The Economic Feasibility of Nuclear Power
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- The economic feasibility of Nuclear Power is under an unprecedented microscope, with evolving energy solutions and changing market dynamics, the mathematical foundation that once supported the nuclear industry's robustness is now slipping. While traditional energy giants like the US, France, and Russia grapple with the shifting sands of economic viability, emergent green energy leaders are questioning the place of nuclear power in tomorrow's energy mosaic. Is nuclear energy a mere bridging solution in our transition to a carbon-neutral future, or is it an unsustainable relic of the past? We ask our panel of experts:
On the panel this week:
- Paul Dorfman (SPRU)
- David Schlissel (IEEFA)
- James Acton (CEIP)
Intro: 00:00
PART 1: 05:32
PART 2: 22:30
PART 3: 33:56
Outro: 52:50
Also check out
- The Winners and Losers of Energy Transition - The Green Line: • The Winners and Losers...
- The Black Market for Nuclear Weapons: • The Black Market for N...
- The Death of the US Dollar?: • The Death of the US Do...
Follow the show on @TheRedLinePod
Follow Michael on @MikeHilliardAus
Support the show at: / theredlinepod
For more info, please visit: www.theredlinepodcast.com/
The idea that a baseload component is an outdated concept seems nonsensical to me given that solar and wind do not reliably produce 24/7. And as was said, with the continuing move to working from home and increasingly flexible hours, there will be an increase in demand in the evenings after sunset. I'm not one of those crazy deniers, but i hope someone will explain why baseload is outdated. I mean, we still need and use baseload. What else can we use?
It's not outdated. These guests want you to think it's outdated to make wind and solar seem more viable. They are not.
@roddeazevedo one if them directly said it. I think it was the 2nd guy
@@royalwins2030 they use batteries, by batteries I mean natural gas peaker plants.
Nuclear energy & research needs to be subsidized by governments, we can’t let short term financial decisions screw us over in 100+ years. Base load will always exist, the vast majority of people still work normal jobs hours, even if at home.
Renewables are great but I’m concerned about sourcing enough rare earths for solar and what happens with solar when disposed of. And battery storage technology is not YET at the point were we can solely rely on that with little to no need of non renewables.
Get so big! 😊
This was a rough one
I still think there's a strategic incentive to have steady-production powerful plants as a national security asset, especially if it incorporates fast breeder stages to render nuclear waste solutions extremely cheap.
Still I can count conversations in favour of nuclear energy which makes sense on one hand. (That is a hidden appreciation)
Canada was unfortunately ignored, but it will the first G7 nation to have commercial grid-scale SMRs currently being built in Ontario aided by a low interest 1B$ loan by the infra dev bank. If the first phase is successful more modules will be added. Just last month Dual Fluid Energy Inc., a Vancouver-based nuclear power startup offering an intriguing Gen 5 model of SMR announced it will be building and testing a 300 MWe prototype in Rwanda to avoid the long regulatory delays in Canada. They will use a liquid fuel compound at high heat 1000C and liquid lead for heat. Apparently their larger models would be able to power the recycling nuclear fuel using already proven tech, using it almost completely thus largely eliminating the problem of long-term storage of waste. Fingers crossed!
Palo Verde Generation station, a 4GW nuclear plant was built IN THE DESERT, on time, for inflation adjusted 12 billion dollars. High cost isn't inherent to nuclear power, we made it that way.
Shhh don’t say the quiet part out loud someone might think it’s a good and clean
That was 40 years ago. History prices don't help without countingin inflation.
@juliane__ did you read the part where I wrote... "inflation adjusted"?
i do not understand? 12 billion dollar is extremely costly?
@@royalwins2030 sorry,slipped over it.
First time I've heard Dorfman speak. He's way out of his depth.
Yes. Dr Dorfman was a recipient of £10k from the "Greenpeace Environmental Trust" and was, along with his "Nuclear Consulting Group (NGC)" tasked with speaking out against nuclear power in the EU. I see him posting several anti-nuclear threads on Twitter/X daily, his connection with facts and knowledge of radiological risk is surface-level only in my opinion. Roughly half of his statements about nuclear power are dubious at best. Just a few days ago he triple-posted a Greenpeace article and had excerpts from it in each separate thread. I would think a better guest would be James Hansen formerly of NASA Goddard to speak on nuclear power @@roddeazevedo
Its true that capitalism and free trade contributed so much to human prosperity and innovation BUT it takes decades for a nuclear power plant to produce enough electricity to justify their initial costs so i believe governments need to step up and generate funding for new nuclear power plants
I'll have to watch the whole video but first off the insane cost of nuclear builds is largely a political issue. Insane and redundant regulations, endless permits and lawsuits. Nuclear plants that were built in the 60's and 70's were built relatively cheaply and quickly. Renewables should NOT be subsidized, they require a tremendous amount of materials to construct, they take up a huge amount of space and they are INTERMITTENT. The intermittent nature of wind/solar makes electricity grids impossible to manage. States need to reform nuclear regulation, decide on one nuclear plant design, and build hundreds of them.
Nuclear generation has it own issues with balancing the grid. Meanwhile in my home area they regularly reduce the gas power to the bare minimum at night because we have so much wind and they've just started on a new large windfarm. The energy companies and regulators have learnt how to balance the grid.
@bernadmanny I have no doubt they have learned to better balance the grid. I'm sure that works fine when wind is 10% of generation. What do you do when renewables are 40% of generation? Do you have a whole fleet of gas plants sitting there idling in case they are needed? Who pays for that? Why should we build our power system, one of the fundamental building blocks of our civilization, on something so inherently unreliable? Something we can't control.
@@royalwins2030 Well between wind and solar most days average between 50-70% for 1.8 million people.
This is an relatively tiny amount of people, it's less than a quarter of the population of just New York City @@bernadmanny
It's a proof of concept, but NYC is different I grant you. For high population density areas nuclear may be _part_ of the solution, they even said so in the episode.
This wasn't a fair and balanced program. They had basically 2 anti nuclear people and one lukewarm guy. Was it too much to ask for just 1 pro-nuclear guest?
The program is about economic feasibility, not political stances towards nuclear power. The discussion is almost entirely focused on costs and cost comparisons, with the (accurate) assumption that private power companies will do what is profitable. How is being pro or against nuclear at all relevant, when we're just talking dollars?
@kuenmao I wanted someone on there to say that under current conditions it's not economically attractive but that's not how it has to be. Point Beach Nuclear plant was built in 5 years from 1968 to 1972. It cost in inflation adjusted terms $884 million. It has been producing 1 GW of power for 50 years. I wanted someone to say that we can build this quickly and cost effectively. It has been done b4. It's not inherent it's not a LAW OF NATURE that nuclear is expensive. Also the power markets are totally messed up. Power companies don't care how much of a nightmare intermittent power sources make grid management. Are the cost of maintaining the natural gas power plants that fire up when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing priced into the renewables? What about disposal costs for the turbine blades and the panels themselves? I just generally dislike how this was handled.
@@kuenmaoBecause we can't be sure the figures being presented here by an aledgedly biased panel are correct. I want to hear the other side of the argument even if it's wrong. For instance, how does gas vs nuclear vs wind vs solar work out over say a 50 year period? How long do wind farms last and how are they recycled? Same for solar. What is the level of polution produced by the manufacturing phase for each type of energy source and what is the cost of decomisioning for each? Will I be able to recycle my solar panels or do they go into landfill? And I'll add that I'm neutral. I don't care about the politics.
Preach. Renewable energy isnt reliable, and these guests advocate for more international regulations on fossil fuels which pull the ladder up from poorer nations looking to keep the lights on.
Environmentalists shot themselves in the foot opposing nuclear from the get go when it is the cleanest reliable energy possible.
In addition to all this, it doesn't make sense that these left-leaning energy lobbies are suddenly concerned about the initial costs of nuclear production when the left wing worldwide has no qualms throwing unquantifiable amounts of cash at any other governmental programs.
Incredibly frustrating; this was a disappointing episode compared to TRL's balanced reputation
@@royalwins2030do you have any concept of how expensive it is to dispose of nuclear waste? Even the Synroc process developed in Australia does not deal with the dangerous isotopes
Let me guess... All of these guests ignore the fact that wind and solar get massive subsidies and don't factor into account that they're only viable with an already existing baseload of electricity. Replace the entire energy grid of Australia with existing hydro + wind and solar ONLY and then look at how much batteries you would need. You'd need an entire freakin' city made out of batteries. Now imagine that same thing except with EV cars only that now need charging from the grid... Ignoring nuclear in our push for green energy is so insanely stupid.
Damn this episode lost the show alot of credibility at least to me
If you cant get a balanced panel on nuclear energy is their anything you can get a balanced panel on?
The only thing that makes non nuclear green energy even debatably viable are the subsidies that should be going to nuclear if we're going to subsidize anything
Terrible episode
This. Not sure but don’t think any guest actually disclosed the basis for their per Kw cost claims. Love this podcast but this one was preposterously disingenuous.