Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Maladict]

A sad states of affairs. It will be up to the courts to protect people against themselves.

[The Minsky Moment]

EDF just announced another 1.5 billion euro of overruns at its Flammanville project.  That would take costs to 14.4 billions (against 3.3 billion budgeted); the project is currently 3 years behind schedule.

Other EPR projects have suffered similar problems.  An EPR project in Finland is over a decade past schedule and closing in on triple cost overruns.  Hinckley Point is not quite as bad (yet) but also has been delayed and is likely to come in well above estimated cost.

This isn't just an EDF/EPR issue as Westinghouse's troubles with its AP1000 were so bad it forced the company into bankruptcy, rather than take responsibility for the billions in cost overruns it was sustaining on its US projects.

I'm just not seeing crash nuclear construction program as a feasible quick solution to climate change problems.  One of the problems for Westinghouse was finding experienced and reliable contractors to build plant components and due the on-site construction work.  That's a significant bottleneck that would hamstring any attempt at rapid increases in construction pace.

Given the costs, you have to ask what the payoff would be from investing that kind of money into battery development and storage infrastructure.  Solar has its issues but construction is laughably easy compared to nuclear.

[Malthus]

EDF just announced another 1.5 billion euro of overruns at its Flammanville project.  That would take costs to 14.4 billions (against 3.3 billion budgeted); the project is currently 3 years behind schedule.

Other EPR projects have suffered similar problems.  An EPR project in Finland is over a decade past schedule and closing in on triple cost overruns.  Hinckley Point is not quite as bad (yet) but also has been delayed and is likely to come in well above estimated cost.

This isn't just an EDF/EPR issue as Westinghouse's troubles with its AP1000 were so bad it forced the company into bankruptcy, rather than take responsibility for the billions in cost overruns it was sustaining on its US projects.

I'm just not seeing crash nuclear construction program as a feasible quick solution to climate change problems.  One of the problems for Westinghouse was finding experienced and reliable contractors to build plant components and due the on-site construction work.  That's a significant bottleneck that would hamstring any attempt at rapid increases in construction pace.

Given the costs, you have to ask what the payoff would be from investing that kind of money into battery development and storage infrastructure.  Solar has its issues but construction is laughably easy compared to nuclear.

I'm pinning my hopes on solar and wind. The cost per output is ever decreasing, it is easy to expand, and there is allegedly evidence that base load issues aren't as big a problem as had been thought.

The major problem with nuclear has always been the upfront financial gamble is so vast and so subject to regulatory interference, and ever-cheaper wind and solar threaten to make that gamble even worse in the future. 

[The Brain]

EDF just announced another 1.5 billion euro of overruns at its Flammanville project.  That would take costs to 14.4 billions (against 3.3 billion budgeted); the project is currently 3 years behind schedule.

Other EPR projects have suffered similar problems.  An EPR project in Finland is over a decade past schedule and closing in on triple cost overruns.  Hinckley Point is not quite as bad (yet) but also has been delayed and is likely to come in well above estimated cost.

This isn't just an EDF/EPR issue as Westinghouse's troubles with its AP1000 were so bad it forced the company into bankruptcy, rather than take responsibility for the billions in cost overruns it was sustaining on its US projects.

I'm just not seeing crash nuclear construction program as a feasible quick solution to climate change problems.  One of the problems for Westinghouse was finding experienced and reliable contractors to build plant components and due the on-site construction work.  That's a significant bottleneck that would hamstring any attempt at rapid increases in construction pace.

Given the costs, you have to ask what the payoff would be from investing that kind of money into battery development and storage infrastructure.  Solar has its issues but construction is laughably easy compared to nuclear.

We have done crash expansion of nuclear before so we know it's physically possible. But we also know that you will never have to worry since it's politically impossible.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts6vzuPDOwo

Extinction Rebellion shuts down London City Airport.

[Tonitrus]

It seems to me that arguments relating to the excessive cost of expanding nuclear power is similar to argument about the costs of the death penalty.  In both cases, those costs are only of our own making...in terms of regulation/safeguards...but the potential costs of doing without those is pretty terrible.

[The Minsky Moment]

Westinghouse's problems were not principally related to regulatory burden.  They did screw up some paperwork but that was an avoidable corporate screw up.  The bigger problem was that they committed a pre-fab design that was cost-effective on paper but in practice they couldn't find enough reliable suppliers to make the pre-fab components at a reasonable cost or on a reasonable schedule.  They also decided to streamline by acting as the general contractor on the US jobs and vastly underestimated what was entailed in doing that job. 

[Malthus]

It seems to me that arguments relating to the excessive cost of expanding nuclear power is similar to argument about the costs of the death penalty.  In both cases, those costs are only of our own making...in terms of regulation/safeguards...but the potential costs of doing without those is pretty terrible.

Regulatory costs are part of it. They are not the whole of it, though. Nor is the design problems Westinghouse experienced the whole problem either.

The problem also exists inherent in the nature of nuclear power.

Assume for the moment that regulatory costs were not a factor and the design is doable. The issue then becomes - you have to front nearly the whole of the cost of making nuclear power. This is because by far the greatest cost is making the plant itself. The fuel is a minor expense besides the enormous cost of building the plant.

This means that you have to put the money up first, then recoup that investment by selling power over the expected life of the plant. Assume the plant will last 30 years, at the end of which time it will be decommissioned. The cost of the power over each one of those 30 years must be high enough to cover the (huge) cost of building the plant, maintaining it for 30 years, and the (huge) cost of decommissioning it after 30 years - and make a profit on top.

This is great as long as you can charge enough for the power. However, if other forms of power are cheaper, the plant can start to feel like a big white elephant -  you are now locked in to selling its power at a fixed rate to make back your upfront investment and costs (like decommissioning) you can't get out of.

Of course, every other form of power has costs as well.  The difference is that new forms of power (solar, wind, geo) are rapidly becoming much cheaper, and each unit is much smaller and easier to replace than a conventional nuke plant. Moreover, even in the nuclear field, new kinds of plants that are much smaller than the traditional ones are becoming more feasible. Your 30-year investment in one type of tech selling power at a fixed price only works out if other forms of power don't come in cheaper - and all signs point to them doing just that.

In short, conventional nuclear is inherently financially risky.

[The Minsky Moment]

In comparison, solar is very easy to build. You need panels (which are now mass produced in the usual places), a bunch of posts to mount them on, some inverters, electrical cabling. Don't need to worry much about water, waste removal/treatment, ventilation, piping and all the crap that comes with big fossil fuel or nuke plants.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. Batteries are very key to making renewables work.

But also the off-grid renewable energy emerging in Africa is very interesting. It's possibly developing an energy network in an entirely different way than any other part of the world and skipping steps in between, a bit like the mobile network.

It is part of what I like about the Green New Deal as a rhetorical device is I think we do just need to absolute throw money at research on this - on everything - in the way that the New Deal did. Something will work and even the stuff that doesn't will do something, like the biotech boom after the War on Cancer. I think the old rhetoric wouldstill  be a War on Carbon or Climate Change, but war as a rhetorical device is a little bit discredited.

[Berkut]

If the Green New Deal were just that, it would get a lot of support, and be hard to argue against.

If only.

[Sheilbh]

Sure, but I think it's a useful rhetorical device and the plan doesn't matter. I think it needs a mindset shift of being willing to spend a proportion of GDP that is like a war, a new deal, a moonshot or whatever.

The plan is secondary to that mindshift because I think cost/benefit analysis is probably not enough and not going to deliver results.

[Admiral Yi]

A war in which most of the military spending goes to school debt forgiveness and guaranteed public employment.

[Zoupa]

A war in which most of the military spending goes to school debt forgiveness and guaranteed public employment.

What a terrible idea indeed. 

[Admiral Yi]

What a terrible idea indeed. 

It's a great idea if you don't give a fuck about winning the war.