this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024

989 points (86.4% liked)

Science Memes

11408 readers

2007 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

989

Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net)

submitted 1 month ago by MataVatnik to c/[email protected]

386 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's sad that the coal lobby has convinced so many people that the most reliable clean energy source we've ever discovered is somehow bad.

[–] cynar 25 points 1 month ago

Particularly since coal power stations emit FAR more radioactive material, routinely, than most nuclear "leaks".

[–] partial_accumen 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s sad that the coal lobby has convinced so many people that the most reliable clean energy source we’ve ever discovered is somehow bad.

Its bad in the sense that is a crazy expensive way to generate electricity. Its not theoretical. Ask the customers of the most recent nuclear reactors to go online in the USA in Georgia. source

"The report shows average Georgia Power rates are up between $34 and $35 since before the plant's Unit 3 went online. " (there were bonds and fees on customer electric bills to pay for the nuclear plant construction before it was even delivering power.

...and...

"The month following Unit 4 achieving commercial operation, average retail rates were adjusted by approximately 5%. With the Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery (NCCR) tariff removed from bills, a typical resident customer using 1,000 kWh per month saw an estimated monthly increase of $8.95 per month. This follows the previous rate impact in 2023 following Unit 3 COD of $5.42 (3.2%)."

So another $5.42/month for the first reactor built on top of the $35/month, then another $8.95/month on top of all that for a rough total of $49.37/month more just to buy electricity that is generated from nuclear.

Maybe the power company is greedy? Nope, they're even eating more costs and not passing them on to customers:

"Georgia Power says they're losing about $2.6 billion in total projected costs to shield customers from the responsibility of paying it. Unit 4 added about $8.95 to the average customer's bill, John Kraft, a spokesman for the company said."

So that $49.37/month premium for electricity from nuclear power would be even higher if the power company passed on all the costs. Nuclear power for electricty is just too inefficient just on the cost basis, this is completely ignoring the problems with waste management.

The next biggest problem with nuclear power is where the fuel comes from:

"Russia also dominates nuclear fuel supply chains. Its state-owned Rosatom controls 36 percent of the global uranium enrichment market and supplies nuclear fuel to 78 reactors in 15 countries. In 2020, Russia owned 40 percent of the total uranium conversion infrastructure worldwide. Russia is also the third-largest supplier of the imported uranium that fuels U.S. power plants, accounting for 16 percent of total imported uranium. The Russian state could weaponize its dominance in the nuclear energy supply chain to advance its geostrategic interests. During the 2014 Russia-Ukraine crisis, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin threatened to embargo nuclear fuel supplies to Ukraine." source

So relying on nuclear power for electricity means handing the keys of our power supply over to outside countries that are openly hostile to us.

[–] dustyData 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes, of course. Because oil has never depended on outside countries that are openly hostile. No sire, thank goodness we rely on a power source that no war has ever been fought for, ever in history.

[–] partial_accumen 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because oil has never depended on outside countries that are openly hostile.

That argument is so weak to me. No one is advocating "oil is the future! We need to build more oil consuming power plants!". If people were, sure you'd have a great counter. Since that's not reality though, its a Strawman response at best. Its Whataboutism at its worse.

[–] dustyData 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The argument I'm replying to is a classic "not perfect, thus not worth it". Its disingenuous and it calls for disingenuous reply. We are also pursuing renewables in despite of their political and technical flaws. The point is that all the flaws that OP exposes about nuclear power also applied to renewables (at one point in history solar power was 10x more expensive than nuclear) and also to oil. They are status quo defending arguments designed to halt thought, paralyze action and scoff change. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't better.

[–] partial_accumen 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The argument I’m replying to is a classic “not perfect, thus not worth it”. Its disingenuous and it calls for disingenuous reply.

I wrote nearly a page of text all of factual and relevant points. If your threshold for bad faith replies is that every facet of every argument must be explored before you'll allow a genuine reply, you're in the wrong place.

We are also pursuing renewables in despite of their political and technical flaws.

Agreed! We are seeing their benefits over their shortcomings. Additionally, its not an all-or-nothing decision. A blend of solutions is the best likely path forward. Some nuclear (currently built) should be part of that. However, putting all the efforts into scaling nuclear would be extremely expensive. If we do that, we should understand that cost will be much larger than most people understand.

The point is that all the flaws that OP exposes about nuclear power also applied to renewables (at one point in history solar power was 10x more expensive than nuclear) and also to oil.

Thats a bad argument to support your pro-nuclear position. Other renewables are expensive when they are first developed and get cheaper over time. Nuclear has gone the other direction. Nuclear power is more expensive now than it was when it began, and is only getting more expensive.

They are status quo defending arguments designed to halt thought, paralyze action and scoff change. Just because it isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t better.

My dollar cost argument against nuclear is not that.

The exceptionally high dollar cost of nuclear was not part of the conversation before I introduced it. It is an important consideration if we're talking about scaling out any particular solution. If one solution is more expensive than others that produces the same result that is important to consider.

[–] dustyData 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Nuclear has gone the other direction. Nuclear power is more expensive now than it was when it began, and is only getting more expensive.

Ask why? don't just stay with oil companies PR talk points. Nuclear is expensive because innovation has been artificially stifled. A huge part of this, is the insistence to forbid newer designs and more modern improvements, and instead force new plants to use old technologies and models that rely on on-site bespoke construction, as well as arcane and arbitrary administrative processes. Nuclear power is expensive (in the US), because it was made expensive by refusing it all the factors that typically reduce costs of technologies. Nuclear power never got to take advantage of the things that made solar and wind power cheaper, because oil companies lobbied with a shit ton of money to prevent it.

It doesn't matter though. Nuclear power could've help us survive climate change…40 years ago. It's too late now anyways. Even if we covered the whole planet with solar power and stopped every single combustion engine in existence, we are already on the way to living in a hellscape. We must focus on survival of the species now.

[–] partial_accumen 1 points 1 month ago

Ask why? don’t just stay with oil companies PR talk points.

I do. I'm not using anyone's talking points. I couldn't even tell you what they would be. I have 2 smaller nuclear power plants in my state. I liked the idea of nuclear power, but looked into it myself. It seems like it should be great. Reality shows it isn't great. I does one thing well (24/7 carbon free electricity), but thats it. Everything else is negatives I found.

Nuclear is expensive because innovation has been artificially stifled.

I read your article. It doesn't say what you're saying it does. That article says "nuclear is expensive" because projects are building old designs retrofitting existing plants.

A huge part of this, is the insistence to forbid newer designs and more modern improvements,

See you say that, but facts don't align with that: "NRC Certifies First U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design" Jan 2023 source

Do ALL new reactor designs get approved? No. Do no new reactor designs get approved? Also no.

Nuclear power is expensive (in the US), because it was made expensive by refusing it all the factors that typically reduce costs of technologies.

I read your article there. Its argument is that the theoretical arguments for pricing nuclear power are faulty. We don't have to work with theoreticals. The customers of the most recently brought online reactors at Vogle nuclear power plant in Georgia are paying significantly more for their electricity as the result of their new nuclear reactors, and will, for decades to come. I pointed this out and cited sources in my OP on this.

It doesn’t matter though. Nuclear power could’ve help us survive climate change…40 years ago. It’s too late now anyways. Even if we covered the whole planet with solar power and stopped every single combustion engine in existence, we are already on the way to living in a hellscape. We must focus on survival of the species now.

Agreed, so its irrelevant to bring up what could have been done in the past. We have what we have today.