Comment on Can somebody please explain why the world hasn't gone nuclear yet?

• aupag@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  We did build a lot of nuclear in the 60s and 70s, but prices didn’t really drop and began to increase (higher safety standards, more oversight, general cost disease as is usual for large civil engineering projects), so we stopped building nuclear. It also wasn’t sustainable to build nulear at that rate for some countries, as, well, after you built enough you don’t need more (france) for a while.

  source

  • BussyCat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    The U.S. has an increase in energy demand, and if we consider phasing out fossil fuels then the demand for new power plants is huge.

    Arkansas nuclear one which started construction in 1968 and finished in 1974 had a total construction cost of 2.522B (2007 dollars) and produces 13555 GWh a year with a 66 year license giving it a $2.81//MWh in general initial construction represents 60-80% of total nuclear power costs so if we use the conservative value that’s still under $5/MWh using 2007 dollars and if we scale to today that’s $8/MWh. So not sure what you mean by it didn’t drop costs.

    It was expensive compared to fossil fuels that had little to no safety systems

    source
• ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  But when you have a place that needs huge amounts of batteries to try and compensate for inconsistent wind/solar that’s where you should build nuclear.

  With High Voltage transmission lines, it’s possible to send excess energy hundreds to thousands of miles away with relatively little loss. I believe Germany sends solar power north where it’s more cloudy, and wind power south.

  China also went this route, sending solar energy across the country thanks to that infrastructure.

  There’s nothing technological stopping the EU or the US from doing the same, only politics.

  source

  • BussyCat@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    There are still losses in those lines that can be around 10%, high voltage transmission lines use a lot of copper and can have high cost, they can be a point of failure, they can start forest fires, and if we actually build full scale nuclear system their price will drop down extensively. An MIT study estimated $66/MWh is achievable with a full build out which is already cheaper than solar plus storage, So when you factor in the additional cost of transmission lines nuclear just makes more sense.

    But for places like LA that see huge electricity transients during the day as peak sun correlates to peak AC nothing is better than solar and while I haven’t done extensive research on off shore wind everything I have heard about it is incredible where it works.

    Nuclear is for places like Seattle that for large chunks of the year gets negligible sun so the amount of storage you need to maintain full power is impracticable and the losses for sending electricity there from sunny places is unsustainable

    I definitely don’t think nuclear should be our first or even second choice but it should be an option that fits its niche because our number one priority needs to be reducing our fossil fuel usage and wasting a bunch of material in places that aren’t a good fit is irresponsible

    source

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      At least in China, the losses have been negated by recent technology that allows higher voltages than previously feasible, bringing the losses down to 2.6% per 500 miles.

      I’m not against any existing nuclear power continuing to exist, it would be foolish to shut any down at this point. I’m also not entirely against new construction depending on who’s doing it and where (France seems capable of getting them online fairly quickly, while the US seems incredibly bad at keeping on time and on budget).

      I just think overall, due to how solar can scale up and down, it’s overall the most promising solution, as individuals can collectively take action now, instead of waiting for a nuclear power plant to maybe get built in time to help with the climate.

      source

      • BussyCat@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        France actually also has had cost overuns and projects extended as well. The biggest problem hurting nuclear is we do each project as a one off design which increases the cost and time immensely. Solar had gotten much cheaper and able to be installed quickly largely because of manufacturing standards and continued development which encourages companies to develop specialized equipment, construction teams to be familiar with standards, and costs to be lowered due to mass production.

        That’s why I mentioned the NOAK study on nuclear power which shows a lifecycle cost of 66/MWh compared to solar plus storage which even with only 17 hours of storage is sitting at $104/MWh then if you factor in the additional losses from transmission, cost of installing UHV transmission lines, and trying to use solar to power places that end up with high energy costs for heating at night and 24hr manufacturing, solar doesn’t make as much sense.

        Vogtle is everyone’s example of why nuclear power is bad in the U.S. but it was also the exact lesson on why nuclear power can work as the cost overruns had to do with their original contractor filing for bankruptcy, having to return 3 core baskets because they didn’t have a reliable manufacturer, and the fact that they had to come up with the R&D cost for 2 nuclear reactor designs. Now that the project is complete though the AP1000 is approved to be built so designs costs will be a fraction, numerous designs are being built around the world so manufacturers should be able to handle the project parts, and we have construction crews who have built the exact reactor before

        As I said before solar and wind should defenitely be considered before nuclear but nuclear can still be a viable option

        source