• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Nearly all of nuclear in the USA was built decades ago. Instead of being “paid off” and being cheaper, its still more expensive to generate electricity with nuclear than nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.

    • ironeagl@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nuclear is the most regulated one. Start requiring full recycling / disposal of solar or wind and how expensive do they get?

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not sure what you are referencing, but there are good reasons why nuclear power is expensive: lots of engineering and construction hours, strick safety and quality standards for design and materials, and no externalities, since decommissioning and waste handling have to be accounted and baked into the final utility cost to consumers. In other words, even if it’s difficult to pay off a nuclear power plant (in a liberalized energy market of course) it’s still money well spent. The same requirements and expectations should have to apply to other industries as well.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Are you arguing its a “good thing” for existing built plants or for propose plants yet to be built? I wasn’t sure, but the result is the same for both. Nuclear is too expensive for what it provides in the face of better alternatives. I’m happy to back my statements with sources. Which position were you arguing?

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          There is one thing that new nuclear reactor designs can provide that there is no good alternative for, and that’s consuming existing nuclear fuel. We can use breeder tractors to convert our existing waste into usable fuel for newer reactor types (I want to say Thorium but I’m not positive).

          Our best outlook for the future is for us to build at least as much of these are necessary to clean up our nuclear waste.

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          My position is simply that it’s a good sign if nuclear power is more expensive than other types. We should be suspicious of anything that claims to offer a better deal.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            What an unusual stance. You eluded to the externalities of other sources as your concern. For coal I would agree. However, for wind and solar the studies have shown those to be substantially cheaper even with externalities factored in.

            What do you base your reasoning on that wind and solar are not factoring in externalities?

            • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              My understanding is that wind and PV solar power are similar to most other industries besides nuclear power in that the management of the lifecycles of such deployments isn’t well planned or funded. I myself have encountered a derelict wind farm and I have to wonder if that’s just the way it’s supposed to go after investors extract their short-term profits. As these renewable projects decline in performance (both in terms of actual electricity production and fictional financial viability), I guess the horizon will just keep collecting their skeletons.

    • JamesFire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not significantly more expensive though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

      And even if it was, it has other benefits.

      Like using significantly less land, and being safer.

      It can also work as a source of heat for district heating or various industrial processes, and since the plants themselves have no emissions, they can be reasonably placed in cities for this purpose without harming people. Using heat directly is more efficient than converting it to and from electricity.

      Nuclear has it’s place.