Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:
The long lead times for construction that invalidate nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change was a point recognized in 2009 by the body whose mission is to promote the use of nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Nuclear power is not a near-term solution to the challenge of climate change,” writes Sharon Squassoni in the IAEA bulletin. “The need to immediately and dramatically reduce carbon emissions calls for approaches that can be implemented more quickly than building nuclear reactors.”
Wealer from Berlin's Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.
"The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically," he said. "In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available."
Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.
"Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build," he said. "When you factor it all in, you're looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant."
He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. "And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won't be able to make a significant contribution," added Schneider.
Long lead times against nuclear have bee raised for the last 25 years, if we had just got on with it we would have the capacity by now. Just cause the lead time is in years doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
when is the best time to plant a tree? 30 years ago. When is the second best time? now.
Surely the second best time would have been 29 years ago
Don't fuck this up for me bro
As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world's construction capacity.
My counterpoint is that if we had "just got on with it" for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.
No it wouldn't. China laid more concrete in 5 years than the entire world did in 100 years. I highly doubt that converting the entire world to nuclear is going to use that much more concrete. I mean hell, they laid like 15 or 20,000 miles of high speed rail in just a few years. They built like 300 million apartment units.
Just did a bunch of my own math before realizing those numbers were already out there. We would need to add 3960 nuclear plants to match current energy demand for the world (440 power 10% of the world).
That would require at least 5 years of construction per plant. It takes about 7000 workers to produce a nuclear plant. To produce them concurrently would require about 27.7 million construction workers dedicated to this project for at least 5 years. So on one hand, perhaps you're right, since there are 100M construction workers in the world. I can't, however, find numbers about how much heavy equipment exists to facilitate a product requiring 1/4 the world's construction workers concurrently. You might be right that if all other construction were ground to a halt, we might be able to manage a 5-year plan of nuclear at the cost of about $20T (I had done the math before realizing this reply were about workers, not cost stupidity). I concede it seems "10x increase world construction capacity" was wrong, and the real number is somewhere around 1.5-2x, so long as we stay conservative with nuclear figures and ignore extra costs of building or transporting nuclear energy to countries incapable of building their own plants.
Interestingly, at those construction numbers, you could provide small-project rooftop solar to the world. I can't find construction numbers for power farm solar, except that it's dramatically more efficient than rooftop solar. Unlike nuclear, it appears we could easily squeeze full-world solar with our current world construction capacity.
I won't bore you with the cost math, but since I calculated them I'm still going to summarize them. Going full nuclear would cost us about a $20T down payment. Going full solar (with storage) down payment is about $4T (only about $1T without storage costs factored). And while nuclear would be cheaper than solar per year after that $20T down, solar power and storage would STILL be cheaper in a 100 year outlook, but would also benefit from rolling efficiency increases as we add new solar plants/capacitors and tear down older ones..
Not all 7,000 construction workers would be working on the site concurrently. Different trades come and go depending on the phase of the project. So at first you'll have the civil engineering earth movers come in, who clears the site and excavates the foundations. Then you'll have the concrete crews come in who pour the foundations and do all of the concrete work. Obviously on a nuclear power plant there is a lot of foundation work, as well as a lot of above ground concrete so probably a good chunk of the construction workers will fall into this category.
Power plants also have a lot of structural steel work, electrical and special equipment that would likey fall under the piping category but each of these uses a separate set of skilled labor that does not overlap.
If you were going to actually try to build 3,300 nuclear power plants, you would rotate crews from project to project which would increase efficiency rather than hiring 27 million separate workers.
In any case, I don't think converting the world's total electrical power generation to 100% nuclear is by any stretch of the imagination a good idea. Personally I think maybe 15 to 25% nuclear power generation would be a more realistic mix, similar to the US electrical power generation. The rest of the power should be solar, wind, hydro, wave and geothermal as they are absolutely cheaper to build.
I'm not sure I agree with how you'd be able to execute on that level or organized construction safely, but I think we're also reaching the "impossible-to-be-sure hypothetical" territory, so I'll concede the point for now.
I think my problems of cost and time still stand. It looks like adding rooftop solar with batteries to every building is still cheaper (on startup, and likely per MW) than nuclear plants. Regions that cannot support solar, onland wind, geo, or hydro can justify nuclear (at least unless shipping batteries or hydrogen conversion becomes cheap enough to compete), but I don't think they amount to nearly 15% of the power needs in the world since they represent fairly distinctive regions with low energy demand.
We do it all the time in the construction industry.
For instance, Bechtel has 55,000 people in the US.
"Since the 1950s, Bechtel has designed, serviced, or delivered 80% of all nuclear plants in the U.S.. Bechtel has provided engineering and construction services for 88 of the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States."
So just hire them. Too bad they lost almost all of their institutional knowledge about nuclear construction compared to what they used to have.
Long lead times, cost overruns, producing power at a higher price point than renewables, long run time needed to break even, even longer dismantling times and a still unsolved waste problem. Compared to renewables that we can build right now.
Did you read the quote? 15-20 years, as in decades before 1 nuke plant is built. I agree in that politicians of the past should have led us to a more sustainable and resilient energy future, but we're here now.
Advanced nuclear should still be 100% pursued to try to get those lead times down and to incorporate things like waste recycling, modularity, etc., but the lead time in decades absolutely means nuclear power might not be something worth doing.
The IPCC puts the next 10-20 years as the most important and perilous for getting a hold on climate change. If we wait for that long by not rolling out emission-free power sources, transit modes, or even carbon-free concrete, etc., then we might cross planetary boundaries that we can't come back from.
Nuclear is a safe bet and bet worth pursuing. I would argue that, along with that source from the IAEA, old nuclear is note worth it.
How much concrete does it take to build a nuclear plant? Concrete production is currently 8% of global emissions, so if you have to scale up construction capacity 10x for the next decade, don't you end up destroying the environment with concrete before they are even operational?
Great point. You need concrete for wind, solar, and li-ion battery storage too (including pumped hydro), but out of those I'd say pumped hydro is the only one that remotely compares in the amount of concrete needed for construction.
So purely looking at the emissions from materials needed to build these power sources, renewables have the edge due to less concrete. These emissions might show up elsewhere in raw material extraction like with silicon for solar, and then the rare earth metals needed for generators in wind, all the lithium/nickel/cobalt needed for batteries, etc., but I want to say that the Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) from places like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the US or the International Energy Agency (IEA) worldwide have taken that into account and still show that renewables + storage are cheaper on a carbon basis compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.
The cool thing about concrete for renewables (excluding hydro dam) is only the very base pad needs to be virgin. You can make a lot of the rest of the base and fill material with down cycled concrete. So tearing down part of an old factory on land near the solar panels are? Crush it up and only move it a few miles over to where you need it. Rather than hauling that to a landfill where it sits forever, costing energy use to haul, and more energy use to bring the fill and other bade materials from a further destination.
the largest fission plant was literally working 5 years after construction started
fission plants are just more expensive now because we don't make enough of them.
I guess safety standards changed but even wind power kills more people per watt than fission so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nuclear could've easily worked if people didn't go full nimby in the past few decades
Sorry. How does wind power kill anyone? Okay, every once in a while you hear about a technician falling off a windmill, but are there any fatalities in regard to the effects of wind power?
"in 2011 coal produced about 180 billion kWhrs in England with about 3,000 related deaths. Nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths. In that same year, America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths."
The only two major nuclear-related death incidents were Chernobyl and Fukushima. But Fukushima only killed one person, the rest were killed by the tsunami and being relocated from the exclusion zone. But many people blame the Japanese government for fucking up the evacuations, while other people criticize the government for actually evacuating people.
In any case, those 2,300 Japanese people were not killed by the actual nuclear incident, they were killed because they were very old and could not adapt to moving into a new apartment that's a government provided them. Chernobyl is believed to have killed about 500 people.
I should also mention that the Fukushima exclusion zone has largely been lifted, and many people have moved back home.
So it isn't wind at all, but lacking safety standards.
Lacking safety standards specific to the use case of wind turbines. For example, there was a fire during installation and someone jumped to their deaths to get away. They had quick decent harnesses but couldn't use them because of the location of the fire.
And? Those safety standards for constructing and maintaining wind turbines can be increased just as much as the safety standards for any other type of heavy labor. For example by mandating that wind turbines must have fire suppression systems installed or that wworkers must be able to rapel on the outside of the wind turbine.
Makes you wonder if the same thing couldn't be done for nuclear plants!
Okay, so increase those safety standards on wind then get back to us with price per kilowatt and project lead times.
Got me there, bud! Rapelling gear surely will make wind turbines unprofitable! Checkmate renewables!
There are solid arguments to be made against both nuclear and renewables (intermittence, impact of electricity storage, amount of raw material, surface area). We can't wait for perfect solutions, we have to work out compromises right now, and it seems nuclear + renewable is the most solid compromise we have for the 2050 target. See this high quality report by the public French electricity transportation company (independent of the energy producers) that studies various scenarios including 100% renewable and mixes of nuclear, renewables, hydrogen and biogas. https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy%20pathways%202050_Key%20results.pdf
Those aren't arguments against nuclear power; those are arguments against the incompetence of entities like Southern Company and Westinghouse, as well as the Public Service Commission that fails to impose the burden of cost overruns on the shareholders where they belong.
I should know; I'm a Georgia Power ratepayer who's on the hook paying for the fuck-ups and cost overruns of Plant Vogtle 3 and 4.
It would've been way better if they'd been built back in the '70s, since all indications are that the folks who built units 1 and 2 actually had a fucking clue what they were doing!
Your arguments didn't actually invalidate the comment you replied to. They are just arguments against nuclear being a short-term solution.
We need both, short and long term ones. Wind and water cannot be solely relies upon. Build both types.
That is true, building a nuclear power plant doesn't help. The problem is how many we closed down in a panic, in particular after Fukushima. We could make great strides towards cleaner energy and cutting the actually problematic power plants (coal, gas) out of the picture as we slowly transition to renewables-only if we had more nuclear power available.
Of course, in hindsight it's difficult to say how one could have predicted this. There's good reasons against nuclear energy, it just so happens that in the big picture it's just about the second-best options. And we cut that out first, instead of the worse ones.
“2009” hahahaha and here we are. More coal more gas plants than ever.
Thank you. The pro-nuclear bullshit from Reddit seems to be spilling over.
Sadly it looks like the astroturfing has spilled over from reddit to here
When and where do I pick up my check?
It's one of the biggest market in the world and one of the biggest weapon governments have as a leverage on people. Expect a lot of propraganda and psyop
It's literally on every social media platform. 100% psyop.
I'm not sure how much is a psyop and how much is people who thought (with some merit) that nuclear was a good idea 30 years ago and haven't updated their thinking now renewables and storage have nuclear beat on price and speed of construction.
I never considered that renewables were just straight up quicker to build TBH
people who thought (with some merit) that nuclear was a good idea 30 years ago
As you say, it had some merit. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's a damn shame we didn't build significant amounts of nuclear 30+ years ago.
Unfortunately today the only people supporting nuclear are the same ones wanting to delay the move away from fossil fuels, and the "useful idiots" (as another user in this thread put it—though ironically they were using it to refer to those in favour of renewables) who don't recognise how much more economical renewables are and how much more able to combat climate change they are. The "useful idiots" are coming from a well-meaning place. They're just not up-to-date on the economics.
Weird how it is never the right time to build nuke
Fifty years ago: no
Thirty years ago: no
Today: no
But of course later suddenly it is "oh if only we built it back then"
Or "oh it's too late now, it takes sooooooo much"
Meanwhile curiously fossil fuel usage keep growing.
Europe was (and is) basically enslaved to Russia gas due to the "no nuclear" green crowd.
Of course who does not agree with you suddenly is called "idiot".
Of course who does not agree with you suddenly is called “idiot”.
Well, no. Somebody else was calling me an idiot for following the evidence that says nuclear is too expensive and renewables are a better option. I simply pointed out that their claim works far better pointed at them than it does at me.
And look, I'm not old enough to have been politically engaged 50 or 30 years ago. Practically, it doesn't matter what we should or should not have done 30 years ago. We need to evaluate the conditions of today and decide what's the best option.
And the evidence is clear: that's renewables.
I agree but I think the nuclear ship has sailed. Astroturfing can influence public sentiment but it can't change economics.
"We should just go nuclear, renewables aren’t viable" is just the next step in the ever-retreating arguments of climate change denial. First climate change wasn’t real. Then it was real but not man-made. One of the popular tactics today is to push nuclear, because they know how effective it can be at winning over progressives to help with their delaying tactics.
So… climate change deniers want to delay action on climate change. So they push for nuclear because it has long lead times and that forestalls action?
Come on man. That’s a pretty ridiculous theory. Climate change deniers are out there yelling “drill baby drill” not going undercover as nuclear advocates.
He's completely right, and I don't get why more people don't see that. As an example, here in Denmark, the leader of the far right populist party is both the one saying climate change would be a good thing since it means warmer summer weather as well as constantly bringing up nuclear energy any single time someone starts talking about climate change. It's honestly so transparent. I used to see the same thing all the time on Reddit, and now I guess it's Lemmy's turn for this shit.
Yes in dialogue with him here I learned a lot more. I have never learned a thing before about how this goes in Denmark or his native Australia.
If nuclear is brought up to derail and distract I guess that makes sense. It is a political bog and anyone sent into that big is going to get slowed down or trapped.
This is a little different than purposely leaning on the long plant construction lead times to forestall impact, though, which is the way it was first stated.
because it has long lead times and that forestalls action
I won't profess to know for sure what their reasoning is. I suspect it's a bit of that, and also a bit of hope/expectation that the fossil fuel industry will be well-situated to pivot into nuclear in a way that they can't as easily do with renewables. The more centralised nature and heavy reliance on large-scale resource extraction is very similar. But they actual explanation isn't what's important.
What's important is the simple fact that the biggest climate change deniers are now trying to promote nuclear. If you want to refute the claim, you need to explain that better than I can.
I’m not very familiar with Australian politics or leaders so I can only go with what I see in those articles. First, I don’t see any climate change denial. I see a debate about renewables and nuclear
Why are conservatives against renewables:
They can’t meet our total energy needs.
Wind and solar products are predominantly made in China and conservatives don’t want to feed the Chinese economy or increase dependence (one thing I do know about AU is that Chinese influence is quite heavy and a cause of great concern there).
Why are conservatives pro-nuclear:
It provides baseload capacity that supports wind/solar where they are weak.
It has military applications.
It creates large infrastructure spending within AU and supports mining industry.
They believe it will rankle liberals.
Maybe you have a point that conservatives who are dead-set against renewables will throw nuclear into the conversation as a distraction which they know will not go anywhere. But as an outside observer who doesn’t have built up associations with these characters, I honestly just see rational inclusion of nuclear in the energy mix. This all seems healthy to me.
First, I don’t see any climate change denial
Yeah, that was precisely the point I was making. It's no longer politically viable to be an outright climate change denier. First they retreated to suggesting it's not manmade, but that's no longer viable either. There are a few different strategies they've fallen back on now, including "oh well, it's too late to do anything now", "climate change might be good actually?", and "our country is so small that nothing we do could make any difference compared to America or China". All nonsense, of course. But "renewables are bad actually. Nuclear is the best." is one strategy that's become particularly popular this year.
Some points on Australian politics for context. The three articles I posted focused on Peter Dutton, David Littleproud, and BHP.
Peter Dutton is the current leader of the opposition (think: the minority leader in the House + the non-incumbent presidential candidate all in one, in American terms). He's a member of the Liberal Party*, which despite the name is actually Australia's leading conservative party. They're the Republicans. They've had a longstanding opposition to action on climate change, from refusing to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol to running a major campaign to actually revoke the climate-focused legislation we had from 2010–2013 which saw Australia's only period of decreasing carbon emissions. And Dutton has been high in the ranks since that time period.
David Littleproud is the leader of the National Party. They're a separate party from the Liberals technically, but in practice they act in lockstep. The two parties have a coalition agreement that has been in effect uninterrupted since 1946, to the point that in most contexts they're thought of as one party. Littleproud is, effectively, the Vice Presidential candidate as well as second-in-charge of the minority party in the House. The Nationals are even more extreme in their social conservatism than the Liberals, generally speaking.
BHP should, I hope, need no introduction. They're a massive multinational mining conglomerate, headquartered in Australia. The mining sector wields a lot of political power in Australia. Many mining and other energy-related companies are actually getting more and more into renewables themselves, and even BHP has said renewables need to be part of the mix. But their rhetoric has consistently been that it's got to be a slow and careful transition so as not to harm their coal mines.
They can’t meet our total energy needs.
I think here you're trying to get at the notion that renewables are bad for so-called "baseload" power. The thing is, studies suggest that baseload power is actually just not needed. That's a fact that's been known for at least a decade now, and which was called out as a "dinosaur" over half a decade ago. People carrying on about baseload power in 2023 are largely ill-informed, probably in no small part because of deliberate misinformation from vested interests.
It's fundamentally untrue. Renewables can meet our energy needs, if we have the political will to make it so.
* Note to any Australians: I know this is technically not true, but he's a Queensland LNP member who sits in the Liberal Party room, so it's close enough without getting too into the weeds for a non-Australian audience.
Okay thank you for raising these points which were not all on my radar. I’ll be looking out for conservative nuclear excitement (haven’t seen much in the US so far). I will also take another skeptical look at baseload, but I might need more convincing on that.
Thanks for saying this. It's the exact same thing in Denmark, and I just don't get how people don't realise this tactic when it's so fucking blatant.
Oh interesting. Thanks for sharing that detail, because I was beginning to wonder if this tactic might have been unique to conservatives in Australia.
We should do both as fast as we possiblity can. Expand all non ghg emitting sources as fast as possible to cut out coal and gas.
It's been a decade since a report came out recognising nuclear as too expensive to be viable, and that the best economic decision is to go all-in on renewables. In that time, the price of nuclear has not changed (really, it's likely gone up, with how much construction in general has gone up, while the technical side of it has not changed), while the cost of renewable energy has continued to go down.
I'm not ideologically opposed to nuclear. But the evidence clearly tells us that it's just not a reasonable option. At least not unless the long-promised affordability improvements from SMRs actually end up realising themselves. Or fusion gets to the point where it can be used for energy generation.
To expensive to be viable against the current solar wind and storage pieces. But when those go up due to saturation and shortages, it may become viable again.
That is factually false information. There are solid arguments to be made against nuclear energy.
https://isreview.org/issue/77/case-against-nuclear-power/index.html
Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315
Long lead times against nuclear have bee raised for the last 25 years, if we had just got on with it we would have the capacity by now. Just cause the lead time is in years doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
when is the best time to plant a tree? 30 years ago. When is the second best time? now.
Surely the second best time would have been 29 years ago
Don't fuck this up for me bro
As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world's construction capacity.
My counterpoint is that if we had "just got on with it" for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.
No it wouldn't. China laid more concrete in 5 years than the entire world did in 100 years. I highly doubt that converting the entire world to nuclear is going to use that much more concrete. I mean hell, they laid like 15 or 20,000 miles of high speed rail in just a few years. They built like 300 million apartment units.
Just did a bunch of my own math before realizing those numbers were already out there. We would need to add 3960 nuclear plants to match current energy demand for the world (440 power 10% of the world).
That would require at least 5 years of construction per plant. It takes about 7000 workers to produce a nuclear plant. To produce them concurrently would require about 27.7 million construction workers dedicated to this project for at least 5 years. So on one hand, perhaps you're right, since there are 100M construction workers in the world. I can't, however, find numbers about how much heavy equipment exists to facilitate a product requiring 1/4 the world's construction workers concurrently. You might be right that if all other construction were ground to a halt, we might be able to manage a 5-year plan of nuclear at the cost of about $20T (I had done the math before realizing this reply were about workers, not cost stupidity). I concede it seems "10x increase world construction capacity" was wrong, and the real number is somewhere around 1.5-2x, so long as we stay conservative with nuclear figures and ignore extra costs of building or transporting nuclear energy to countries incapable of building their own plants.
Interestingly, at those construction numbers, you could provide small-project rooftop solar to the world. I can't find construction numbers for power farm solar, except that it's dramatically more efficient than rooftop solar. Unlike nuclear, it appears we could easily squeeze full-world solar with our current world construction capacity.
I won't bore you with the cost math, but since I calculated them I'm still going to summarize them. Going full nuclear would cost us about a $20T down payment. Going full solar (with storage) down payment is about $4T (only about $1T without storage costs factored). And while nuclear would be cheaper than solar per year after that $20T down, solar power and storage would STILL be cheaper in a 100 year outlook, but would also benefit from rolling efficiency increases as we add new solar plants/capacitors and tear down older ones..
Not all 7,000 construction workers would be working on the site concurrently. Different trades come and go depending on the phase of the project. So at first you'll have the civil engineering earth movers come in, who clears the site and excavates the foundations. Then you'll have the concrete crews come in who pour the foundations and do all of the concrete work. Obviously on a nuclear power plant there is a lot of foundation work, as well as a lot of above ground concrete so probably a good chunk of the construction workers will fall into this category.
Power plants also have a lot of structural steel work, electrical and special equipment that would likey fall under the piping category but each of these uses a separate set of skilled labor that does not overlap.
If you were going to actually try to build 3,300 nuclear power plants, you would rotate crews from project to project which would increase efficiency rather than hiring 27 million separate workers.
In any case, I don't think converting the world's total electrical power generation to 100% nuclear is by any stretch of the imagination a good idea. Personally I think maybe 15 to 25% nuclear power generation would be a more realistic mix, similar to the US electrical power generation. The rest of the power should be solar, wind, hydro, wave and geothermal as they are absolutely cheaper to build.
I'm not sure I agree with how you'd be able to execute on that level or organized construction safely, but I think we're also reaching the "impossible-to-be-sure hypothetical" territory, so I'll concede the point for now.
I think my problems of cost and time still stand. It looks like adding rooftop solar with batteries to every building is still cheaper (on startup, and likely per MW) than nuclear plants. Regions that cannot support solar, onland wind, geo, or hydro can justify nuclear (at least unless shipping batteries or hydrogen conversion becomes cheap enough to compete), but I don't think they amount to nearly 15% of the power needs in the world since they represent fairly distinctive regions with low energy demand.
We do it all the time in the construction industry.
For instance, Bechtel has 55,000 people in the US.
So just hire them. Too bad they lost almost all of their institutional knowledge about nuclear construction compared to what they used to have.
Long lead times, cost overruns, producing power at a higher price point than renewables, long run time needed to break even, even longer dismantling times and a still unsolved waste problem. Compared to renewables that we can build right now.
Did you read the quote? 15-20 years, as in decades before 1 nuke plant is built. I agree in that politicians of the past should have led us to a more sustainable and resilient energy future, but we're here now.
Advanced nuclear should still be 100% pursued to try to get those lead times down and to incorporate things like waste recycling, modularity, etc., but the lead time in decades absolutely means nuclear power might not be something worth doing.
The IPCC puts the next 10-20 years as the most important and perilous for getting a hold on climate change. If we wait for that long by not rolling out emission-free power sources, transit modes, or even carbon-free concrete, etc., then we might cross planetary boundaries that we can't come back from.
Nuclear is a safe bet and bet worth pursuing. I would argue that, along with that source from the IAEA, old nuclear is note worth it.
How much concrete does it take to build a nuclear plant? Concrete production is currently 8% of global emissions, so if you have to scale up construction capacity 10x for the next decade, don't you end up destroying the environment with concrete before they are even operational?
Great point. You need concrete for wind, solar, and li-ion battery storage too (including pumped hydro), but out of those I'd say pumped hydro is the only one that remotely compares in the amount of concrete needed for construction.
So purely looking at the emissions from materials needed to build these power sources, renewables have the edge due to less concrete. These emissions might show up elsewhere in raw material extraction like with silicon for solar, and then the rare earth metals needed for generators in wind, all the lithium/nickel/cobalt needed for batteries, etc., but I want to say that the Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) from places like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the US or the International Energy Agency (IEA) worldwide have taken that into account and still show that renewables + storage are cheaper on a carbon basis compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.
The cool thing about concrete for renewables (excluding hydro dam) is only the very base pad needs to be virgin. You can make a lot of the rest of the base and fill material with down cycled concrete. So tearing down part of an old factory on land near the solar panels are? Crush it up and only move it a few miles over to where you need it. Rather than hauling that to a landfill where it sits forever, costing energy use to haul, and more energy use to bring the fill and other bade materials from a further destination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
the largest fission plant was literally working 5 years after construction started
fission plants are just more expensive now because we don't make enough of them.
I guess safety standards changed but even wind power kills more people per watt than fission so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nuclear could've easily worked if people didn't go full nimby in the past few decades
Sorry. How does wind power kill anyone? Okay, every once in a while you hear about a technician falling off a windmill, but are there any fatalities in regard to the effects of wind power?
Fewer people die to nuclear than wind power.
Nuclear is scary because you hear about it, not because it is actually deadly.
To be fair, Frank falling to his death from the top of wind turbine 45 has much shorter consequences.
It won't have distant descendants dying after not working out symbols meant to not play with the glowing stuff left by the ancients.
Like tragic Glowing Peril tale: https://timharford.com/2023/11/cautionary-tales-the-lethal-fallout-of-a-stolen-treasure/
probably technicians falling off is the biggest thing
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/?sh=5b0b28345467
The only two major nuclear-related death incidents were Chernobyl and Fukushima. But Fukushima only killed one person, the rest were killed by the tsunami and being relocated from the exclusion zone. But many people blame the Japanese government for fucking up the evacuations, while other people criticize the government for actually evacuating people.
In any case, those 2,300 Japanese people were not killed by the actual nuclear incident, they were killed because they were very old and could not adapt to moving into a new apartment that's a government provided them. Chernobyl is believed to have killed about 500 people.
I should also mention that the Fukushima exclusion zone has largely been lifted, and many people have moved back home.
Your not counting the indirect deaths.
https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
So it isn't wind at all, but lacking safety standards.
Lacking safety standards specific to the use case of wind turbines. For example, there was a fire during installation and someone jumped to their deaths to get away. They had quick decent harnesses but couldn't use them because of the location of the fire.
And? Those safety standards for constructing and maintaining wind turbines can be increased just as much as the safety standards for any other type of heavy labor. For example by mandating that wind turbines must have fire suppression systems installed or that wworkers must be able to rapel on the outside of the wind turbine.
Makes you wonder if the same thing couldn't be done for nuclear plants!
Okay, so increase those safety standards on wind then get back to us with price per kilowatt and project lead times.
Got me there, bud! Rapelling gear surely will make wind turbines unprofitable! Checkmate renewables!
There are solid arguments to be made against both nuclear and renewables (intermittence, impact of electricity storage, amount of raw material, surface area). We can't wait for perfect solutions, we have to work out compromises right now, and it seems nuclear + renewable is the most solid compromise we have for the 2050 target. See this high quality report by the public French electricity transportation company (independent of the energy producers) that studies various scenarios including 100% renewable and mixes of nuclear, renewables, hydrogen and biogas. https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy%20pathways%202050_Key%20results.pdf
Those aren't arguments against nuclear power; those are arguments against the incompetence of entities like Southern Company and Westinghouse, as well as the Public Service Commission that fails to impose the burden of cost overruns on the shareholders where they belong.
I should know; I'm a Georgia Power ratepayer who's on the hook paying for the fuck-ups and cost overruns of Plant Vogtle 3 and 4.
It would've been way better if they'd been built back in the '70s, since all indications are that the folks who built units 1 and 2 actually had a fucking clue what they were doing!
Your arguments didn't actually invalidate the comment you replied to. They are just arguments against nuclear being a short-term solution.
We need both, short and long term ones. Wind and water cannot be solely relies upon. Build both types.
That is true, building a nuclear power plant doesn't help. The problem is how many we closed down in a panic, in particular after Fukushima. We could make great strides towards cleaner energy and cutting the actually problematic power plants (coal, gas) out of the picture as we slowly transition to renewables-only if we had more nuclear power available.
Of course, in hindsight it's difficult to say how one could have predicted this. There's good reasons against nuclear energy, it just so happens that in the big picture it's just about the second-best options. And we cut that out first, instead of the worse ones.
“2009” hahahaha and here we are. More coal more gas plants than ever.
Thank you. The pro-nuclear bullshit from Reddit seems to be spilling over.
Sadly it looks like the astroturfing has spilled over from reddit to here
When and where do I pick up my check?
It's one of the biggest market in the world and one of the biggest weapon governments have as a leverage on people. Expect a lot of propraganda and psyop
It's literally on every social media platform. 100% psyop.
I'm not sure how much is a psyop and how much is people who thought (with some merit) that nuclear was a good idea 30 years ago and haven't updated their thinking now renewables and storage have nuclear beat on price and speed of construction.
I never considered that renewables were just straight up quicker to build TBH
As you say, it had some merit. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's a damn shame we didn't build significant amounts of nuclear 30+ years ago.
Unfortunately today the only people supporting nuclear are the same ones wanting to delay the move away from fossil fuels, and the "useful idiots" (as another user in this thread put it—though ironically they were using it to refer to those in favour of renewables) who don't recognise how much more economical renewables are and how much more able to combat climate change they are. The "useful idiots" are coming from a well-meaning place. They're just not up-to-date on the economics.
Weird how it is never the right time to build nuke
Fifty years ago: no
Thirty years ago: no
Today: no
But of course later suddenly it is "oh if only we built it back then"
Or "oh it's too late now, it takes sooooooo much"
Meanwhile curiously fossil fuel usage keep growing.
Europe was (and is) basically enslaved to Russia gas due to the "no nuclear" green crowd.
Of course who does not agree with you suddenly is called "idiot".
Well, no. Somebody else was calling me an idiot for following the evidence that says nuclear is too expensive and renewables are a better option. I simply pointed out that their claim works far better pointed at them than it does at me.
And look, I'm not old enough to have been politically engaged 50 or 30 years ago. Practically, it doesn't matter what we should or should not have done 30 years ago. We need to evaluate the conditions of today and decide what's the best option.
And the evidence is clear: that's renewables.
I agree but I think the nuclear ship has sailed. Astroturfing can influence public sentiment but it can't change economics.
"We should just go nuclear, renewables aren’t viable" is just the next step in the ever-retreating arguments of climate change denial. First climate change wasn’t real. Then it was real but not man-made. One of the popular tactics today is to push nuclear, because they know how effective it can be at winning over progressives to help with their delaying tactics.
So… climate change deniers want to delay action on climate change. So they push for nuclear because it has long lead times and that forestalls action?
Come on man. That’s a pretty ridiculous theory. Climate change deniers are out there yelling “drill baby drill” not going undercover as nuclear advocates.
He's completely right, and I don't get why more people don't see that. As an example, here in Denmark, the leader of the far right populist party is both the one saying climate change would be a good thing since it means warmer summer weather as well as constantly bringing up nuclear energy any single time someone starts talking about climate change. It's honestly so transparent. I used to see the same thing all the time on Reddit, and now I guess it's Lemmy's turn for this shit.
Yes in dialogue with him here I learned a lot more. I have never learned a thing before about how this goes in Denmark or his native Australia.
If nuclear is brought up to derail and distract I guess that makes sense. It is a political bog and anyone sent into that big is going to get slowed down or trapped.
This is a little different than purposely leaning on the long plant construction lead times to forestall impact, though, which is the way it was first stated.
I won't profess to know for sure what their reasoning is. I suspect it's a bit of that, and also a bit of hope/expectation that the fossil fuel industry will be well-situated to pivot into nuclear in a way that they can't as easily do with renewables. The more centralised nature and heavy reliance on large-scale resource extraction is very similar. But they actual explanation isn't what's important.
What's important is the simple fact that the biggest climate change deniers are now trying to promote nuclear. If you want to refute the claim, you need to explain that better than I can.
I’m not very familiar with Australian politics or leaders so I can only go with what I see in those articles. First, I don’t see any climate change denial. I see a debate about renewables and nuclear
Why are conservatives against renewables:
They can’t meet our total energy needs.
Wind and solar products are predominantly made in China and conservatives don’t want to feed the Chinese economy or increase dependence (one thing I do know about AU is that Chinese influence is quite heavy and a cause of great concern there).
Why are conservatives pro-nuclear:
It provides baseload capacity that supports wind/solar where they are weak.
It has military applications.
It creates large infrastructure spending within AU and supports mining industry.
They believe it will rankle liberals.
Maybe you have a point that conservatives who are dead-set against renewables will throw nuclear into the conversation as a distraction which they know will not go anywhere. But as an outside observer who doesn’t have built up associations with these characters, I honestly just see rational inclusion of nuclear in the energy mix. This all seems healthy to me.
Yeah, that was precisely the point I was making. It's no longer politically viable to be an outright climate change denier. First they retreated to suggesting it's not manmade, but that's no longer viable either. There are a few different strategies they've fallen back on now, including "oh well, it's too late to do anything now", "climate change might be good actually?", and "our country is so small that nothing we do could make any difference compared to America or China". All nonsense, of course. But "renewables are bad actually. Nuclear is the best." is one strategy that's become particularly popular this year.
Some points on Australian politics for context. The three articles I posted focused on Peter Dutton, David Littleproud, and BHP.
Peter Dutton is the current leader of the opposition (think: the minority leader in the House + the non-incumbent presidential candidate all in one, in American terms). He's a member of the Liberal Party*, which despite the name is actually Australia's leading conservative party. They're the Republicans. They've had a longstanding opposition to action on climate change, from refusing to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol to running a major campaign to actually revoke the climate-focused legislation we had from 2010–2013 which saw Australia's only period of decreasing carbon emissions. And Dutton has been high in the ranks since that time period.
David Littleproud is the leader of the National Party. They're a separate party from the Liberals technically, but in practice they act in lockstep. The two parties have a coalition agreement that has been in effect uninterrupted since 1946, to the point that in most contexts they're thought of as one party. Littleproud is, effectively, the Vice Presidential candidate as well as second-in-charge of the minority party in the House. The Nationals are even more extreme in their social conservatism than the Liberals, generally speaking.
BHP should, I hope, need no introduction. They're a massive multinational mining conglomerate, headquartered in Australia. The mining sector wields a lot of political power in Australia. Many mining and other energy-related companies are actually getting more and more into renewables themselves, and even BHP has said renewables need to be part of the mix. But their rhetoric has consistently been that it's got to be a slow and careful transition so as not to harm their coal mines.
I think here you're trying to get at the notion that renewables are bad for so-called "baseload" power. The thing is, studies suggest that baseload power is actually just not needed. That's a fact that's been known for at least a decade now, and which was called out as a "dinosaur" over half a decade ago. People carrying on about baseload power in 2023 are largely ill-informed, probably in no small part because of deliberate misinformation from vested interests.
It's fundamentally untrue. Renewables can meet our energy needs, if we have the political will to make it so.
* Note to any Australians: I know this is technically not true, but he's a Queensland LNP member who sits in the Liberal Party room, so it's close enough without getting too into the weeds for a non-Australian audience.
Okay thank you for raising these points which were not all on my radar. I’ll be looking out for conservative nuclear excitement (haven’t seen much in the US so far). I will also take another skeptical look at baseload, but I might need more convincing on that.
Thanks for saying this. It's the exact same thing in Denmark, and I just don't get how people don't realise this tactic when it's so fucking blatant.
Oh interesting. Thanks for sharing that detail, because I was beginning to wonder if this tactic might have been unique to conservatives in Australia.
We should do both as fast as we possiblity can. Expand all non ghg emitting sources as fast as possible to cut out coal and gas.
It's been a decade since a report came out recognising nuclear as too expensive to be viable, and that the best economic decision is to go all-in on renewables. In that time, the price of nuclear has not changed (really, it's likely gone up, with how much construction in general has gone up, while the technical side of it has not changed), while the cost of renewable energy has continued to go down.
I'm not ideologically opposed to nuclear. But the evidence clearly tells us that it's just not a reasonable option. At least not unless the long-promised affordability improvements from SMRs actually end up realising themselves. Or fusion gets to the point where it can be used for energy generation.
To expensive to be viable against the current solar wind and storage pieces. But when those go up due to saturation and shortages, it may become viable again.