Hate to break it to you, but nuclear power isn’t cheap, that crown goes to the renewables (unfortunately even fossils are cheaper than nuclear). Arguably rather reliable and ‘acceptably’ clean though (if used in good locations with sufficient cold water and with modern technology & proper recycling concept).
Edit: After looking up the most current studies regarding nuclear power I found out that by now fossils are indeed more expensive than nuclear (although nuclear usually gets calculated without the costs of permanent waste storage, so… who knows). So disregard what I said about that. 🙃
That’s not even really accurate. Over the long term of you’re 100% looking at price, nuclear can be cheaper. It’s more expensive because it’s more regulated than fossil fuels. Remove a lot of the regulation and the initial investment is expensive, but you’ll make more money over time.
To be clear, nuclear isn’t inherently bad. Indeed it will most likely be very important to massively reduce CO² emissions quickly and cover bigger chunks of the base-load of our energy infrastructures. However to argue that nuclear could be cheaper or even a replacement for renewables is just completely and utterly wrong. Neither can it be less expensive in any universe, nor is it able to replace renewables since nuclear reactors are very slow regulators (indeed the slowest - they’re best at delivering a lot of power constantly). Meanwhile solar can literally be simply switched off, and “rotating” renewables be turned into or out of wind / water flow / whatever else.
For nuclear power plants, different statements on the LCOE can be found in the
existing literature. The U.S. investment bank Lazard estimates it at about 14 to
21 US cents per kWh for new nuclear power plants (in the US; for comparison,
onshore wind power: 2.4 to 7.5 US cents per kWh). The cost of treating
radioactive waste is explicitly not included here. In its latest Word Energy
Outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) put the LCOE for nuclear power
plants in 2030 at 10 US cents per kWh in the US, 12 US cents per kWh in the
EU, and 6.5 US cents per kWh in China. Wind and solar power are cheaper in
all three countries/regions. For the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant that is
under construction in the UK, the operator has agreed a guaranteed power
purchase price of 10.7 pence per kWh. The LCOE of investments in extending
the operating lives of existing nuclear power plants is significantly lower than
that for new nuclear power plants. According to an IEA study from 2020, they
ranged from less than 3 to less than 5 US cents per kWh.
Meanwhile the World Nuclear Report focuses on the LCOE which might be better suited for comparison (and even that says nuclear is 2 to 3 times more expensive) and points out massive delays and problems with nuclear reactor projects.
All of this doesn’t include the dependency problems (only very few countries can produce refined uranium rods), and even specifically excludes the long-term costs. And “It’s cheaper if you remove lots of the regulation on the most powerful and dangerous technology humanity ever developed” is probably the worst take one can have. Just as a reminder, the very reason for the almost total blackout on the Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal) recently was due to miscommunication and a lack of proper regulation. It wasn’t the renewables (the power stations that started the cascade were mostly fossils, and the energy companies didn’t care enough to keep sufficient reserves that day), no matter how much right-wing media wants you to believe that. Enormous, continental grids would become unstable if we build it upon badly regulated nuclear reactors.
nuclear also comes with other risks, such as geopolitical dependency for many countries, and the exploitation of resources in other countries (consider the recent France - Niger conflict as an example)
the reason why so many regulations for nuclear are in place is because they make sense. they’re not going to disappear anytime soon, so your argument is irrelevant
Nuclear fusion has made great strides. There currently an experimental Tokamak in China that set a new record for sustained fusion in 2023, then earlier this year broke that record again.
Make an air transmitted virus, extremely contagious but with a long dormancy period, that causes a rabies-like incurable and 100% deadly neurological disease on individuals with a certain genetic marker, and is asymptomatic in everyone else.
CRISPR is the uranium of biology. Could use it to make cheap, reliable, clean energy, or could use it to make nukes.
Hate to break it to you, but nuclear power isn’t cheap, that crown goes to the renewables (unfortunately even fossils are cheaper than nuclear). Arguably rather reliable and ‘acceptably’ clean though (if used in good locations with sufficient cold water and with modern technology & proper recycling concept).
Edit: After looking up the most current studies regarding nuclear power I found out that by now fossils are indeed more expensive than nuclear (although nuclear usually gets calculated without the costs of permanent waste storage, so… who knows). So disregard what I said about that. 🙃
That’s not even really accurate. Over the long term of you’re 100% looking at price, nuclear can be cheaper. It’s more expensive because it’s more regulated than fossil fuels. Remove a lot of the regulation and the initial investment is expensive, but you’ll make more money over time.
To be clear, nuclear isn’t inherently bad. Indeed it will most likely be very important to massively reduce CO² emissions quickly and cover bigger chunks of the base-load of our energy infrastructures. However to argue that nuclear could be cheaper or even a replacement for renewables is just completely and utterly wrong. Neither can it be less expensive in any universe, nor is it able to replace renewables since nuclear reactors are very slow regulators (indeed the slowest - they’re best at delivering a lot of power constantly). Meanwhile solar can literally be simply switched off, and “rotating” renewables be turned into or out of wind / water flow / whatever else.
To quote some studies, this one from the Deutsche Bank has the following to say:
Meanwhile the World Nuclear Report focuses on the LCOE which might be better suited for comparison (and even that says nuclear is 2 to 3 times more expensive) and points out massive delays and problems with nuclear reactor projects.
All of this doesn’t include the dependency problems (only very few countries can produce refined uranium rods), and even specifically excludes the long-term costs. And “It’s cheaper if you remove lots of the regulation on the most powerful and dangerous technology humanity ever developed” is probably the worst take one can have. Just as a reminder, the very reason for the almost total blackout on the Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal) recently was due to miscommunication and a lack of proper regulation. It wasn’t the renewables (the power stations that started the cascade were mostly fossils, and the energy companies didn’t care enough to keep sufficient reserves that day), no matter how much right-wing media wants you to believe that. Enormous, continental grids would become unstable if we build it upon badly regulated nuclear reactors.
Nuclear fusion has made great strides. There currently an experimental Tokamak in China that set a new record for sustained fusion in 2023, then earlier this year broke that record again.
Still far away from commercial viability though, nothing we can count on right now.
deleted by creator
It’s a metaphor.
Make an air transmitted virus, extremely contagious but with a long dormancy period, that causes a rabies-like incurable and 100% deadly neurological disease on individuals with a certain genetic marker, and is asymptomatic in everyone else.