upvote

points

by mrtksn2 days ago |
comments
upvoteby newyankee2 days ago|
next
[-]
also because it is modular which really works for the Global south, it can be taken to demand centers and demand adjusted to the supply to a small extent (e.g. irrigation pumps)
reply
upvoteby xondono2 days ago|
prev|
[-]
> Good luck building nuclear in non-generational timescales and at reasonable prices.

Or we could treat nuclear rationally and stop increasing the price three orders of magnitude past diminishing returns..

reply
upvoteby cheema332 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Or we could treat nuclear rationally and stop increasing the price three orders of magnitude past diminishing returns

Who is we here? Do you have examples of any countries having successfully done what you are proposing?

reply
upvoteby Hammershaft2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
'We' could refer to democratic societies that regulate nuclear energy with absurdly stringent standards beyond how we regulate other forms of energy. Just the regulatory cost of approving a new small reactor design exceeds 500 Million Dollars! That's the lifetime earnings of thousands of engineers and bureaucrats.
reply
upvoteby epistasis1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
$0.5B is a tiny rounding error in the cost of standing up the first GW of a new tech. If SMRs could be built for $10/W, which is overly optimistic, that would be $10B. Much more likely is $30B-$50B for that first GW. And SMRs are not even going to start getting to a halfway competitive cost until at least several GW in. If they can eventually get to $5/W they might have a chance at competing for a fraction of the grid.

All this is to say that if there are high costs imposed by regulation, it's not the regulatory process it's in the cost of building the final design.

However, the "regulations make nuclear expensive" folks never seem to be able to propose the changes that might make nuclear cheaper, or by how much. The only concrete proposals I have heard are from people skeptical that nuclear can ever be cost competitive!

reply
upvoteby xondono1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> Who is we here? Do you have examples of any countries having successfully done what you are proposing?

Does it really matter? There’s always a first country to do anything.

It makes no sense actual exposure to radiation is increasing because of the lack of nuclear plants…

reply
upvoteby streptomycin2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
China https://x.com/bataille_chris/status/1981476968202752109
reply
upvoteby adrianN2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
And still even China is adding as much solar as their total nuclear capacity on a yearly basis.
reply
upvoteby diordiderot2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Do you have examples of any countries having successfully done what you are proposing?

France pre 21st century, China, Korea, Poland.

reply
upvoteby ViewTrick10022 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
South Korea had a massive corruption scandal. I guess it takes cheating to deliver?

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed...

China is barely building nuclear power. In terms of their grid mix it is backsliding.

Poland haven’t built any so noconfirmed numbers yet?

reply
upvoteby oezi2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Since when does Poland have a significant nuclear power generation program?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Poland

reply
upvoteby matthewdgreen2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Does anyone have actual numbers on what France’s nuclear fleet cost? I thought it was somewhat shrouded in mystery due to government and national security subsidies.
reply
upvoteby mr_toad1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
> national security subsidies.

The bit they always say quietly is that you need nuclear reactors to provide the material for nuclear weapons.

reply
upvoteby 2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply