/sci/ - Science & Math

Cheaper than your mom

moderately

>>11152985
All three of those things are wrong.

>>11152985
This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY

but mostly this >>11152989

>>11152994
Is this why we don't have more nuclear plants?

>>11153004
We don’t have more nuclear plants because retards are afraid of them and the US doesn’t have a state-owned power grid.

>>11153039
If they were cost efficient it wouldn't matter and they'd be popular at least in Europe

>>11153039
we don't have more nuclear powerplants because of the oil and coal companies buying out politicians

Per kw/h it's the second cheapest based on a 50 year operational life for the plant. You will often hear it's much more expensive based on plants that were closed decades before planned due to nomie fears.

>>11153004
They require government programs at the level of china or france and government programs need a heavy social support, which these kind of projects do not tend to have, also they take longer to be even profitable and after 2007 the situation is not that optimal for increaaing debt under pronises of higher returns in "mere" decades.

There are hopes like modular and more compact powerplants, and of course, the fusion power that is always 10 years tops I swear guys this time is for real.

>>11153092
But we already pay the government to prevent nuclear power plants from being built. So it's just as simple as ceasing to pay for that, which saves us money in the process, not costs us more.

>>11153161
There is a difference between subsidizing a project, reducing red tape and decreasing overregulation and simple taxes.

>>11152985
>Stop having industrial civilization, give up your guns and military, and EAT BUGS!

>>11152985
It's neither dirty nor dangerous, so I assume it's not expensive either.

>>11152985
recently raising costs made it more expensive then anything else

>>11152985
$151/MWh

>>11153039
Why does it need to be state-owned?

Renewables are cheaper on the surface, but the cost does not include required massive storage and grid upgrades needed to deal with intermittency.

ahem, FUCK renewables

>>11154475
When electric cars take over, people will have access to such storage either way, they can just plug their car battery into the grid to smooth out the power usage of their house, doesn't cost any more than they would have paid regardless. Until then, the best solution is probably a base load from generation III or higher nuclear plants, and using renewables for the rest when it is available. Between both solar, wind and hydro there should be plenty of capacity available most of the time, most places.

Expensive upfront, cheap in the long run.

>>11152985
>dirty
How?
>dangerous
Thanks, Sierra Club.
>expensive
True

>>11154462
Expensive, complicated and with a very long return of investment.

>>11154135
>>11154138

>like clockwork, the renewable jew pulls out charts from a source that itself advocates for nuclear as an emissions free source of baseload

Godspeed shitposter-kun.

>>11152989
so free?

>>11154540
>i'm not denying the $151
kek

>>11154550

>yet everywhere its implemented we see cost of energy plummet AND conversely where it is abandoned cost and emissions skyrocket.

France vs Germany. UAE. California vs Illinois.

You've ignored all data, so I don't have high hopes for your future.

>>11154554
>hand waving
yeah, I'll go with the chart

>>11154526
Expensive and complicated are better handled by the private sector.

>>11154563

Which chart?

The one where they advocate for nuclear as a emissionless source of baseload and wind/solar as peaking load?

Because right now you are advocating AGAINST the data your own source represents AND against real life experience which backs uo the data.

>>11154563
t. Moron

>>11152985
https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

I have no idea about the integrity of this report, but apparently quite expensive.

>>11154574
the one that says $151/MWh

>>11154576
>chart man bad

>>11154618

But not latency I see.

>>11153066

Or because of Greenpeace spending the last 60 years conflating nuclear power with weapons and scaring the public with other misinformation.

The only liberal supporting nuclear is a non-starter like Yang. Everyone else wants to shut down nuclear power to "fight climate change."

>>11153061
They are popular in Europe, France is practically all nuclear

A huge part of the cost is due to the massive security measures required by law, both internal things like fail-safes and enormous amounts of concrete shielding to contain a potential meltdown, but also security to keep people out and protect the enriched uranium.
Fusion power plants wouldn't have any of these issues, so despite the vastly greater engineering complexity required by fusion, the reduction in red tape to build and operate a plant could make them cheaper than fission plants.

>>11154677

Except the greenies are already chomping at the bit to demonize fusion.

>>11152994
No, they're all right, all of those things are just far more centralized than the petroleum industry. Make no mistake, Nuclear power is a big endeavor, and a competent government is required for it. We do not have a competent government. Petroleum is dirtier, more dangerous, and more expensive, it's just decentralized across thousands of smaller parts. Sure, a single petroleum refinery causes more cancer than the entire US nuclear industry, but that's spread across dozens of vectors.

>>11154653
>Everyone else wants to shut down nuclear power to "fight climate change."
kek

>>11153061
They require a farsighted state to function properly, one that can plan on a scale larger than election cycles into the 50 year lifespan of a plant, its decommission and the efficient utilization of nuclear material. Their not a free market patch job and need political will and careful consideration so naturally they flounder.

>>11154712
Call me an optimist but I don't think they'll have a leg to stand on by the time it matters. Concerns of nuclear proliferation and meltdowns are valid, if highly overblown, in regard to fission reactors, but completely non-existent when it comes to fusion.

>>11154777

They already complain about tritium released to the environment in light water reactors.

Reactors that 1.) Do not use heavt water and 2.) Post shutdown radiation ensures a lower concentration of tritium than naturally ocurring water due to the photoelectric effect.

The anti-nuke establishment does not need to be correct to severely negatively impact adoption of needed new tech.

Look at the anti-vax, anti-gmo, and anti-ddt movements. Millions if not billions of people die in agony over a bunch of liberal' feel good policies.

>>11152999
I was going to post this video

>>11154135
Nuclear energy REKT

>>11154478
>death rates
We're talking cost here bud

>>11154665
You mean the country who stopped building nuclear plants and is trying to replace them with renewables?
e.g.
>In April 2016, a French minister suggested turning the soon to be shuttered Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant into Gigafactory 2

>>11154777
>Concerns of nuclear proliferation and meltdowns are valid
Lol

>>11154833
>>11152999
>uranium supply is infinite
Are you retarded? Cost is not a constant

>>11154923

>fuel with a near uncomprehensibly high energy density can be multiplied 60 times and retroactively use "spent" nuclear fuel
>this makes uranium reactors impractical despite fuel costs being an insignificant fraction of the total cost of nuclear energy

At no point does fuel cost become the limiting factor on nuclear energy. It is purely a political problem masqeurading as an engineering or financial one.

>>11154895

Yes. The one that's going retarded.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/

>Based on a review of publicly available 10-Ks, the American Action Forum (AAF) found $15.7 billion in regulatory liabilities for the industry, or $219 million per plant.

it's ONLY expensive because of socialism and the international IPCC centralized banking energy CARTEL

>>11154712
>Except the greenies are already chomping at the bit to demonize fusion.
Only another 10 more years until they come online, right?

>>11154923

>want to know about nuclear power
>ask an upside down electricam engineer

>>11154949
French are just good at math. Decades ago it made sense to replace old coal plants with nuclear. Today nuclear plants are getting old and renewables are much cheaper so they do this. If fusion ever works and is cheaper they will go for it.

>>11155311

>cheaper yet higher cost of energy overall somehow

It's almost like the large amount of energy produced reliably disperses the costs over time...

>>11152985
At what scale and what type? That's like saying all cars are expensive because a BMW Z8 sold at auction for $195,000 despite a new Honda cost $19,995

>>11153092
Mostly regs and codes for new design types stopping it. On-paper with things like braytin cycle generators would do .005 cents/kwh at full scale. You could literally being back all production/manufacturing to localities at that price.

>>11154138
>>11154135
Check out this data from 40+ year old plants running solid fuel that are required to dump dollar to dollar into trust for cleanup of "waste" which is really just unused fuel, goys. Nope, no sense in pursuing even though it btfo everything under the sun.

>>11154677
The concrete shielding is for trapping expanding gas for PWRs. It has nothing to do with a meltdown. That is what containment vessels are for. Non-PWRs do not require massive containment buildings. Stop posting about shit with which you have zero familiarity

>>11154777
Fusion reactors require a FLiBe type blanket as a neutron source. You get U233/Th232, etc. This is what creates the Tritium for the fusion reaction to be sustained.

>>11152985
>not harvesting energy from particle annihilation

>>11153061
Their use is widespread in france and was in germany before the fukushima hysteria. The swish voted in favor of more nuclear power but the public vote was basically just ignrored.

>>11152985
Instead of trying to scale power production to the human population we should scale human population to whats easy to supply with renewable power.

We can't just have infinity people because we're too scared to tell everyone we don't need anymore retard babies. The time for sterilization in now!

>>11154952
>I don't know how to read a graph.
Wow you really don't. It's amazing you didn't notice the (thousands) and (millions) labels on the graph.

>>11155731

Or we provide low emissions energy to get poor and developing countries out of poverty at an increasing rate and get them to a wealthy enough state to afford feminism and tank their birthrates.

Doing so early and as fast as possible would limit the number of generations it takes to reach this point and thus the total number of people overall.

>>11155747
Africa is the best place for solar given the available sunlight hours and high angle.

>>11155762

Except solar still cannot reliable supply baseload applications that indistrualization needs without cost prohibitive HVDC systems and mass storage.

And latency is always made up for with fossil fuels.

Nuclear remains the only low emissions source for baseload outside of geothermal which requires very specific access to high temperature bedrock and hydro which is already at saturation.

>>11155773
Just work during the day and sleep at night LOL.

>>11155780

Which will slow the deveopment into not a 3rd world shithole.

>>11154554
You're retarded. Of course the OPEX of a nuclear plant is going to be low, it's kinda obvious that nuclear power plants are cheap to RUN.
HOWEVER, nuclear power plants are super fucking expensive to BUILD (OPEX), and to DECOMISSION. If you account for commissioning and decommissioning, then the cost of nuclear skyrockets (aka LCoE), which makes nuclear uncompetitive

>>11155700
France is abandoning them

>>11155786
Last time I checked it was 1st world countries that have limited working hours.

>>11155793
Yeah nah they pay for themselves after about 15 years. And don't compare them with renewables that don't work 80% of the time

>>11155793

Except decomissioning requires funds upfront due to regulation.

Which again, makes nuclear a super expensive upfront investment with significant long term profitability and cost savings to the consumer.

>>11154923
Yeah, if we only use U235 in nuclear reactors we are going to run out pretty quickly (since U235 is just as rare as platinum). However, nuclear advocates want U238 fast breeders, not U235 thermal burners

>>11155796

Except those came about after we reached a significant amount of social wealth.

Poor countries cannot afford unions just as they cannot afford feminism.

>>11155804
>Yeah nah they pay for themselves after about 15 years.
You think the LCoE calculation doesn't account for this? Do you not know how LCoE is defined?
>And don't compare them with renewables that don't work 80% of the time
Yes, we can compare them, because we're talking about costs for energy producing facilities. We're not talking about reliability, in which case you're right it's impossible to compare, but when talking about cost it's perfectly fine to compare.

>>11155815


Yes.

It doesn't.

Because Lazards even states their analysis is not to make an apples to apples comparison between energy sources of different uses and.

>>11155731

>>11155762
What Africa needs is a few thousand of these bad boys.

>>11155812
>we can't pay our workers until they have made us extremely rich
>after becoming extremely rich proceeds to buy governments to maintain wealth.
Typical capitalist mindset.

>>11155820
it's great for you

>>11155850

>>11155806
> fast breeders

>>11155855
it's a image board, she's not nude, you are teh gay,deal with it

>>11155865

>>11155857
Why the heck is the paper talking about processing seawater? I never brought up U235 extraction from seawater, we're talking about U238 mining.
Can you give me a counterargument that actually relates to what we're talking about (U238 mining)?

>>11154570
Based

>>11155794
Yeah, because of bullshit fear mongering. They have much lower electricity price than the krauts

It's best way to hide a turbine that produces elektricity out of nothing.

I know this is confidental but...

Also a nice way to hide aerogel factory.

>>11155741
>Wow you really don't. It's amazing you didn't notice the (thousands) and (millions) labels on the graph.

i guess it's a typo because if you read the article you'd see

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/
>based on a review of publicly reported 10-K data, AAF finds the average nuclear reactor must navigate $219 million in regulatory liabilities ($60 million annually per plant), with many of the newest burdens arising in 2012. In that year, operation and maintenance costs, and fuel liabilities spiked dramatically.

right over the graph

>As noted, previous AAF research focused exclusively on the reporting, recordkeeping, and security costs of nuclear facilities. In addition to those expenses, facilities had to pay NRC an average of $22 million annually. However, after a review of publicly disclosed 10-K reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the actual figure is far higher. Based on a review of 13 companies that operate nuclear facilities, the total reported cost topped $15.7 billion, with a per plant average cost of $219 million.

>>11155830
>atom bomb
>as powerful as a few thousand regular bombs
>not hydrogen bomb
stfu violent racist go back to /pol/

>>11155731
>Instead of trying to scale power production to the human population we should scale human population to whats easy to supply with renewable power

You first. Don't just talk about population control. Be an example to the rest of us.

BTW: if you have tell us to depopulate to make your idea work, then your idea is shit.

>>11155773
solar thermal plants with molten salt storage reliably produce power 24/7
it's not as cheap an photovoltaic, but still cheaper then nuclear

>>11156663
What bothers you more? That his method is ineffective or racist?

>>11157153
>non retarded solar
I like you already. If i ever meet you we gonna rub beards like no tomorrow.

>>11157222
all three

>>11155731
Too lazy to edit this yet point stands.

>>11157234
Shit, that's why ayyys developed aliens to wipe us out?!

muh LFTR

>>11153078
>Per kw/h it's the second cheapest based on a 50 year operational life for the plant. You will often hear it's much more expensive based on plants that were closed decades before planned due to nomie fears.

The fucking faggot pieces of shit solar and wind cultists prophetized that nuclear power will be too expensive,and they have done everything in their power to make sure it is by shutting down plants before they even have a chance to produce one joule of energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

>after $6 billion and it was shutdown by the anti-nuclear power shitbags.
>"NOOKULAR PWR IS 2 EXPENSE!!! WIND N SOLAR ONLY. N0W PASS T3H BONG MAN!!!!111oneone"

All of these fuckers need to be given a one-way ticket to Siberia and abandoned with some solar panels and see how long they'll last.

>>11154895
>In April 2016, a French minister suggested turning the soon to be shuttered Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant into Gigafactory 2

Alternative title

>leftist politicians who doesn't the difference between a wrench and a hammer and is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Krueger effect is making laws on technical issues

>>11154900
>Plant melts down
>Lol, it won't happen agian, I promise
>Just get your children to store this nuclear waste for hundreds of years

>>11154895
>In April 2016, a French minister suggested turning the soon to be shuttered Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant into Gigafactory 2

Alternative title

>leftist politicians who doesn't know the difference between a wrench and a hammer and is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Krueger effect is making laws on technical issues

Why the fuck do we defer to career politicians with no experience outside the capital on anything at all let alone matters of science?

>>11157453
>>Plant melts down

>Entire lakes are completely inhospitable to life because of waste from rare earth mining (rare earths=magnets for wind turbines)
>Solar panels manufactured with carcinogens and no plan with how to deal with them once the solar panels stop working after 20-30 years.

>>Lol, it won't happen agian, I promise

>LOL, we lied and said it wouldn't happen period.


>>Just get your children to store this nuclear waste for hundreds of years

>Just get all future generations of humanity to deal with it since its not radioactive (the dangers come from chemical toxicity) and will remain there forever."

>>11157469
1995 called and they want their anti solar talking points back.

>>11152985
sure it looks expensive when you compare it to fossil fuels which have massive hidden externalities

>>11157474
Your whole side uses talking points from the 1960's you hypocritical faggot.

>>11157526
Why the homophobia?

>>11157534
because youre a fucking nigger

There is not a single number, there is a range. Many plants are getting really old now and this means raising maintenance costs. Raising fuel costs and safety is pushing costs further up lately.

>>11152985
>the dangerous reactor's got filthy hippies taking to the streets
kek