617
submitted 1 year ago by btaf45@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

The French also built a bunch of cheap reactors by building the same design. But that paradigm is not as common as it should be. Every Reactor in the US is a custom design.

Capitalism, goes with the cheapest option, even if it's not the best. Except that's not actually how it works, It actually goes with the option that makes the most money, regardless of who it hurts. That's the capitalism I know and hate.

Capitalism is why oil companies still exist.

China is building wind and solar farms, but they also rank third in the world for number of nuclear power capacity, and are building more plants. They have 22 plants under construction right now, and a further 70 are in development.

So yeah, a state controlled economy can do it quite easily, capitalism cannot.

The issue with the capitalist approach is called a bootstrapping paradox. You need to sell the thing to develop the thing, and you can't sell it without first developing it. Literally needing to reach down, grab your own boot straps, and lift yourself up.

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Well of course you can build them when price is no concern.

But when price matters nuclear is too expensive.

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Again, capitalism cannot fix the problems created by capitalism.

And you better believe that the factories that pump out solar cells and wind turbines were initially built with government money.

The federal government has been throwing money at solar and wind projects. And these days it pays off, but in the early days, it did not. Wind was particularly expensive for the power generated for about 5-10 years. And then more factories came online and the price rapidly fell.

The same crowd that told us to wait for wind to become viable, screams that nuclear is too expensive and should get no government money at all.

That same crowd often sues new nuclear power projects, driving up the cost further. All because they are fucking idiots who want fossil fuels to win.

See, that's the dirty little secret. Every wind and solar farm needs a backup power source for when they're offline. And that backup is always natural gas.

Those natural gas peaker plants are being built at a breakneck pace. All because solar and wind get priority on the grid. And then when they fall off, you need a near instant ramp up of power, which only natural gas can provide.

Batteries that can handle the load don't actually exist yet, and likely require more investment than it would take to get a small modular reactor factory going full steam.

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Nuclear has huge investment since 1940's and tonnes of money is still going into it. More money is not going to help anytime soon. It's just throwing good money at bad. I'm not saying it won't be cracked eventually. But with the limited time and money in the system wind and solar are obviously the answers.

Capitalism can easily solve the problem with externalities. Very few people that support capitalism wouldn't also support government investment so the fact that capitalist governments have funded capital gains is not at all a failure of capitalism. That would be like saying governments funding schools to increase human capital to raise more taxes is a failure of capitalism. In fact it is the optimal solution for all even in a capitalist society.

There is always wind or solar. If you build enough of it they the low points aren't that low anymore. There is still huge amounts of hydro on most continents. We are not even 10% of the way to where we need to be with renewables. The fact that they only offset gas some of the time doesn't mean they won't ever work, it just means we haven't built enough yet.

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It had a huge investment in the 40s, 50s and 60s. At least in the US.

Really, we should acknowledge again that the extreme price of nuclear is a US problem, and not as applicable to the rest of the world, although some of the regulatory sabotage was exported to other countries via treaty.

And again, capitalism cannot solve a problem that capitalism created, because oil is still too fucking profitable to solve it.

As to your example of governments running schools to make better workers for capitalism... Need I say more? Schools are not often run for profit, and the ones that are almost always perform worse than the ones that are run by the government at cost.

As to Hydo, most rivers that can support hydro are already tapped, and creating artificial lakes is worse for the environment than almost anything else you can do. The rotting plant matter at the bottom emits more methane than people realize. And that's not even mentioning the ecological damage to the river itself.

As to wind and solar, sure, there's somewhere on the planet you could probably build more, but getting the power from those places to where it's needed is going to cost more than just building an on site nuclear plant, even at the artificially elevated US prices.

This goes into why prices in the US are elevated. It's a fascinating read. It doesn't talk about some of the issues of scale, i.e. the fact that new nuclear plants are often so huge that they need special everything to even be built. Which is actually an outgrowth of the regulatory licensing structure, but it does cover some of the stupidity around the regulations.

this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
617 points (98.0% liked)

News

23296 readers
1034 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS