There's no "right" thing when it comes to nuclear reactors - just what's cheaper. The operators themselves are on record that at this point it would make no sense to let the reactors work longer (because of supply of nuclear fuel rods).
The price of nuclear is not a technical issue, it's a political issue. If there's a will for reform, prices can be driven down by a lot. Look up the word "ALARA" on this page for an example of this:
While I'm sure there would be extreme challenges, the alternatives are not exactly great either if you look at the big picture. Germany should probably do like France and build new nuclear power plants too, though, while keeping investments in solar and wind and storage. We need everything, no point in tying your hands behind your back by discarding nuclear.
I listened to the Jason Crawford talk you linked to a while back.
I'm fascinated by the stance of many in my Twitter sphere which is more close to the nuclear lobby than it's here in Germany. Let me try to give you my understanding why Germans (including German scientists) are skeptical about the economics.
First, we need to distinguish three sceanrios:
1) Power plants are working currently
2) Power plants are working currently but are sheduled for deactivation
3) Blank slate
In 1) you can make the case that it's cheaper to let them run longer. 2) has nothing to do with regulation, as I said, the operators can't get the fuel rods in time. 3) is interesting.
We have to look at CAPEX and OPEX.
I think it's plausible that the time and costs it takes to build a nuclear power plant is higher than renewables. I haven't seen a calculation what percentage of CAPEX is due to regulation. (And I don't think decomissiong costs are included in most comparisons.)
Keep in mind that renewables are regulated as well. Wind needs to show multi-year-long investigations what types of birds are nesting where the wind turbine shall be placed. Or solar faces headwinds because it can't be installed on roofs that belong the landlord.
But for the sake of the argument, let's assume CAPEX is the same per kwh. (It's still many times faster to install Solar on roofs.)
When we look at waste disposal, regulation actually does nuclear a favor by collectivizing the costs. No insurer in the world takes on such a longterm risk.
If you take it all together I'm skeptical that if we get rid of ALARA suddenly everything makes sense economically. I'm sure not all regulation is neccessary, but I'm also sure some is.
On top of the unclear cost advantage now come other perspectives, such as the fear of nuclear fallout (overrated imho) and the decentralization aspect of solar (underrated imho).
Let's agree to disagree. Lot of countries are showing that nuclear makes sense with a half-good policy, and could be much better with modern reactors and even better policy.
To me, it's very clear that it's less difficult to get more fuel for German reactors than to have Russia turn the gas off during the winer at some point.
Of course it's better than to be dependant on Russia. If you want to shut down the discussion with that, so be it.
But for me the question remains: What is faster and cheaper to ramp up from now on going forward: Renewables or Nuclear? (And maybe even the question: What is more bulletproof in case some entity wants to sabotage your energy network?)
The countries you're talking about are in camp 1), not 2) or 3). Please, if you have numbers that contradict the Wikipedia page tell me.
Note that I don't talk about the new possibilities with Fission - we should explore that for sure.
One thing I was reading was that Russia is the largest raw materials exporter for semiconductor. I saw percentages ranging somewhere between 30 to 70% depending on the material.
What I worry is after the TSMC and Samsung sanctions if Russia choses to stop those exports what will happen to the already shortage suffering industry?
Their whole economy is basically commodities, so it's not surprising. The world will have to find other sources, can't stay dependent on them if they are sole source on anything. That would be just as stupid as Germany increasing its dependence on Russian gas..
That piece (from Twitter) about urban warfare gave me chills, and hope for Ukrainians. They're defending their home, which will give them a huge advantage tactically and motivationally.
Another great update! Love the work.
Thank you Kevin, I appreciate the feedback -- sincerely, writing is lonely, so it's good to hear from you! 💚 🥃
There's no "right" thing when it comes to nuclear reactors - just what's cheaper. The operators themselves are on record that at this point it would make no sense to let the reactors work longer (because of supply of nuclear fuel rods).
The price of nuclear is not a technical issue, it's a political issue. If there's a will for reform, prices can be driven down by a lot. Look up the word "ALARA" on this page for an example of this:
https://www.libertyrpf.com/p/191-negawatts-global-foundries-s
While I'm sure there would be extreme challenges, the alternatives are not exactly great either if you look at the big picture. Germany should probably do like France and build new nuclear power plants too, though, while keeping investments in solar and wind and storage. We need everything, no point in tying your hands behind your back by discarding nuclear.
I listened to the Jason Crawford talk you linked to a while back.
I'm fascinated by the stance of many in my Twitter sphere which is more close to the nuclear lobby than it's here in Germany. Let me try to give you my understanding why Germans (including German scientists) are skeptical about the economics.
First, we need to distinguish three sceanrios:
1) Power plants are working currently
2) Power plants are working currently but are sheduled for deactivation
3) Blank slate
In 1) you can make the case that it's cheaper to let them run longer. 2) has nothing to do with regulation, as I said, the operators can't get the fuel rods in time. 3) is interesting.
We have to look at CAPEX and OPEX.
I think it's plausible that the time and costs it takes to build a nuclear power plant is higher than renewables. I haven't seen a calculation what percentage of CAPEX is due to regulation. (And I don't think decomissiong costs are included in most comparisons.)
Keep in mind that renewables are regulated as well. Wind needs to show multi-year-long investigations what types of birds are nesting where the wind turbine shall be placed. Or solar faces headwinds because it can't be installed on roofs that belong the landlord.
But for the sake of the argument, let's assume CAPEX is the same per kwh. (It's still many times faster to install Solar on roofs.)
When it comes to OPEX, Wikipedia (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants?utm_source=pocket_mylist#/Overview) says renewables are already cheaper. I don't think you can play the regulation-card in operating costs as much as in upfront investments, but let's say the variable costs per kwh are the same - before waste disposal.
When we look at waste disposal, regulation actually does nuclear a favor by collectivizing the costs. No insurer in the world takes on such a longterm risk.
If you take it all together I'm skeptical that if we get rid of ALARA suddenly everything makes sense economically. I'm sure not all regulation is neccessary, but I'm also sure some is.
On top of the unclear cost advantage now come other perspectives, such as the fear of nuclear fallout (overrated imho) and the decentralization aspect of solar (underrated imho).
Let's agree to disagree. Lot of countries are showing that nuclear makes sense with a half-good policy, and could be much better with modern reactors and even better policy.
To me, it's very clear that it's less difficult to get more fuel for German reactors than to have Russia turn the gas off during the winer at some point.
Of course it's better than to be dependant on Russia. If you want to shut down the discussion with that, so be it.
But for me the question remains: What is faster and cheaper to ramp up from now on going forward: Renewables or Nuclear? (And maybe even the question: What is more bulletproof in case some entity wants to sabotage your energy network?)
The countries you're talking about are in camp 1), not 2) or 3). Please, if you have numbers that contradict the Wikipedia page tell me.
Note that I don't talk about the new possibilities with Fission - we should explore that for sure.
One thing I was reading was that Russia is the largest raw materials exporter for semiconductor. I saw percentages ranging somewhere between 30 to 70% depending on the material.
What I worry is after the TSMC and Samsung sanctions if Russia choses to stop those exports what will happen to the already shortage suffering industry?
https://www.reuters.com/technology/white-house-tells-chip-industry-brace-russian-supply-disruptions-2022-02-11/
Their whole economy is basically commodities, so it's not surprising. The world will have to find other sources, can't stay dependent on them if they are sole source on anything. That would be just as stupid as Germany increasing its dependence on Russian gas..
That piece (from Twitter) about urban warfare gave me chills, and hope for Ukrainians. They're defending their home, which will give them a huge advantage tactically and motivationally.
It's insane that it has come to that, all because of Putin's choice. So tragic..
Nice write up on Ukraine and interesting note on Microsoft
Thanks for reading and for the feedback! 💚 🥃