Yes, this is the real answer. Nuclear, which is currently dropping as a percentage of global electricity demand and is now under 10% needs a miracle to reverse that and maybe reach 15% if everything goes well for it.

Meanwhile renewables are surging and every relevant expert suggests they'll dominate the future.

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-world-is-gettin...

The graph without the relatively flat hydro is even more stark.

The stuff people say about nuclear on this forum is on the level of flat earthism and they seem totally unashamed of this.

▲

nec4b 3 days ago | parent [-]

Would point to the law of economics which says only renewables can get cheaper with investments? And which law of physics makes renewables work in places, which have little wind and solar?

▲

epistasis 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's typically called Wright's Law:

https://quickonomics.com/terms/wrights-law/

But it's not a law that applies to all technologies, and it will likely end at some point, but there's at least 1-2 decades of cost decrease left.

There is no law of physics that makes renewables work where there are poor renewable resources, except through transmission, which is usually engineered using several of Maxwell's laws.

▲

nec4b 2 days ago | parent [-]

I asked which economic law makes ONLY renewables getting cheaper with time. Why couldn't nuclear also get cheaper? Maxwell laws can't help with geopolitics though.

▲

epistasis 2 days ago | parent [-]

Aha, that meaning wasn't clear to me in your original sentence.

The best research I have seen on why different technologies get their learning rates is from the interviewees of this podcast:

https://www.volts.wtf/p/which-technologies-get-cheaper-over

Some people think that SMRs are a way for nuclear to get on a learning curve, but there's just as many skeptical people as enthusiastic people about that, in my experience.

Natural energy resources are a huge source of geopolitical turmoil since the start of the industrial age. Renewables have the potential to significantly lessen these conflicts compared to what's happened with fossil fuels.

▲

nec4b 2 days ago | parent [-]

Thanks for the podcast.

>>Renewables have the potential to significantly lessen these conflicts compared to what's happened with fossil fuels.

I'm not too optimistic about it. As usual, on one side you have countries with big renewable sources, the producers and on the other side, you have countries with strong industry, which requires a lot energy, the consumers.

	▲	epistasis 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Nearly all countries will be able to power themselves quite well with renewables, and if not that they can pay the high price for nuclear power.. But in any case, renewable energy provides much more independence than feasible with fossil fuel based industry. Fossil fuels require a continuous stream of transfer to operate. When you buy 5GW of solar panels from a country, you have 30+ years of energy before you need to think about repowering the facility, and even if there's a shortage after 30 years they are still working at merely reduced production power. Those countries without the option for local renewables are no worse off for independence than before. The option of renewables only adds independence, it doesn't take it away. Thus our renewable future will be far more stable. Russia's invasion of Ukraine gives a ton of insight about these dynamics, IMHO. Ukraine's energy system was vulnerable because large thermal generators pose easy targets that can be taken out with minimal tonnage of bombs. Taking out a solar field or wind field is not as easy. And Ukraine's nuclear facilities have been actively used against them during the war by Russia. In particular, Russia has used executions/torture/coercion of nuclear reactor staff and explosions around nuclear reactors to threaten melt downs, etc. Plus, it's barely been covered anywhere, but Russia in this year used drones to damage the new brand new sarcophagus that was supposed to last 100 years, with very few paths to repair: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/chernobyl-protec... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW4BEqDS_wM And the war has also illustrated the dependence of so many countries on Russia's fossil fuels, enough to kick off inflation across the entire world. Fossil fuels are a global market, so it doesn't matter where the disruption happens, it affects prices the world over. Even though the US is supposedly energy independent when it comes to oil and natural gas, we still suffer the consequences because of that global market. A power system bulid on local production via renewables does not suffer these massive disruptions from the actions of single nation states. The inflaction Reduction Act was very aptly named, though few people today understand why, it seems. Future generations will curse us for delaying our true energy independence, which is only possible when we get off fossil fuels.

▲

ZeroGravitas 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What percentage of the earth's surface have little wind and solar? What percentage of the human population live there?

They have solar farms in Alaska and the Antarctic because it's cheaper than shipping in diesel for 6 months of the year.

And the law of economics making modular renewables cheaper is Wright's Law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effect

▲

nec4b 2 days ago | parent [-]

>>What percentage of the earth's surface have little wind and solar? What percentage of the human population live there?

Large parts of USA, Canada, non Mediterranean Europe and northern half of Asia. A lot of people live there.

>> And the law of economics making modular renewables cheaper is Wright's Law:

I asked which economic law makes ONLY renewables getting cheaper with time. Why couldn't nuclear get cheaper in time?

▲

ZeroGravitas 2 days ago | parent [-]

If you read the definition of wrights law it's fairly obvious.

> Wright's law, also known as the experience curve effect, states that as the cumulative production of a product doubles, the labor time or cost per unit declines by a fixed percentage

We're up to about 8 billion solar panels produced ever, maybe 2 billion or so a year now.

That's a lot of doublings.

There's been about 700 nuclear plants. Not a lot of doublings.

	▲	nec4b 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>> We're up to about 8 billion solar panels produced ever, maybe 2 billion or so a year now. You need a lot of panels to match one nuclear power plant though, and they were/are heavily subsidized. >> There's been about 700 nuclear plants. Not a lot of doublings. Obviously, because there was/is a lot pressure against building them. I think China demonstrates, that they can be built rather quickly and cheaper and cheaper, if the obstacles are removed. It's not really a fair competition when something heavily subsidized and the other thing is almost banned.