The most awesome thing you get from Solar is that it's going to move forward no matter what. It's just something you can do to lower your bill, or even disconnect from the grid altogether. Personally I am off grid with no propane. Almost unheard of in CA. Solar is now THAT cheap if you are willing to put the up-front investment instead of paying PGE $600 a month. And if you don't have the space - buy a solar panel on a business from that other company they are starting - it was on here a week or so ago.
The problem is that moving to solar solely by riding out the market-led transition won't happen fast enough. We would need to subsidize a lot more to avert the worst outcomes of climate change.
Batteries though, current batteries are a horrible solution.
It's funny that this threads main objection to nuclear is waste/mining/etc but the solar battery revolution generates some far worse environmental effects getting all those rare earth minerals. Compared to the tiny amounts of fuel needed for reactors, the sheer amount of metal needed for worldwide grid solar batteries is astronomical.
Is it?
I got the impression the discussion has moved to recognising that nuclear is too expensive, not flexible, and looking at the slow-motion-train-wreck that is the EPR project, new reactor projects are likely going to be very late[0][1][2] and hugely over budget.
[0] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fresh-delay-to-F... [1] https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/finlands-olkiluoto-... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CGN-takes-Taisha...
Getting the lithium and cobalt infrastructure up to scale takes time and has a lot of geopolitical considerations. It's not impossible but also far from trivial. It's not just a matter of throwing up more panels and turbines and calling it a day.
Unless we can solve storage at scale, generation at night will continue to be an issue, and nuclear is the least climatically damaging way to do that in the interim.
They are counting on lithium-ion batteries becoming dramatically cheaper at scale due to increasing demand for electric cars.
There's an entire agency/thinktank/R&D center working on this stuff, NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/storage-futures.html (or shorter summary: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81779.pdf). They do a lot of good work, but sadly no one really listens to them, either policymakers or the public :(
Nukes are not just unpopular, they are also way, way, way more expensive than favored methods.
That time will arrive after we have brought enough renewable generating capacity online that storage would not need to be charged by burning fossil fuel.
What we can be certain of is that Energy Vault (ERGV) investors who get out last will lose badly.
Small to medium investors and companies are trying to tackle it at the locality level (Tesla, small utility experiments, etc.), but there are no national or international movements to solve this issue wholesale. And until it is solved, adding more renewable production without storage to an already-capped grid doesn't really help the issue; in fact it worsens it by creating huge peaks and valleys in power production that are then compensated for by fossil fuel peaker plants (because nuclear can't ramp up and down that quickly). California is the example of this.
At the end of the day renewables vs nuclear is a false dilemma. The actual issue is future livability vs present-day profit, and the latter always wins in our political economy. We need vision and political will to get us there, way more investment in both renewables and nuclear, on the timescale of years, not decades, with nuclear providing a band-aid while R&D on storage increases several orders of magnitude.
It's the sort of problem that the private sector cannot easily solve; it would take mass national and international collaboration, or perhaps an arms race.
Given the progress (or lack of it) with the EPRs[0], I don't think "now" is something nuclear can claim to deliver on.
If we'd started planning dozens of reactors a decade ago, perhaps - but we didn't.
Nuclear simply isn't any kind of "quick fix", by a long stretch.
Arguing that we should adopt smr reactors because their proportionally larger amount of waste can be burned by a much larger/more expensive reactor that we'd _also_ have to fund/build? One that would likely cost >10b and take 20 years to construct? That doesn't seem like a good response to the waste issues with SMRs.
Doubt so, as after decades of often huge projects in many nations there is not a single industrial fast breeder reactor working satisfactorily. Can you name one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an...
Then why are you making so many arguments about how we must find ways to make it cheaper? That doesn't seem very committed to the idea of discussing the current cost benefit trade-off.
They don’t appear to be making those arguments at all. Just stating that Nuclear regulations sets safety standards substantially higher than safety stands for other power sources.
It quite reasonable to include a question about “how safe is safe enough” when talking about trade offs. It’s easy to change safety standards, and they’re constantly evolving in all industries, so it’s hardly disingenuous to consider as part of the current cost benefit trade-off.
However to insist that Nuclear energy can only be evaluated in strict unchanging state, or to suggest that GP was suggesting such an evaluation, is somewhat disingenuous, and substantially undermines the authenticity of your argument.
Ok, but this surely only is an argument that other sources should be regulated harsher (and fossil fuels absolutely should), not that we must make nuclear less safe.
With fossil fuels I'd say we need to worry about taxing emissions more than we worry about safety. But sure, let's make them safer.
Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? Don't say it's impossible to be too safe. It's very possible. Imagine if speed limits were 15mph everywhere for an easy example.
We can build plants that are much safer than any previous ones; why is that not good enough? The regulations shouldn't be "make the whole thing out of the black box material, okay good luck".
> Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? It's up to you to give me reasons to think that, because the default position is that a the regulation doesn't seek to require more than is necessary. This is explicitly listed in the legislation creating the NRC: it is tasked with running "A program to encourage widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public", meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough" (my emphasis).
Yes, the opposite of that strawman is also a strawman. Neither one is correct.
By my view you're advocating for a strawman of near-infinite safety.
> meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough"
As far as I'm aware, the way the regulation is handled in practice is that you have to be on the bleeding edge of safety innovations at all times. You can't just be much safer than your predecessors and adopt new methods as they become practical, you have to max out safety at tremendous cost.
Probably because there's decades and decades of pushing for safety, and it sounds really bad to say "no, the plant should not be safer than this, that's too expensive" even when it's true.
Errm, than renewables?
In this case it may be easier to change the regulatory environment than to come up with new dramatically-cheaper nuclear technology that complies with the restrictions of the current regulations (though that is happening too with modular reactors).
You're saying the safety standards regulation is not couple to the technology being used? Then what is it regulating if it's not the technology?
To be clear, I am explicitly advocating for a proper cost/benefit analysis that keeps all options on the table, rather than getting caught up on single factors ("we can't do micro-nuclear because it produces more nuclear waste"). As I mentioned later in the post, a major push to renewables is another option (I also don't see these as mutually exclusive).
I know that the most popular plan here is "push hard for renewables". I like that plan; I think a Green New Deal is an excellent idea. But empirically, how is that plan going? If that's your plan A, do you think it's going well enough to reject a plan B that you deem to be worse, but still dramatically better than climate change? I think the stakes are high enough that we should be hedging our bets.
It’s becoming clear that the climate alarmism isn't about solutions or even a tax, but forcing us to purchase “carbon credits” from Saudi Arabia and other sovereign wealth funds ranked high in the ESG index.
Only thing that could get us out there and would only make sense is going renewables everywhere in Manhatten-like projects, but that won't happen because people argueing like this got us into this situation where there is allegedly only a binary choice between failed and failed..
Isn’t the opposite true? Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel source by a gigantic margin. The entire US stockpile of waste since the 50s is only 83,000 metric tonnes and could fit on a single football field stacked less than 10 yards deep. If we could all stop clutching our pearls about scary radiation and just agree to store the spent fuel deep underground there’d be absolutely no danger from it. Add to that the fact you can recycle the fuel and get even more energy out of it.
So building more nuclear would actually fix the nuclear waste problem.
Every half educated climate activist knows thay carbon credits are a fraud perpetuates by wallstreet types to pretend they are doing something when they are not.
This post is breathtakingly uninformed. I suggest calling it climate illiteracy
The problem with this statement is that the carbon credits ARE being rolled out AS the solution.
Given a binary choice, I'd rather have to deal with some nuclear waste than climate change, and I don't even think that climate change is an existential risk for humanity (just likely to cause large and uneven/unjust levels of harm). I think it's misleading to throw out individual objections like this without considering the systemic trade-offs that we need to make.
> the nuclear lobby were the ones that brought us the phrase "too cheap to meter"
I think this kind of blame-throwing is unhelpful. I couldn't care less what marketing claims were made in the past. Does this technology make a good cost/benefit trade-off now, or not? Specifically, compared to the other options we actually have available to us now. That is the conversation I think we should be having.
To address your object-level claim, as the OP describes in detail, one reason nuclear is more expensive now is the ever-increasing regulatory framework that has changed under the feet of in-progress projects. Maybe those regulations have resulted in a good ROI, but it's hard for me to buy that claim. Nuclear is now 10-100x safer than most other traditional/fossil forms of power generation[1], and it's excruciatingly expensive to buy that safety margin. These are tiny death rates caused by power generation.
The problem here is that it's political suicide to say "I think we should reduce safety regulations to make nuclear power 10x more dangerous, because that will avert far more deaths from climate change". In practice perhaps a major push for solar/wind/geothermal would be a higher-ROI solution to our problems, but that's politically much harder to get consensus on.
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy