←back to thread

Google commits to buying power generated by nuclear-energy startup Kairos Power

(www.wsj.com)
589 points atomic128 | 1 comments | 14 Oct 24 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lifeisstillgood ◴[14 Oct 24 19:47 UTC] No.41841162[source]▶
The typical reaction is I think supported by an efficient markets pov - in other words this is dumb, we know it’s dumb, but market failures make it look to the owners of capital that it’s a good investment

1. There is too much money in the world for the investments (Massive QE post 2008 and post covid). Hence people with money want returns on tokens that say 10 dollars in the front instead of say 5 dollars

2. The externalities of nuclear power are not properly priced in (see Chernobyl)

3. The price of tax compared to services received for wealthy is again out of whack and so any investment looks good because the whole chain is not paying enough tax

All in all, I believe in efficient markets and price mechanisms - I just also believe people with power and influence bend the markets to their own needs and guess what they stop being efficient - hence the need for strong governments (not strongman governments)

replies(2): >>41841270 #>>41841914 #
aoeusnth1 ◴[14 Oct 24 20:57 UTC] No.41841914[source]▶
What about the positive externalities of nuclear power? It’s unfair to only complain about negative externalities - any action whatsoever always has a negative side-effect which can be used as a cynical excuse to block it.
replies(1): >>41842612 #
1. lifeisstillgood ◴[14 Oct 24 22:11 UTC] No.41842612[source]▶
Downthread I go on (much) longer, but honestly I see the maths as simple

1. We want to generate electricity with minimal carbon output. 2. Nuclear is part of this equation (along with solar, wind and tidal. Maybe one day fusion) 3. Nuclear has large capital upfront, a maintenance cost that requires us to always be on the A game, and the cost of catastrophic failure is fucking huge. 4. The other options have downsides of course, but their ongoing maintenance is basically lower because the catastrophe cost is much much much lower. 5. It’s really hard to quantify things like “major urban area made uninhabitable”, because it has almost never happened. But it can and it will if we keep chucking risk around like this.

6. The way to stop this, no the way to align investment, is to correct price externalities - positive and negative.

If we want to re- start places like Indian Point (a relative well Managed successful nuclear plant whose history reads like a series of disasters) then we ask what if Indian point failed like Fukushima.

That’s Westchester, and most of Manhattan that suddenly looks like a disaster movie. No Fukushima was not actually as deadly as feared (1 person kinda), but the evacuation and knock on effects. Try that on the Hudson and see what the cost of evacuating New York is - I mean, shipping, finance everything.

Honestly I struggle to see what’s crazy anymore.

How about every bond raised to fund a nuclear plant has a 100 year lien attached that no payments can be made till a century of safe operation and closure has occurred.

If the financials make sense after that I will take another look.