Solar now being the cheapest energy source made its rounds on Lemmy some weeks ago, if I remember correctly. I just found this graphic and felt it was worth sharing independently.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
984 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
34832 readers
13 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pretty clearly shows why there’s no future for nuclear power.
Even for filling gaps in renewables, peaker plants are getting cheaper and don’t take 15 years to build.
This is always a weird take to me because it always ignores the fact that nuclear has been screwed continuously for decades. If any other tecbology, renewable energy or not, had the same public and private blockers did it would also have no future.
On the contrary: I'd say it implicitly relies on that fact, which is why the argument that it takes 15 years to build is valid. Because nuclear has been screwed, there's no pipeline of under-construction plants coming online any sooner than that.
It may not be fair that nuclear's been screwed, but that doesn't change history. The only thing that matters is what's better when construction is starting in 2023.
While I don't think it relies on that fact, you are correct with the rest.
Nuclear has been screwed by its own track record.
Why do you think its had such a wide coalition of public and private opponents?
Well that's simply false. Its been screwed by ignorance propaganda and fear mongering.
You clearly don’t understand the other side.
Sure buddy. And you clearly do.
Actually I do. I was a nuclear booster in the 1990’s because it means cheap limitless pollution free power.
Except that they don’t actually deliver on that promise. You can have safe nuclear or cheap nuclear, but if it’s safe it’s not cheap, and the public rightfully won’t accept something that can require evacuating hundreds of square miles for decades.
So wise one, where are those cheap safe nuclear power plants we keep hearing about since 1950?
In France. They standardized the designs so each one isn't a one-off and they trained more people to work in the field.
Those are not at all cheap and are subsidized by enrichment for weapons purposes.
France is trying to extend their service lifetime beyond what they were designed for because they can’t face the bill to replace them with newer reactors.
FTFY. That's a good thing and we should be doing it here in the US, too.
Uhh, I was referring to the new ones France has been building, not the old ones...
So the user above me actually gave the the answer so kudos to them but to further answer your question, there are no actually cheap reactors because the fight to actually build one is so insanely expensive. Where I live they'd been trying to build a reactor for over a decade. Constant lawsuits and legal battles after already obtaining permits and everything. Its ballooned the cost by tenfold. Why? Because of constant NGO pressure from the likes of greenpeace. So congrats, you win. They aren't cheap cause of the hell we've made for ourselves.
You’re blaming everyone else for nuclear’s failures.
Why are even French nuclear plants badly over budget and late? Answer: Nuclear is expensive as fuck.
Are you unable to read or are you just ignoring what I'm saying on purpose. I told you why they're badly over budget and late. This clearly is a dead conversation as you lack either a) reading comprehension or b) the ability to discuss in good faith.
Frankly, bad-faith arguments (and lawsuits) are basically the entire problem with nuclear.
Ain't that the truth
"I've ignored and circumvented every known safety measure, and everything went wrong" - Whoever the fuck said that, 2023
Making up straw men to defeat?
We have extensively documented history supporting exactly what you're trying to argue against
Has there been a scenario where the technology itself is to blame? The contamination aspect of nuclear waste is well known and preventable, if costs are being cut on radioactive waste disposal (or in the case of a certain Japanese power company, ignoring warnings from the government on how to reduce ocean contamination in the event of an earthquake) a nuclear installation's fate is sealed...
As far as I can see, the only downsides with nuclear IMO is that it takes multiple decades to decommission a single plant, the environmental impact on that plant's land in the interim, and the initial cost to build the plant.
In comparison to Solar it sounds awful, but before solar, nuclear honestly would have made a lot of sense. I think it may even still be worth it in places that have a high demand for constant power generation, since Solar only generates while the sun's about, and then you're looking at overnight energy storage with lithium-based batteries, which have their own environmental and humanitarian challenges
Uranium powered fission technology, not all nuclear. Look into Thorium
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
"Today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 390 GWe. In 2022 these provided 2545 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity."
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and Fukushima Daiichi severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
Yes- a track record of one plant failing due to Soviet incompetence and political blunders; and the second failing due to checks notes a 9.0 magnitude almost direct earthquake and ensuing 133 ft tsunami.
This.
I think that's too simplistic of a view. Part of the high cost of nuclear is because of the somewhat niche use. As with everything, economies of scale makes things cheaper. Supporting one nuclear plant with specialized labor, parts, fuel, etc is much more expensive then supporting 100 plants, per Watt.
I can't say more plants would drastically reduce costs. But it would definitely help.
The source article actually talks about this and measured data suggests nuclear cost actually went up, despite more capacity being built.
This is the first time, I've read this anywhere. More sources/studies would be really important. And there is lots of interpretations to be had on the why, but assuming the article isn't completely off the mark, that's cold, hard data suggesting that your (perfectly reasonable) assumption is actually wrong, after all.
Interesting, I'll have to look at the source article.
But as far as I'm aware the total amount of nuclear power has been decreasing in recent years. This might change with China's future plants.
I've also read about small modular reactor designs gaining traction, which would help alleviate the heavy costs of one off plants we currently design and build.
Not saying the source is wrong, just saying that's what I used to form my opinion.
They’ve had 75 years to get the cost down. It’s still going up.
And it is always a question how they calculated handling of nuclear waste.
There are options, we can use coal and natural gas for on demand power to fill the gaps in renewables, we don't have to quit all at once. New ideas for energy storage and comming around, some of them might be useful for small towns, others for remote places.
there is very very very little nuclear waste.this is complete handwringing. it can be buried and forgotten.
Bigger issue is the carbon costs and pay back periods. Nuclear (unless you've got sources otherwise stating) is green in it's planning phase but not as often in execution. A shit ton of concrete is used, and the plants rarely operate at the capacity they are expected to (or have in the past). Open to revision but that's my current understanding.
They are a massive upfront carbon cost and only become carbon neutral or negative relative to fossil fuels 20+ years down the line.
Do you have data on that? A modern nuclear power plant is going to be in the 500-1000+ MW range. I have a hard time imagining that even operating at half capacity that they do not offset the carbon used for concrete within a relatively short order. But if that is in fact the case I'd love to see data saying so, so that I can correct my thinking.
Kyle Hill has a nice video about power plants waste disposal, one of cleanest methods there is.
edit: he actually went to the plant and showed how it's done
He literally hugged and kissed a canister of nuclear waste to show how safe it is. Kyle Hill is my hero
This chart is worthless, so it doesn't show anything. Like 2 data points for this? Seriously? And there was a pandemic and a war since then...