|
MightyBigMinus posted:what if i told you eroei and return on capital were the same thing Then I would say you have been ideologically poisoned to the point where you are incapable of doing basic math. Infiinite free energy at a cost of 10$ would have a zero rate of capital return. I guess at that price it would be built anyway, by someone one or other. But on any kind of more realistic assumptions, creating abundant, cheap and clean energy is always going to compare unfavourably as an investment to producing scarce, variably-clean and so expensive electricity. So as long as the latter remains possible, it will be what private money does.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2022 10:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Who is this armory b lovins dude, some anti nuke chuds keep referring to his brilliant study which apparently claims nuclear has 1/3rd the CO2 footprint of coal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Amory lovins was the "chief scientist" of his own think tank, the rocky mountain institute. I'm not one to believe in credentials based gatekeeping, but the overcompensating titles he gave himself counter to the fact he never completed any post secondary degree always did make me cringe. Glaringly absent from all of the policies he advocated for is public transportation. He wanted an environmentally friendly suburban commuter lifestyle, I never figured out how that was supposed to work. A quick wikipedia lookup shows that he served on a oil industry lobby group from 2011 to 2018 which seems sadly on point for the image I had of him. I'm not familiar with his nuclear CO2 footprint study. There are two notable papers I'm familiar with, the first being by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen often called the stormsmith paper (the second author Smith died before publication). This work was commissioned by the European Green party to explicitly provide an argument against nuclear power being environmentally friendly, so motivated reasoning through and through. The methodology is atrocious, assuming an obsolete method is used exclusively for uranium enrichment. Weird economic math is used to estimate the energy of uranium extraction, at one point attributing the energy cost of extraction in a country to somehow exceed the total energy use of the country. The second paper I'm familiar with is basically just a laundered reference to the previous work. The author, Benjamin Sovacool, whose background is actually in sociology despite writing primarily about energy, is not a smart man. His name featured in the wonderfully titled response paper "Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's (2009) analysis of animal fatalities due to electricity generation". His analysis of CO2 emissions "carefully" only chose the "best" studies of CO2 emissions, so naturally he included 3 copies of the stormsmith paper. The stormsmith paper is often the source of most of these studies claiming high CO2 footprints for nuclear power, sometimes laundered through secondary references. Mark Jacobson wrote a paper like this citing the Sovacool paper, then added an expected risk of nuclear war which mathematically was modelled as burning civilization to the ground every 30 years (without disrupting industry somehow). <edit: guess this make that 3 papers I'm familiar with>
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Not energy generation per se, but definitely an example of how things can get built faster when the government removes its self-imposed shackles: https://triblive.com/local/penndot-hopes-to-complete-fern-hollow-bridge-replacement-by-end-of-the-year/ quote:Moon-Sirianni said the bridge replacement is ahead of schedule thanks to emergency declarations from the city of Pittsburgh and the state of Pennsylvania. Normally, it would take about three years before any remediation or construction could begin, she said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/us-regulators-will-certify-first-small-nuclear-reactor-design/ First SMR design finally certified by the NRC. Now comes the part where the orders start rolling in! Any day now!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
Pander posted:https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/us-regulators-will-certify-first-small-nuclear-reactor-design/ I think the approval was required for the test they want to do in Wyoming, so there's at least one site they'll start on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AriNatter/status/1554903020659433473 Hey maybe they won't shut down Diablo Canyon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:https://twitter.com/AriNatter/status/1554903020659433473 Now if only they'd build some new ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
Got a friend, old time leftist and environmentalist that is against nuclear power. He hasn't really researched the subject much tho. Can someone share some good resources arguing for its inclusion to the energy mix as an essential part of moving away from fossil fuels? Even better if they are written from a left-leaning perspective. Although a lawyer he has no problem reading technical stuff either, so studies would work too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 08:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:https://twitter.com/AriNatter/status/1554903020659433473 isn't this just going to end up with elderly reactors barely being kept alive with no new replacements being built, another disaster occurring due to age/underfunding/poor maintenance and the whole anti-nuclear cycle starts again?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 08:52
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Got a friend, old time leftist and environmentalist that is against nuclear power. He hasn't really researched the subject much tho. http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html It is 30 years old but is amusingly relevant even now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 09:58
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:https://twitter.com/AriNatter/status/1554903020659433473 Huh, that's interesting--the party line in this thread is that nuclear electricity is dirt cheap if you ignore the cost to build the plant. I wonder why the article cites 'high operating costs' for nuclear power, and why this tax credit aimed towards keeping old plants running is even needed . . . (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 10:50
|
|
|
Mostly guessing here but I'd imagiine these old plants are way past their designed life and would need extensive inspections, maintenance and upgrades. Normally you'd teard down the old stuff (whatever it is, plants, cars, other equipment, etc) and build a new one at this point, but lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 11:10
|
|
|
I assume they need a lot of recertification work done to extend the lifetime of the plant, yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 11:16
|
|
|
E) quote is not edit. but anyway. If they were really going to shut down those nukes (and it was not just a money grab), then how does 1.5c a kWhr subsidy compare against other subsidies or non-passed on externalities? Remember nuclear is the safest and a very carbon kind dispatchable energy source. Still, would have been better to drive through pricing impact of non-dispatchable power and externalities than a straight up subsidy in my view.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 11:19
|
|
|
Interesting. It makes a lot of sense that the costs to run a nuclear power plant increase as they age, especially as they age past their intended/designed lifetime. This is a way more plausible explanation for why old nuclear power plants in the US are shut down than there being a vast conspiracy against the technology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 11:25
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Interesting. It makes a lot of sense that the costs to run a nuclear power plant increase as they age, especially as they age past their intended/designed lifetime. This is a way more plausible explanation for why old nuclear power plants in the US are shut down than there being a vast conspiracy against the technology. Well it's both, there is absolutely a conspiracy and gas companies are lobbying for the shutdowns, someone earlier in the thread posted the story behind the one in NY, IIRC
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Well it's both, there is absolutely a conspiracy and gas companies are lobbying for the shutdowns, someone earlier in the thread posted the story behind the one in NY, IIRC The great thing about claiming that there exists a vast conspiracy against nuclear power in the US is that due to the nature of the claim, you don't really need much evidence at all to advance the narrative and support the claim. Conspirators tend to cover their tracks so a lack of evidence doesn't really sink the theory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 12:59
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:The great thing about claiming that there exists a vast conspiracy against nuclear power in the US is that due to the nature of the claim, you don't really need much evidence at all to advance the narrative and support the claim. Conspirators tend to cover their tracks so a lack of evidence doesn't really sink the theory. Except they didnt cover their tracks. They openly donated to groups and knew they would go after nuclear power just because of the nature of the groups they donated to
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 13:13
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Huh, that's interesting--the party line in this thread is that nuclear electricity is dirt cheap if you ignore the cost to build the plant. I wonder why the article cites 'high operating costs' for nuclear power, and why this tax credit aimed towards keeping old plants running is even needed . . . We've been telling you this entire time that cost is a thing, get lost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
its pretty hosed up you guys keep reporting/probating silence_kit for owning you. like just put him on ignore if you cant handle being wrong. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 13:45
|
|
|
> Fossil fuel extractors get subsidies for many decades: > Wind gets subsidies for two decades to modernize and scale up: > Solar gets subsidies for two decades to modernize and scale up: > Nuke plants get a moderate subsidy: "UP YOURS WOKE NUKECHUDS, WE'LL SEE WHO CANCELS WHO"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:its pretty hosed up you guys keep reporting/probating silence_kit for owning you. like just put him on ignore if you cant handle being wrong. That $30B represents fossil fuels that won't be burned and thus carbon that will not enter the atmosphere, what is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:its pretty hosed up you guys keep reporting/probating silence_kit for owning you. like just put him on ignore if you cant handle being wrong. He isn't owning anyone, he's repeating the same arguments without addressing anyone elses counters, much like you do with throwing around ad homs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
The issue with silence_kit is that they're clearly not here to discuss things, they stump the same thing over and over and do not actually discuss things when someone goes out on the limb starts citing material--often silence_kit's own evidence--and see if they can come to a common understanding on the claims being made. When pressed, they just retreat, or deflect. Then they come back with the same stump speech, as though nothing had happened. They're counting on people burning out and letting them get away with stuff. As a concrete example, this whole discussion about cost and nuclear power came up two or three weeks ago, and it is extraordinarily frustrating to watch the guy pretend that pages of discussion never took place by retreating back to their introductory "cost is the Achilles heel of nuclear power" as though each implied component of that talking point hadn't been acknowledged, broken down, and hung on the wall alongside the same issues with the rest of our energy portfolio. Like, the thread had largely gone and acknowledged that that statement is largely true, and that there's myriad reasons for it, and when you place the role nuclear power fills against the rest of our energy portfolio--and especially greenhouse emission externalities--there's a couple good reason why. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Aug 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
Maybe the most rage-inducing, frustrating part of their gimmick is that they pretend that there is no give and take in these discussions on nuclear baseload. In fact, there is an enormous amount of give and take on these topics because they're pretty drat complex This is exemplified by the guy driving by with a "look at this subsidy program, this proves me right" tweet. In reality, people who have talked about the cost bind that nukes are in have brought up relief programs as an option for shoring up our baseload generation without reverting to killing the Earth or enduring endless brownouts. For whatever reason, silence_kit ignored or forgot about pages and pages of discussion about baseload cost problems. Given that they were a major player in the prior blowup about this topic, I'm not inclined to believe that they conveniently forgot about the existing context and numerous unaddressed counters offered. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Aug 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 14:04
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:its pretty hosed up you guys keep reporting/probating silence_kit for owning you. like just put him on ignore if you cant handle being wrong. The MAN is just trying to keep the TRUTH that silence_kit is speaking DOWN
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Silence_kit's point was not too bad, in that he is pointing out the Lazard data that he hurfed and blurfed into the thread uncritically with indicates that variable cost of nuclear is really cheap and so why should variable cost only nuclear power attract subsidising. There are good reasons put forward on funding life extensions, etc but it is just as likely that some of the generators are collecting a windfall. I agree that 1.5 c/kWhr is cheap for low carbon dispatchable power. Maybe it would have been better to tip that money into new build nuclear and change policy settings such that non-dispatchable power prices in storage costs sufficient to keep the grid stable without requiring overbuild or curtailment of dispatchable power that generates at below the non-dispatchable+storage cost power. Silence_kit does keep silent on talking to the many points raised in good faith though, that is certainly true. MightyBigMinus posted:its pretty hosed up you guys keep reporting/probating silence_kit for owning you. like just put him on ignore if you cant handle being wrong. Fancy you cheering someone on that is uncritically opposed to nuclear - you being the poster that wailed about nuclear power being in the energy generation megathread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Silence_kit's point was not too bad, in that he is pointing out the Lazard data that he hurfed and blurfed into the thread uncritically with indicates that variable cost of nuclear is really cheap and so why should variable cost only nuclear power attract subsidising. That's my point about this thread actually meeting them halfway. It's just... not reciprocated whatsoever, then they carry on without addressing points, deflect, or ghost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Got a friend, old time leftist and environmentalist that is against nuclear power. He hasn't really researched the subject much tho. http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution/ Personally I’m for all the alternatives. I think the problems with nuclear in the USA are directly related to how utilities operate, with their guaranteed profit margin. I would like to see a federalized program ala France. Maybe just come up with a standard design that can be manufactured quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution/ Again, the issue is the *site license*. Even assuming you have the design approved, you need to get a license for every single place you plan on installing one. The profit margin of utilities is utterly irrelevant to the difficulty of getting a nuclear installation approved, and it is in fact the entity that doesn't have a profit margin, the government, that makes it so difficult to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
France has nearly 70% nuclear power and the Country is still able to afford things like roads, bridges, school teachers, janitors, tech people, random government services, national healthcare, publics parks, etc. then like sure... Nuclear Power might certainly be expensive - I don't think anyone has claimed it's cheap - but it's an expense they can still afford while having a decent if not pretty great place to live. Granted, I'm pretty a bit perplexed why it's so expensive everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Again, the issue is the *site license*. Even assuming you have the design approved, you need to get a license for every single place you plan on installing one. The profit margin of utilities is utterly irrelevant to the difficulty of getting a nuclear installation approved, and it is in fact the entity that doesn't have a profit margin, the government, that makes it so difficult to do so. Well … https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plants-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/ “But many of the US' nuclear plants were in fact built around the same design, with obvious site-specific aspects like different foundation needs. The researchers track each of the designs used separately, and they calculate a "learning rate"—the drop in cost that's associated with each successful completion of a plant based on that design. If things went as expected, the learning rate should be positive, with each sequential plant costing less. Instead, it's -115 percent. ... But those were far from the only costs. They cite a worker survey that indicated that about a quarter of the unproductive labor time came because the workers were waiting for either tools or materials to become available. In a lot of other cases, construction procedures were changed in the middle of the build, leading to confusion and delays. Finally, there was the general decrease in performance noted above. All told, problems that reduced the construction efficiency contributed nearly 70 percent to the increased cosnts.”i
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Granted, I'm pretty a bit perplexed why it's so expensive everywhere else. As I understand it France doesn't actually publish the cost of generation and decommissioning costs are very underfunded. Going with nuclear, nationalizing it and subsidizing electricity is probably the correct approach though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
Cost is less of an issue in my opinion than time. Maybe we can run the new modular reactors off of an assembly line?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 05:08
|
|
|
Thanks for the two links guys.VideoGameVet posted:http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution/ Avast is flagging this one all over the place. Is this just a matter of lolavast?  
Dante80 fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Aug 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 05:38
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Cost is less of an issue in my opinion than time. That's the point of SMRs. Eliminate reliance on large foundries (which we don't have) to make single RPVs. Smaller components mean a single point of failure isn't a SONGS level fiasco. Smaller footprint means less on-site construction crews needed and less coordination. Simpler design means less re-engineering on site. In theory, anyway. The political and financial will to build, the implementation of construction lessons learned on standardized builds to generates N+1 efficiency gains, the improved supply chains to meet safety quality component procurement, the engineering and technician experience, these all take a long time, if they happen at all. Time is something you're going to have to accept as a challenge that, well, you can't rush. If the next decade goes well, that means we'll be another 10-20 years from turning the corner on green power baseload generation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
I do think an SMR just cannot be as efficient as a large reactor can be though. I've seen that being used now by anti nuke people. SMR's will cause 30% more NOOOKULAR WASTE ASDFGLDAS! They exaggerate the reality of the situation is my guess and even a less effective SMR is still more effective than anything else in generating energy with a small CO2 footprint and nuclear was just isn't a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
Yeah a SMR will definitely be less efficient per watt, that's simply thermodynamics. I would expect a large conventional reactor to produce less waste than the equivalent number of SMRs producing the same amount of energy from the same type of fuel. It's a downside, but if you are a country that already handles nuclear waste then it's fine. This is still far better than just dumping radioactive waste into the air like we do with coal power, and that's on top of not emitting carbon. The choice isn't really between conventional reactors and SMRs, it's between SMRs and fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Dante80 posted:Thanks for the two links guys. Who knows why it is on their blacklist. Maybe Avast is in on the anti-nuke conspiracy  Anyways here is the article: James Lovelock posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2022 20:46
|
|
