The Dawn of Nuclear Energy Abundance(quillette.com)
quillette.com
The Dawn of Nuclear Energy Abundance
https://quillette.com/2023/02/09/the-dawn-of-nuclear-energy-abundance/
9 comments
This is a preposterous, obnoxious hit piece on behalf of a struggling industry from a reactionary website. Why was it posted?
As far as I can tell, the piece makes excellent arguments. What are your counterarguuments?
It's easy to see this is largely bullshit.
The LCOE of nuclear is fundamentally higher than solar/wind.
https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
Page 3, unsubsidized analysis.
I scanned the article and there are some bizarre accounting things like "drop in value after XX years or YY % of generation reached". I didn't bother reading the arguments because any article on nuclear economics has ONE JOB:
- explain how it will fix the LCOE gap with wind/solar - barring that, justify its existence as a grid leveling service versus other generation schemes and grid storage
Everything else is fluff.
Note there isn't a single mention of LCOE in this article.
Now, that's just the cost for today. Wind/Solar is still dropping by 10-20% per year like it has the last decade, that will likely slow, but compounded 5-10% cost reductions is still a hell of a curve to compete with.
Consider that large scale nuclear buildout, AS THEY HIGHLIGHT in the article, is politically fraught, has long unreliable time frames, and is prone to vast budgetary overruns.
So the article wants you to start with nuclear, already not price competitive, start a whole bunch of nuclear plant builds, and in ten years (an optimistic timeframe!!!) they go into service where solar/wind is probably 1/2 the cost it was when you started the buildout, so the plants are even MORE uncompetitive.
Finally, I am unconvinced that nuclear generation costs also include the fuel rod reprocessing, waste transport, and waste storage costs fully. That comes down to accounting, but it's not like the gas or coal calculations include the carbon emissions costs (which no economics wizardry can accurately estimate, showing the fundamental issues with economicists as the voodoo witch doctors of the era of capitalism).
So, there are the counterarguments for the top commenter.
The LCOE of nuclear is fundamentally higher than solar/wind.
https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
Page 3, unsubsidized analysis.
I scanned the article and there are some bizarre accounting things like "drop in value after XX years or YY % of generation reached". I didn't bother reading the arguments because any article on nuclear economics has ONE JOB:
- explain how it will fix the LCOE gap with wind/solar - barring that, justify its existence as a grid leveling service versus other generation schemes and grid storage
Everything else is fluff.
Note there isn't a single mention of LCOE in this article.
Now, that's just the cost for today. Wind/Solar is still dropping by 10-20% per year like it has the last decade, that will likely slow, but compounded 5-10% cost reductions is still a hell of a curve to compete with.
Consider that large scale nuclear buildout, AS THEY HIGHLIGHT in the article, is politically fraught, has long unreliable time frames, and is prone to vast budgetary overruns.
So the article wants you to start with nuclear, already not price competitive, start a whole bunch of nuclear plant builds, and in ten years (an optimistic timeframe!!!) they go into service where solar/wind is probably 1/2 the cost it was when you started the buildout, so the plants are even MORE uncompetitive.
Finally, I am unconvinced that nuclear generation costs also include the fuel rod reprocessing, waste transport, and waste storage costs fully. That comes down to accounting, but it's not like the gas or coal calculations include the carbon emissions costs (which no economics wizardry can accurately estimate, showing the fundamental issues with economicists as the voodoo witch doctors of the era of capitalism).
So, there are the counterarguments for the top commenter.
Except that wind/solar works only when sun shines and wind blows. So you have cheap power or you have nothing. So whole comparation of wind/solar vs nuclear is like comparing sail ship to a cruise ship.
I will tell you a secret - people are willing to pay more for power, if it means that it will be available 24/7
I will tell you a secret - people are willing to pay more for power, if it means that it will be available 24/7
... except grid storage is going to get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. Sodium Ion at $40/kwhr is coming no lithium cobalt nickel needed. Hydro pumped storage will be built in mountains.
You know what people also like? Power in emergencies when the power lines go out. Home solar + storage will provide that. A functioning community when big disasters hit, like the once-in-a-centurty-that-happens-every-year we see with global warming. Floods, hurricanes, etc. That isn't dependent on the whims of politically-motivated regulators, that won't have some post-Enron sociopath call up a power plant to tell them to shut down to create artificial scarcity.
So grid storage, which will be unambiguously cheaper than any nuclear plant by the time a nuclear plant goes online, will handle, say 80%? 90%? of weather shortfalls?
Now, can nuclear beat geothermal, existing hydroelectric, or <gasp> gas turbine that will still be in abundance for several decades due to petroleum extraction and would be burned off anyway?
Unfortunately, with nuclear as it is now with gigantic pressurized domes, crappy solid rods, meltdown danger, waste rods + transport, security + antiterroristm, government regulation, etc, the answer is unequivocably no.
There is literally no reason to build new nuclear plants now. There is a good argument for keeping the existing ones running.
Let's wave a magic wand where a MSR/LFTR exists that breeds fuel, "burns" all the fuel rather than makes waste with online reprocessing, scalable down to a shipping container or two, can be mass manufactured for low cost, can simply be stacked or lined up to scale up power needs, is meltdown proof with the plug and design, AND the government starts regulating it differently and lots of other good things.
That might have potential.
But for "old nuclear" that means the same thing as no nuclear, because every incumbent economic interest and business involved in nuclear has no role in that reactor strategy. No rod reprocessing, no transport and storage of waste, building of big dome reactors.
All the pro-nuclear stories want EXISTING flawed designs and dead-end economics. They want to keep their jobs.
Somewhere out there is a safe, affordable, scalable, use-all-fuel/no waste design. The physics of nuclear power are so power dense it's ludicrous. Certainly for industrial applications there should be something, and especially in space. I fully advocate continued investment in nuclear reactor design and research.
But building a massive number of nuclear plants? That's Johnny Canal levels of idiocy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F42qmFHNM-M
You know what people also like? Power in emergencies when the power lines go out. Home solar + storage will provide that. A functioning community when big disasters hit, like the once-in-a-centurty-that-happens-every-year we see with global warming. Floods, hurricanes, etc. That isn't dependent on the whims of politically-motivated regulators, that won't have some post-Enron sociopath call up a power plant to tell them to shut down to create artificial scarcity.
So grid storage, which will be unambiguously cheaper than any nuclear plant by the time a nuclear plant goes online, will handle, say 80%? 90%? of weather shortfalls?
Now, can nuclear beat geothermal, existing hydroelectric, or <gasp> gas turbine that will still be in abundance for several decades due to petroleum extraction and would be burned off anyway?
Unfortunately, with nuclear as it is now with gigantic pressurized domes, crappy solid rods, meltdown danger, waste rods + transport, security + antiterroristm, government regulation, etc, the answer is unequivocably no.
There is literally no reason to build new nuclear plants now. There is a good argument for keeping the existing ones running.
Let's wave a magic wand where a MSR/LFTR exists that breeds fuel, "burns" all the fuel rather than makes waste with online reprocessing, scalable down to a shipping container or two, can be mass manufactured for low cost, can simply be stacked or lined up to scale up power needs, is meltdown proof with the plug and design, AND the government starts regulating it differently and lots of other good things.
That might have potential.
But for "old nuclear" that means the same thing as no nuclear, because every incumbent economic interest and business involved in nuclear has no role in that reactor strategy. No rod reprocessing, no transport and storage of waste, building of big dome reactors.
All the pro-nuclear stories want EXISTING flawed designs and dead-end economics. They want to keep their jobs.
Somewhere out there is a safe, affordable, scalable, use-all-fuel/no waste design. The physics of nuclear power are so power dense it's ludicrous. Certainly for industrial applications there should be something, and especially in space. I fully advocate continued investment in nuclear reactor design and research.
But building a massive number of nuclear plants? That's Johnny Canal levels of idiocy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F42qmFHNM-M
> Sodium Ion at $40/kwhr is coming
Sodium batteries are coming since 1980s, no product in sight. They are almost like a fusion. Always few years away.
> Hydro pumped storage will be built in mountains.
It won't. Where it was possible to be built, it already is build. There is not much space to build it, unless you are Switzerland.
> You know what people also like? Power in emergencies when the power lines go out. Home solar + storage will provide that
So how do you get solar power on high rise with 100 apartments? I would like to remind you, that in EU 50% of people live in such apartments. So keep your "community" fairy tales for yourself.
> So grid storage, which will be unambiguously cheaper...
That depends on your non-existent products, which only lives in your imagination.
> There is literally no reason to build new nuclear plants now.
Increasing power consumption because we are trying to migrate all transport from fossil fuels to electric? That's probably just a detail which slipped through when you were dreaming about non-existent batteries.
> But building a massive number of nuclear plants? That's Johnny Canal levels of idiocy:
So massively increasing our energy consumption, while not increasing amount of sources is logical according to you? Got it.
Sodium batteries are coming since 1980s, no product in sight. They are almost like a fusion. Always few years away.
> Hydro pumped storage will be built in mountains.
It won't. Where it was possible to be built, it already is build. There is not much space to build it, unless you are Switzerland.
> You know what people also like? Power in emergencies when the power lines go out. Home solar + storage will provide that
So how do you get solar power on high rise with 100 apartments? I would like to remind you, that in EU 50% of people live in such apartments. So keep your "community" fairy tales for yourself.
> So grid storage, which will be unambiguously cheaper...
That depends on your non-existent products, which only lives in your imagination.
> There is literally no reason to build new nuclear plants now.
Increasing power consumption because we are trying to migrate all transport from fossil fuels to electric? That's probably just a detail which slipped through when you were dreaming about non-existent batteries.
> But building a massive number of nuclear plants? That's Johnny Canal levels of idiocy:
So massively increasing our energy consumption, while not increasing amount of sources is logical according to you? Got it.
I suggest you reread the HN Guidelines[1]. This kind of dogmatic dismissal-without-argument is not the kind of engagement that people expect here.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I suggest you not patronize me when I point out that this a bad-faith piece intended to invite ”argument” by way of FUD-laden industry talking points. It doesn’t meet the bar for consideration and the only reason it gets posted and survives is because HN has turned into a clearing house for rightwing tripe. The material has found its intended audience.
Because this is actually Boomer News