Former Google VP Starts a Company Promising Clean and Safe Nuclear Energy(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Former Google VP Starts a Company Promising Clean and Safe Nuclear Energy
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-03/former-google-vice-president-starts-a-company-promising-clean-and-safe-nuclear-energy
172 comments
> The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale are fossil fuels, primarily coal.
Sure, but... will this be the same in 10 years? 20? 50? Within merely the past 3 years, the amount of battery energy storage has expanded by a few orders of magnitude.
Because when you build a nuclear power plant, it takes a minimum of a decade to go from on paper to operation, and the operational life, which pays off the capex at the beginning, is hopefully, at least 50.
Nuclear power isn't agile. It has poor reactivity to future market changes. It costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular. You can't commission it in 100MW increments. A solar power plant requires a dozen handy men and a couple of electrical engineers to maintain, a nuclear power plant requires a few dozen nuclear engineers. Solar power doesn't have publicly socialized decommissioning or waste storage costs.
I'm not trying to tell you nuclear doesn't have a future. What I am saying, with the likes of Tesla Energy and the rise in solar + battery storage, is that the energy grid is in for turbulent times in the next few decades. This makes the economics of nuclear questionable - we don't know if it is going to be economically viable in a few decades.
If I had $10b? I wouldn't touch the nuclear energy sector, personally.
Sure, but... will this be the same in 10 years? 20? 50? Within merely the past 3 years, the amount of battery energy storage has expanded by a few orders of magnitude.
Because when you build a nuclear power plant, it takes a minimum of a decade to go from on paper to operation, and the operational life, which pays off the capex at the beginning, is hopefully, at least 50.
Nuclear power isn't agile. It has poor reactivity to future market changes. It costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular. You can't commission it in 100MW increments. A solar power plant requires a dozen handy men and a couple of electrical engineers to maintain, a nuclear power plant requires a few dozen nuclear engineers. Solar power doesn't have publicly socialized decommissioning or waste storage costs.
I'm not trying to tell you nuclear doesn't have a future. What I am saying, with the likes of Tesla Energy and the rise in solar + battery storage, is that the energy grid is in for turbulent times in the next few decades. This makes the economics of nuclear questionable - we don't know if it is going to be economically viable in a few decades.
If I had $10b? I wouldn't touch the nuclear energy sector, personally.
> It costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular.
One of my primary concerns with nuclear power is that it's very much dependent on the actual order of things carrying on as usual, meaning stable Governments, skilled technicians available etc. What would have happened if Syria (a secular state until not that long ago) had had civilian nuclear plants? Answer: they would most probably have fallen under the hands of either ISIS or an Al-Qaida offshoot. We had the same issue after the Soviet Union collapsed. Had the political uncertainty and power vacuum continued for much longer into the '90s then nobody knows what could have happened to their civil nuclear plants.
One of my primary concerns with nuclear power is that it's very much dependent on the actual order of things carrying on as usual, meaning stable Governments, skilled technicians available etc. What would have happened if Syria (a secular state until not that long ago) had had civilian nuclear plants? Answer: they would most probably have fallen under the hands of either ISIS or an Al-Qaida offshoot. We had the same issue after the Soviet Union collapsed. Had the political uncertainty and power vacuum continued for much longer into the '90s then nobody knows what could have happened to their civil nuclear plants.
WKUK did a skit on this; well, more a commentary on the social/political contract, but still related and amusing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM
That was a fantastic video! Thanks for sharing it.
How is this more concerning than the raw amount of weapons that a lying around everywhere? Giving them access to cheap power or a potential local weapon doesn't seem like that pressing of an issue.
The concern for me is that a nuclear power plant and its associated spent fuel storage pools are a facility that requires an unwavering commitment to maintenance and upkeep by highly specialized personnel—not just for as long as you want power out of it, but for decades beyond.
Coal isn't like this. If you stop needing power, you stop feeding it coal, and the machinery can sit there idle, doing no further harm.
I'm not a coal-booster, but I absolutely see the concern about regime change and commitment to the safety of a nuclear installation. Between Trump and Brexit, how confident are we that even first world nations are capable of taking on the long term responsibility for such a project?
Coal isn't like this. If you stop needing power, you stop feeding it coal, and the machinery can sit there idle, doing no further harm.
I'm not a coal-booster, but I absolutely see the concern about regime change and commitment to the safety of a nuclear installation. Between Trump and Brexit, how confident are we that even first world nations are capable of taking on the long term responsibility for such a project?
"Between Trump and Brexit, how confident are we that even first world nations are capable of taking on the long term responsibility for such a project?"
Extremely.
Extremely.
This post did nothing to advance the conversation. There's nothing thought invoking, no statistics, and no argument. Please provide substance to your posts in the future.
[deleted]
> How is this more concerning than the raw amount of weapons that a lying around everywhere?
Is this a serious question? Conventional weapons are a lot less deadly if captured by the wrong people compared to nuclear-based installations.
Is this a serious question? Conventional weapons are a lot less deadly if captured by the wrong people compared to nuclear-based installations.
Chernobyl killed 38 people directly, and led to a moderate increase in cancer rates. I'd say 1000 bullets could outkill it.
Here in the real world, you have to measure options against other real world options. The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale are fossil fuels, primarily coal. Coal plants emit much more radiation than nuclear plants - even old ones. There's lots of research about HOW MUCH more radioactive coal power is, but we're talking about anywhere from 50-200% more. Coal power is responsible for 800,000 deaths per year, WHEN IT'S WORKING PROPERLY. That's the bar nuclear, and any other alternative baseload power source, has to beat. It doesn't have to failure proof, it doesn't have to have zero deaths. It just has to be significantly better than the alternatives.
Refusing to consider a power source unless it has zero deaths, zero radiation, zero side effects for all time, is living in a fantasy world. It's the paradigm promoted by the fossil fuel industry, and bought hook line and sinker by the dumber end of the environmentalist movement. And it keeps us from ever decreasing our power generation carbon footprint.