crazy. I stopped reading when the author says evacuating the people from Fukushima was unnecessary. Of course it is necessary. What good is a world where everyone is irradiated and dying of cancer ? We have enough already. This guy is either on Westinghouse’s payroll or some kind of pharmaceutical company about to release a new injectable therapy.
Fukushima proved that the nuclear industry in fact isn’t designing reactors safe ENOUGH and that Mother Nature is very difficult to predict. Everything needs redundancies and even higher levels of safety as a nuclear “incident” large enough could destroy humanity.
Fukushima proved that the nuclear industry in fact isn’t designing reactors safe ENOUGH and that Mother Nature is very difficult to predict. Everything needs redundancies and even higher levels of safety as a nuclear “incident” large enough could destroy humanity.
> I stopped reading when the author says evacuating the people from Fukushima was unnecessary.
I disagree strongly on this.
I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that I would be willing to trade of <some> risk of mortality in exchange for keeping and staying at my home (especially older people!).
If you displace over 100000 people you need a good justification-- if you lack observable excess mortality from radiation in the non-evacuated population, you clearly, objectively overevacuated in my view.
I do agree with the article that current regulation tends to focus too much on mitigating irrelevant/marginal risks (driving up costs too much), but I think this can still be true even though the resulting cumulative risk is too high: "Overregulation" is NOT a one-dimensional quantity.
I disagree strongly on this.
I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that I would be willing to trade of <some> risk of mortality in exchange for keeping and staying at my home (especially older people!).
If you displace over 100000 people you need a good justification-- if you lack observable excess mortality from radiation in the non-evacuated population, you clearly, objectively overevacuated in my view.
I do agree with the article that current regulation tends to focus too much on mitigating irrelevant/marginal risks (driving up costs too much), but I think this can still be true even though the resulting cumulative risk is too high: "Overregulation" is NOT a one-dimensional quantity.
After all, to decarbonise the economy we need to replace petrol cars with EVs, and gas-fired central heating with heat pumps - which will mean a big increase in demand for electricity. A lot of that heat demand will be in winter, when solar output is at its lowest. And a lot of our existing power plants are past the end of their designed life.
The problem is we're trying to build one nuclear power plant, and it's going pretty badly.
It's an extra reactor on an existing site - that should make things easy, right? And it's being built by the French who operate loads of nuclear power plants - should be experienced specialists building a cookie-cutter replica of a proven design, right? And it's using private-sector finance with the government just guaranteeing an electricity purchase price - should remove the incentive for delays and cost over-runs that plague cost-plus contracts used in things like defence procurement, right?
But it turns out none of these tricks was able to overcome the curse of large infrastructure projects, and it's going to be delayed and expensive. And all the time the cost of the project has been going up, the cost of renewables has been falling.
I can understand the argument for building fewer and larger nuclear power plants - you only have to get one set of locals to support you, do all the impact assessment paperwork once and so on - but I can't help but wonder what would have happened if we'd instead set out to build ten nuclear power plants, each one tenth the size, so there weren't so many things being done for the first time in a generation.