Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • We just completed a significant update, but we still have some fixes and adjustments to make, so please bear with us for the time being. Cheers!

Nuclear power

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
7,432
9,441
United States
Isn't the first one, won't be the last.

I don't understand how this evolved into such a pathetic cult. I worked in nuclear for ~15 years. First in the USN then commercially. It was clear it wasn't a viable solution for economic reasons. Like.... super, SUPER clear. Like... fool cells are FAR less efficient than BEVs clear. I moved on to support something that had a chance of being part of the solution. I don't understand why so many people wish to die on the nuclear hill. What's the attraction?

It's crazy... if you ask a nuke zealot what cost delta is acceptable most of them are of the opinion that even if wind and solar are free nuclear is STILL the better option even at $20/w :confused:
 

mspohr

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2014
8,978
10,392
California
I don't understand how this evolved into such a pathetic cult. I worked in nuclear for ~15 years. First in the USN then commercially. It was clear it wasn't a viable solution for economic reasons. Like.... super, SUPER clear. Like... fool cells are FAR less efficient than BEVs clear. I moved on to support something that had a chance of being part of the solution. I don't understand why so many people wish to die on the nuclear hill. What's the attraction?

It's crazy... if you ask a nuke zealot what cost delta is acceptable most of them are of the opinion that even if wind and solar are free nuclear is STILL the better option even at $20/w :confused:
I think this is mostly driven by the profits to be made in building, operating and charging high prices for power from nuclear. The money allows them to ignore the costs to everyone else.
 

mspohr

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2014
8,978
10,392
California
That explains the industry but not their dozens of ardent supporters like Shill'n - berger...
Follow the money.
Shill'n-berger is "supported" by the nuclear industry.

According to the latest publicly available financial records, Environmental Progress earned US$809,000 in revenue in 2017 from gifts, grants and donations.

In the process of researching this article, Guardian Australia emailed questions to Shellenberger to clarify why Forbes had removed his article and who funded his organisation.

A third question related to a 2017 internal report from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) which said the institute, which represents the nuclear energy industry, had “engaged third parties to engage with media through interviews and op-eds” and named “environmentalist Michael Shellenberger” as one of those it had engaged.
 

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
7,432
9,441
United States
Follow the money.
Shill'n-berger is "supported" by the nuclear industry.

According to the latest publicly available financial records, Environmental Progress earned US$809,000 in revenue in 2017 from gifts, grants and donations.

In the process of researching this article, Guardian Australia emailed questions to Shellenberger to clarify why Forbes had removed his article and who funded his organisation.

A third question related to a 2017 internal report from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) which said the institute, which represents the nuclear energy industry, had “engaged third parties to engage with media through interviews and op-eds” and named “environmentalist Michael Shellenberger” as one of those it had engaged.

Fair enough. A 'Shill' in name AND in practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SageBrush

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
7,432
9,441
United States
I think all that Shill'n-berger managed to do is refresh the discussion on just how terrible of an idea wasting more limited time and money on new nuclear is in 2020....

I would argue that the cost and timeline of any additional nuclear plants represent a challenge ~10x greater than the intermittence of renewables.

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
 

mspohr

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2014
8,978
10,392
California
I think all that Shill'n-berger managed to do is refresh the discussion on just how terrible of an idea wasting more limited time and money on new nuclear is in 2020....

I would argue that the cost and timeline of any additional nuclear plants represent a challenge ~10x greater than the intermittence of renewables.

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
As if the inability to vary output is an advantage.
 

ItsNotAboutTheMoney

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,228
7,322
Maine
I think all that Shill'n-berger managed to do is refresh the discussion on just how terrible of an idea wasting more limited time and money on new nuclear is in 2020....

I would argue that the cost and timeline of any additional nuclear plants represent a challenge ~10x greater than the intermittence of renewables.

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

That's one of the better articles I've read on decarbonization but I think it still has a nuclear bias since it treats the investment requirements as the same, when there is clearly a huge difference.

Cheap renewables means it's they're growing rapidly and mean that it's easy to attract investment for anything related.
Plus, battery technology has a bunch of different applications, so even without variable renewables it'll continue to have large scale investment, and the cheaper that becomes, the fewer other dispatchable sources you'd need.
 

mspohr

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2014
8,978
10,392
California
Final canister of nuclear waste transferred to storage facility at San Onofre

“It’s a sad day,” said Ray Lutz, national coordinator for the advocacy group Citizens’ Oversight. “People say, well, [the waste issue] is fine right now and we’ll deal with it later. But this is what they’ve said ever since they started this nuclear industry — we’ll figure it out later, the five favorite words.”

As thorny as the transfer operations were, a more complicated issue remains: how long the canisters will stay there.

SONGS is not unique. About 80,000 metric tons of waste from commercial nuclear plants are stored across the country — 121 sites in 35 states — because the federal government has not constructed a repository to store any of it.
 

SageBrush

REJECT Fascism
May 7, 2015
12,084
14,993
New Mexico

miimura

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2013
5,989
5,567
Los Altos, CA
It doesn't make sense for a small municipal utility to participate in a project like the NuScale one at INL with up-front costs. If they can sign a PPA at justifiable rates, sure, go ahead as long as they only pay for power delivered. Putting up another lump sum over $600k without any promise of actual power delivery seems like it should be a non-starter.
 

ItsNotAboutTheMoney

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,228
7,322
Maine
After 48 Years, Democrats Endorse Nuclear Energy In Platform

In another argument towards both parties being the same when it comes to gross incompetence and contempt for the environment, the Democrats endorse nuclear power in the party plank.

It's for more political than that. The Democrats are deliberately not _excluding_ some of the technologies in their platform, but they know full well what the current costs and cost trajectories are, so they can include nuclear and carbon capture to appease voters, when in reality they're really backing wind, solar, and geothermal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nwdiver

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top