Master Political Energy Thread

[CHONGS]

I'm pro nuke, but I also think we shouldn't overlook the significant drawbacks.  Power at magnitude is never free.

[wetwillie]

Why can’t we build nuclear? Who is standing in the way?

Rich people who profit from fossil fuels. Also people scared of nuclear accidents.

Don’t think that’s it

[sys]

assume everyone here is 100% behind nuclear. sys being a wildcard that could have some way the eff out of left field with a take on it or be the most strident advocate, would not shock me either way. wyd sys?

i'm pro-nuclear.  pretty sure there is a solid record of that in the climate change thread.

[sys]

also i worked at the solar facility in that pic for like two years.

[sonofdaxjones]

Dumb thread is dumb

[Tobias]

nuke me up

[cfbandyman]

Why can’t we build nuclear? Who is standing in the way?

Rich people who profit from fossil fuels. Also people scared of nuclear accidents.

Don’t think that’s it

Regulations (NERC specifically) is probably the biggest thing besides just straight up costs. Sure fear from people about plants is there but fossil fuels right now (and Russia invading Ukraine aside) are just not very cheap nor profitable.

It takes about 20 years for a nuke plant as of now to go from concept to in service, and that is a lot to ask utilities to do when hey look in 3 years solar will be how much cheaper? Wind is doing what? It's a giant investment with a lot of risk.

Coal, is it were profitable takes about 10 years from concept to reality, natural gas about 5, wind/solar like 2-3 years based off size of install.

The other thing when it comes to thermal plants (like nuke, gas, coal) is there is a ton of ancillary utilities you have to have in place to make it work, namely water, but obviously a gas line of it's natural gas, or rail for coal or whatever. Nuke needs water, a storage plan, airport access, road access, just tons of things "in place" before you really even get to the site itself.

Be on the look out for thorium plants though, the nature of how they operate help it sidestep a lot of the regulations, from everything I heard that or small modular reactors, but those as of right now seen more suspect. IMO we won't see a new nuclear facility put into service this decade save that partially built one in Georgia

[wetwillie]

Why can’t we build nuclear? Who is standing in the way?

Rich people who profit from fossil fuels. Also people scared of nuclear accidents.

Don’t think that’s it

Regulations (NERC specifically) is probably the biggest thing besides just straight up costs. Sure fear from people about plants is there but fossil fuels right now (and Russia invading Ukraine aside) are just not very cheap nor profitable.

It takes about 20 years for a nuke plant as of now to go from concept to in service, and that is a lot to ask utilities to do when hey look in 3 years solar will be how much cheaper? Wind is doing what? It's a giant investment with a lot of risk.

Coal, is it were profitable takes about 10 years from concept to reality, natural gas about 5, wind/solar like 2-3 years based off size of install.

The other thing when it comes to thermal plants (like nuke, gas, coal) is there is a ton of ancillary utilities you have to have in place to make it work, namely water, but obviously a gas line of it's natural gas, or rail for coal or whatever. Nuke needs water, a storage plan, airport access, road access, just tons of things "in place" before you really even get to the site itself.

Be on the look out for thorium plants though, the nature of how they operate help it sidestep a lot of the regulations, from everything I heard that or small modular reactors, but those as of right now seen more suspect. IMO we won't see a new nuclear facility put into service this decade save that partially built one in Georgia

Thank you, that makes more sense than “rich people bad”

[chum1]

Why can’t we build nuclear? Who is standing in the way?

Rich people who profit from fossil fuels. Also people scared of nuclear accidents.

Don’t think that’s it

Regulations (NERC specifically) is probably the biggest thing besides just straight up costs. Sure fear from people about plants is there but fossil fuels right now (and Russia invading Ukraine aside) are just not very cheap nor profitable.

It takes about 20 years for a nuke plant as of now to go from concept to in service, and that is a lot to ask utilities to do when hey look in 3 years solar will be how much cheaper? Wind is doing what? It's a giant investment with a lot of risk.

Coal, is it were profitable takes about 10 years from concept to reality, natural gas about 5, wind/solar like 2-3 years based off size of install.

The other thing when it comes to thermal plants (like nuke, gas, coal) is there is a ton of ancillary utilities you have to have in place to make it work, namely water, but obviously a gas line of it's natural gas, or rail for coal or whatever. Nuke needs water, a storage plan, airport access, road access, just tons of things "in place" before you really even get to the site itself.

Be on the look out for thorium plants though, the nature of how they operate help it sidestep a lot of the regulations, from everything I heard that or small modular reactors, but those as of right now seen more suspect. IMO we won't see a new nuclear facility put into service this decade save that partially built one in Georgia

Thank you, that makes more sense than “rich people bad”

It's an extremely powerful lobby.

How long has nuclear power been around? Hasn't there been ample time for it to ramp up by now?

I think I'm done trying to help you with your stupid person questions now.

[cfbandyman]

Why can’t we build nuclear? Who is standing in the way?

Rich people who profit from fossil fuels. Also people scared of nuclear accidents.

Don’t think that’s it

Regulations (NERC specifically) is probably the biggest thing besides just straight up costs. Sure fear from people about plants is there but fossil fuels right now (and Russia invading Ukraine aside) are just not very cheap nor profitable.

It takes about 20 years for a nuke plant as of now to go from concept to in service, and that is a lot to ask utilities to do when hey look in 3 years solar will be how much cheaper? Wind is doing what? It's a giant investment with a lot of risk.

Coal, is it were profitable takes about 10 years from concept to reality, natural gas about 5, wind/solar like 2-3 years based off size of install.

The other thing when it comes to thermal plants (like nuke, gas, coal) is there is a ton of ancillary utilities you have to have in place to make it work, namely water, but obviously a gas line of it's natural gas, or rail for coal or whatever. Nuke needs water, a storage plan, airport access, road access, just tons of things "in place" before you really even get to the site itself.

Be on the look out for thorium plants though, the nature of how they operate help it sidestep a lot of the regulations, from everything I heard that or small modular reactors, but those as of right now seen more suspect. IMO we won't see a new nuclear facility put into service this decade save that partially built one in Georgia

Thank you, that makes more sense than “rich people bad”

It's an extremely powerful lobby.

How long has nuclear power been around? Hasn't there been ample time for it to ramp up by now?

I think I'm done trying to help you with your stupid person questions now.

Lol ok. Keep thinking they got these power companies by the balls (they don't). There are way cheaper options out there, and especially considering planning, just check out levelized costs (like this cut from an EIA doc), nuclear simply isn't cost effective (right now). You can also see why we are building combined cycle, wind, and solar like hella.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

As for "ramp up" tons of these new nuclear tech is still unproven, requiring R&D still. No one wants to build the "older" style nuclear, cause where are you going to put the spent fuel.

Unless you want to believe they paid off nuclear to keep them down over a 4 decade run, I doubt the now bust coal industry has a dime to spare. Combined cycle was not even a thing 4 decades ago, so that was one helluva long con by that industry.

[chum1]

I think the issue is a lot more complicated than a simple free market one. The government plays a huge role. Also, part of the answer to the question is why we haven't used nuclear more in the past and don't have more plants at the present time.

[cfbandyman]

You're allowed to think whatever you want, but the cold hard truth is it's a very expensive energy source. I will agree with you it's more than just cost, but it's also like 80% costs so it just doesn't move the needle as much as you'd think to the heads of Evergy for example. It's like how coal used to be super cheap and now it's not so much. Do regulations and opinion affect this? Of course, but it seriously comes down to $$ at the end of the day. Regs and opinions are much more icing to an already built cake.

It's like my previous post about planning, nuclear, then coal, then gas are huge investment stakes and down payments for a utility, and ultimately their main cost becomes operating costs from their fuel, followed by straight up maintenance costs and then by how many people work at these facilities. Nuke plants have hundreds on staff, so does coal, gas only has people in the tens (like 30-40), and wind and solar? Only have someone there to check on it, so no one.

The barriers to viability are literally written in what it takes to get it to market. Nuke plants need giant containment structures, an specific fuel blend for the reactor, and somewhere to put it when it's done. Just a lot of physical assets to build and maintain. If you believe you can do it cheaper I have a non-containment done on the cheap former plant in a currently war torn country undergoing a 100+ year clean up to sell to you.

Coal has a giant boiler, hundreds if not thousands of miles of piping, process systems, boiler management system to install, that's what  truly killed coal, Obama's regs only hastened a die cast in how it inherently operates, basically a giant complex machine.

Gas's main stop was cost of fuel, but if you ever go to one vs a nuke and coal, literally you'll go that's it? They are incredibly simple tech all things considered. Once it's price of fuel came down, utilities will trade ease of operation and flexibility with low maintenance and fewer staff all day.

Then go to wind and solar, the tech is super straight, the cost is literally an economies of scale, and now that has happened, well, it's why it's winning. Incentives kick start, but making a new solar plant is just have a site, clear it, have a robot go around plopping some poles, and get a handful of dudes to assemble the arrays and wire it up, and you're basically done. Laughably easy to operate all things considered.

[steve dave]

THE NUKE KNOWER ABOUTER HAS LOGGED ON (I say this seriously and not jokingly like I usually do this post)

[kim carnes]

I’m not extremely knowledgeable on this but I don’t think you use solar or wind for base load, nuclear would be for base load, so they’re not really comparable.

[8manpick]

I’m not extremely knowledgeable on this but I don’t think you use solar or wind for base load, nuclear would be for base load, so they’re not really comparable.

Stop thinking about 2022 tech, start thinking 2042 by the time new nuclear is online.

Still team #BuildNuclear though

[sys]

good thread.

https://twitter.com/JohnArnoldFndtn/status/1501941527295062025

[michigancat]

Is nuclear waste storage a factor at all? Because there is nuclear waste associated with nuclear power plants

[steve dave]

Yeah, but it’s not a big deal like people act like it is I think. It’s not like barrels of green ooze leaking into the soil. It’s tiny amounts of radioactive metals encased in concrete blocks. There’s not a lot of risk associated with it if it’s entombed right is what I’ve read.

[michigancat]

Yeah, but it’s not a big deal like people act like it is I think. It’s not like barrels of green ooze leaking into the soil. It’s tiny amounts of radioactive metals encased in concrete blocks. There’s not a lot of risk associated with it if it’s entombed right is what I’ve read.

Definitely but still I don't think anyone wants it stored near them

[BIG APPLE CAT]

i thought this was a very good doc about molten salt reactors (MSR) and also makes me wonder like why tf aren't we doing this??

[cfbandyman]

I’m not extremely knowledgeable on this but I don’t think you use solar or wind for base load, nuclear would be for base load, so they’re not really comparable.

Stop thinking about 2022 tech, start thinking 2042 by the time new nuclear is online.

Still team #BuildNuclear though

This is the most correct take. I still think/want nuclear to have a seat at the table, it's just a slow burn.

As for base loading, the real trick is getting enough battery storage, which obviously takes time, but yeah, not the best but also not the  worst way to go about it. I do think the real answer to long term carbonless power is nuclear and hydro combined with the wind/solar etc. with battery/hydro storage, and I'd figure wind/solar is going to be about 40-50% of our total energy production, maybe more.

I will say another wildcard that is on the more realistic side is hydrogen run combined cycle plants (like a gas plant but burns hydrogen not natural gas) though the economics is still TBD and the engineering of hydrogen pipelines/safety with that is hard and also TBD, but feasible, there is a demonstrator unit being built in Utah right now. This would be taking known tech and using a different fuel source.

The other wildcard but definitely not going to be a thing unless major breakthroughs is fusion. It's improving all the time, but we're still I think many decades off from that. Even if they get a viable reactor by 2030 it'll take at least a decade before we're building them. Like the other thing fusion needs besides actually workable is like, making it so you can construct them reliably and operate them reliably. New stuff always has a teething process to operate.

[Kat Kid]

Yeah, but it’s not a big deal like people act like it is I think. It’s not like barrels of green ooze leaking into the soil. It’s tiny amounts of radioactive metals encased in concrete blocks. There’s not a lot of risk associated with it if it’s entombed right is what I’ve read.

We will never have the ninja turtles or any of the cool super mutants if we don't get the barrels of green ooze leaking.

[Spracne]

Yeah, but it’s not a big deal like people act like it is I think. It’s not like barrels of green ooze leaking into the soil. It’s tiny amounts of radioactive metals encased in concrete blocks. There’s not a lot of risk associated with it if it’s entombed right is what I’ve read.

We will never have the ninja turtles or any of the cool super mutants if we don't get the barrels of green ooze leaking.

I also took this as a TMNT reference.

[kim carnes]

The new proposed tax on oil companies just made this thread obsolete 

[wetwillie]

Yeah, but it’s not a big deal like people act like it is I think. It’s not like barrels of green ooze leaking into the soil. It’s tiny amounts of radioactive metals encased in concrete blocks. There’s not a lot of risk associated with it if it’s entombed right is what I’ve read.

Definitely but still I don't think anyone wants it stored near them

Can’t be any worse than whatever wild crap they are cooking up inside NBAF