• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nearly all of nuclear in the USA was built decades ago. Instead of being “paid off” and being cheaper, its still more expensive to generate electricity with nuclear than nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.

      • ironeagl@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear is the most regulated one. Start requiring full recycling / disposal of solar or wind and how expensive do they get?

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nuclear is the most regulated: True. Accidents in nuclear have the most consequence, by far, of any generation source.

          I would imagine that if we’re just going for disposal, solar and wind are still pretty cheap. With zero recycling wind turbine blades can just be buried after their 25 year life cycle. source.

          Same landfill disposal option is available for solar panels at $1 to $5 per panel. source

          This would be the level of disposal nuclear has, except low and high level nuclear waste is much more costly and potentially destructive even after disposal.

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure what you are referencing, but there are good reasons why nuclear power is expensive: lots of engineering and construction hours, strick safety and quality standards for design and materials, and no externalities, since decommissioning and waste handling have to be accounted and baked into the final utility cost to consumers. In other words, even if it’s difficult to pay off a nuclear power plant (in a liberalized energy market of course) it’s still money well spent. The same requirements and expectations should have to apply to other industries as well.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you arguing its a “good thing” for existing built plants or for propose plants yet to be built? I wasn’t sure, but the result is the same for both. Nuclear is too expensive for what it provides in the face of better alternatives. I’m happy to back my statements with sources. Which position were you arguing?

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is one thing that new nuclear reactor designs can provide that there is no good alternative for, and that’s consuming existing nuclear fuel. We can use breeder tractors to convert our existing waste into usable fuel for newer reactor types (I want to say Thorium but I’m not positive).

            Our best outlook for the future is for us to build at least as much of these are necessary to clean up our nuclear waste.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is one thing that new nuclear reactor designs can provide that there is no good alternative for, and that’s consuming existing nuclear fuel. We can use breeder tractors to convert our existing waste into usable fuel for newer reactor types (I want to say Thorium but I’m not positive).

              Building reactors just to reprocess fuel would be a really bad way to solve that problem. If we are requiring reprocessing, there are other countries that run these that we could just ship our fuel to.

              Breeder reactors bring some serious security problems

              One of the really great things about civilian nuclear power in the USA is that the fuel or waste can never be built into a nuclear bomb. Our reactors run on Uranium-238. This is the most common isotope of uranium and its plenty fissile to reach criticality for power generation. Nuclear bombs use Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239.

              The way a Breeder reactor can reprocess fuel is by turning “spent” Uranium-238 into, you guessed it, Plutonium-239. Plutonium-239 can be used to generate electricity in reactors too. So now you’ve got civilian power plants that are housing and handling weapons grade nuclear material. The security of the facility, supply chain, workers and everything suddenly has to go through the roof. All of those things increase the total costs to the resulting electricity. With nuclear already being more expensive than other cleaner and dirtier alternatives, running Breeder reactors makes that nuclear power yet more expensive again!

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Those are certainly difficulties that we’ll need to address. The plutonium especially. I think we could design ways however to keep it secure. It would certainly need to be carefully designed though.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We certainly could. We do it already today in the USA with our nuclear weapons (which use Plutonium). Its all possible, its just expensive. So much so that it makes an expensive power source (nuclear) even more expensive. Why would we do this when solar costs 5 times less than regular civilian nuclear power?

                  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There’s no magic bullet to our problems. Solar has issues with storage and varies day to day with the weather. I’ve got no issue making it a large supply of our energy, but we’ll need generation sources for cloudy days. We can’t presume the battery storage will be full every time we need it and it’s cloudy out.

          • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My position is simply that it’s a good sign if nuclear power is more expensive than other types. We should be suspicious of anything that claims to offer a better deal.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What an unusual stance. You eluded to the externalities of other sources as your concern. For coal I would agree. However, for wind and solar the studies have shown those to be substantially cheaper even with externalities factored in.

              What do you base your reasoning on that wind and solar are not factoring in externalities?

              • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                My understanding is that wind and PV solar power are similar to most other industries besides nuclear power in that the management of the lifecycles of such deployments isn’t well planned or funded. I myself have encountered a derelict wind farm and I have to wonder if that’s just the way it’s supposed to go after investors extract their short-term profits. As these renewable projects decline in performance (both in terms of actual electricity production and fictional financial viability), I guess the horizon will just keep collecting their skeletons.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This doesn’t seem like a strong argument against wind that a wind farm planned for a 20 year life ran for 20 years, and was then dismantled.

                  I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I can only make some assumptions about where the gravity is for your point.

                  • Are you arguing that a wind farm, once existing, should continue in perpetuity or not be built at all?
                  • Are you arguing that an abandoned wind farm isn’t pleasant to look at?

                  I’m interested in your viewpoint.

                  • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I am not arguing either of those points. My viewpoint is that we need big, expensive, state run power projects to really knock out fossil fuels rather than contriving financial products like renewable energy credits to attract private investment in PV solar and wind. I think nuclear power (and possibly concentrated solar and deep well geothermal power) is better suited to the task than PV solar and wind because they avoid the perpetual transition trap. We need hard, discrete, inalienable power facilities close by to where people live and work not just for cogeneration opportunities, but also so that the people come to see themselves as the true owners of this infrastructure. Wind farms tend to be remote, dispersed, and abstracted from the people consuming their output; therefore better suited to serve capital while never significantly threatening fossil fuel investments. It’s a dead end, hence the skeletons on the horizon analogy. Perhaps it’s more of an opportunity cost than an externality in the sense that we’d be leaving on the table real progress to zero-emissions by resisting nuclear power deployment in favor of plans that allow and require continued dependence on fossil fuels.

                    Maybe a case can be made for massive offshore wind farms for the sake of having a diverse energy mix or if there isn’t a reliable supply of nuclear fuel. Otherwise, why spread out operations over thousands of square miles of ocean, accessible only by diesel powered ships, when you could have nuclear plants on shore occupying a few hundred acres, within easy reach of electrified public transit, supplying good heat and steam to homes and industry in addition to electricity? The answer would seem like some combination of nimbyism, defeatism, and subservience to fossil fuel interests.

      • JamesFire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not significantly more expensive though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

        And even if it was, it has other benefits.

        Like using significantly less land, and being safer.

        It can also work as a source of heat for district heating or various industrial processes, and since the plants themselves have no emissions, they can be reasonably placed in cities for this purpose without harming people. Using heat directly is more efficient than converting it to and from electricity.

        Nuclear has it’s place.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not significantly more expensive though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

          I’m looking at that source it shows:

          • nuclear $6,695-7,547 /kw
          • solar pv $1,327 /kw

          At the most generous calculation (of nuclear costly only $6,695) that puts nuclear power at 5 x more expensive that solar PV. So if you have a theoretical pure electricity bill on solar PV of $100/month, your theoretical pure electricity bill on nuclear of $500/month.

          I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that nuclear is not significantly more expensive.

          • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

            Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society. Wholesale costs include initial capital, operations & maintenance (O&M), transmission, and costs of decommissioning. Depending on the local regulatory environment, some or all wholesale costs may be passed through to consumers. These are costs per unit of energy, typically represented as dollars/megawatt hour (wholesale). The calculations also assist governments in making decisions regarding energy policy. On average the levelized cost of electricity from utility scale solar power and onshore wind power is less than from coal and gas-fired power stations,: TS-25  but this varies a lot depending on location.: 665

            article | about