I wish people who cheerlead for nuclear would stop straw manning others.
The problem with nuclear for a long time has been the cost. And the negative learning curve which makes nuclear more expensive with time and not less.
I’m also suspicious about this newfound enthusiasm for nuclear coming right when wind and solar have become cheaper than existing coal and new gas. Wouldn’t the fossil fuel companies absolutely love a more expensive alternative that takes a decade to be setup as opposed to cheaper alternatives that are operational within months?
True. In Germany some politics are calling for reactivating reactors, but is the energy companies that don't see a future that makes it worth the effort. Regarding safety, here, we rather have a unsolved nuclear waste problem. While municipalities profited from the plants, nobody wants to have the waste. There are other regions in the world, that are probably better suited for disposal, but I think one would need to pay quite a high price for disposal that would again add more to the already high costs. I have nothing against research towards more sustainable reactor types, but one needs to be honest about life cycle costs and not hope for future generations to solve the disposal cost for both waste and the plants themselves.
“Newfound”?
People have been fighting this debate for decades. I remember having this exact debate at school 20 years ago, except the price arguments back then were bullshit, but people didn’t care enough about the environment so there wasn’t any pressure to change.
Nowadays the price arguments are… complex. But for the first time people actually care enough about the environment that nuclear is no longer competing poorly with coal (except for in Germany).
The exact maths on comparing pricing is complicated, given that energy storage costs vary so much depending on the inputs (try looking up storage costs for a 100% solar/wind grid during a once in a decade lull, it’d make nuclear look great, but obviously for a slightly mixed grid and more typical conditions, storage might be reasonably priced vs nuclear).
Anyway, I’m mildly disinterested in nuclear now that it’s only a side show to renewables, but I think it’s far from being a slam dunk either way. If some country or politian is more interested in nuclear, fair play to them, I say go for it. We’re not in a comfortable position right now so any movement away from fossils is a win regardless of where we end up (within reason of course)
No doubt the debate will only be resolved once and for all once fusion turns up and actually makes fission genuinely irrelevant (even then, fission might be cheaper for quite a while).
The problem with nuclear for a long time has been the cost. And the negative learning curve which makes nuclear more expensive with time and not less.
I’m also suspicious about this newfound enthusiasm for nuclear coming right when wind and solar have become cheaper than existing coal and new gas. Wouldn’t the fossil fuel companies absolutely love a more expensive alternative that takes a decade to be setup as opposed to cheaper alternatives that are operational within months?