Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AlphaMetroid t1_j24b8em wrote

Not sure why this limits the growth of nuclear. It was limited before due to the high startup cost relative to existing fossil fuel energy, the incentive was the military applications. Now our priorities are different, the incentive is climate change and the funding has expanded considerably. And the military applications are still present.

16

MagicPeacockSpider t1_j254wkz wrote

There is a massive incentive to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation.

It limits the ideal growth of nuclear to countries we don't mind having access to Armageddon.

Stable democracies without any colonial intention.

The world will be much better off pouring the still high start up costs for nuclear into R&D for renewables and storage.

5

smashrawr t1_j24hik6 wrote

It's still exceedingly high to start one up and more importantly is extremely time consuming to build a plant. In terms of start up costs, routinely a new nuclear plant is quoted at 1-2B, but in a state like say South Carolina several projects have run way over budget, and have taken significantly longer than projected. It takes months to hook up renewables, it takes decades to build nuclear plants.

4

nuke621 t1_j262su2 wrote

Things are changing in ways never before believed, so the old rules don’t apply. No one at all is saying is nuclear versus renewables. They can both be a part of the mix if it makes sense. I worked for a large electric utility and they are not innovative entities at all and the economic model is outdated and reinforces this behavior. Everyone cites cost of nukes, but that is really all tied up in insurance and risk. France has done just fine with their nuclear program because it’s nationalized. I’m not sure if renewables will be able to take the full load. I think nuclear will be required, but it will take a completely different economic model from the past.

3