Re:536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)
by ClumsyPilot on Thursday June 18, 2020 @08:58PM
(#23569910)
It does not require dereg, it requires investment.
Just lile renewables do.
Re:536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)
by aksss on Friday June 19, 2020 @05:46PM
(#23579178)
Many developed nations are reducing nuclear energy dependency as a matter of policy and preventing new reactors as a matter of regulation so dereg is a barrier that needs to be addressed for nuclear to become an alternative source in the highest carbon-impacting nations.
The key parameters in a nuclear build are:
1) the construction time (impacted by regulatory regimes)
2) the cost of capital (interest rate of tying up money)
3) an uncertainty factor about getting shut down (impacted by regulatory regimes)
In China, 1&2 are 3-4 years and 2% respectively. In the US they are 8-9 years, 15% and maybe 50% chance you'll be shut down before you can finish. [0]
Re:536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)
by iso1631 on Friday June 19, 2020 @08:22AM
(#23573716)
The UK is building a new nuclear plant and new offshore wind.
The nuclear plant has a strike price twice as high as the offshore wind.
Re:536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)
by ClumsyPilot on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @02:21PM
(#23631802)
And the nuclear plant will produce at 100% of its capacity in any weather.
Meanwhile wind will jave average capacity of like 30%
It just isn't as hot right now as "renewables". What's needed is a good marketing campaign, people will follow, and so will imvestments. Downsides will be gleefully ignored, just like with solar.
Nuclear requires a lot of dereg and testing that will be decades out if we start today. This assumes the barriers of popular rejection can be overcome. China might pull it off, but I don't see the US radiating enthusiasm for it. But yeah, since few places on earth can take advantage of hydro, I don't see any long-term alternative to nuclear.