Nuclear power is not 10x cheaper. It carries large risks so some regulation cannot be skipped. I concur that there is some unnecessary regulation, but the evidence such as the linked source just doesn’t leave “room” for a 10x gain. Currently the data suggests it doesn’t provide an economic gain over natural gas unless the carbon emissions are priced in, and they are not in most countries.
I recommend reading the Roots of Progress article I linked to in the post. Most of the reason why nuclear power is high cost is because of the burdensome regulations. And of course, regulation is not uniformly bad, but it seems from the chart Devanney Figure 7.11 in the article that we could have relatively safe nuclear energy for a fraction of its current price.
Ok, I look at the chart. It seems to show that in the 1970s the cost per kw of capacity of nuclear hit a trough at about $1 a watt*. Was this corrected for inflation? And that the cost of new capacity has soured to ridiculous levels.
We still have many of those reactors built in the 1970s. They are linked in the lazard data above as ‘paid for’ reactors. They are $29 a megawatt-hour. Solar hits as low as $31 a megawatt-hour, and natural gas $28 in the same ‘paid for case’.
So it appears that no, actually, we cannot get energy for 10x lower than the current price. (I think as a rational agent you need to ‘update’ now or prove that this statement is false?)
My other point was that if other nations could do it—not all of them have the same regulatory scheme. If other nations could build reactors at a fraction of the price they would benefit. And China has a strong incentive if this were true—they have a major pollution problem with coal. But, “the industry has not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016”.
So this suggests that either : the inefficient and unproductive regulatory scheme you mention is so ‘viral’ that even a country that appears to be able to shove through other major changes overnight just can’t help itself but to make nuclear unproductive through too much regulation. Or in fact there isn’t the opportunity for 10x lower costs, that in fact a nuclear reactor is complicated and made of expensive parts that are made in tiny quantities and hard to reduce in cost, that after a reactor is paid for it still requires a huge crew to care and feed it, and that the radiation fields whenever there is a leak or need to work on certain areas of the plant make it far more difficult and expensive to work on, even though the risk to the general public may be very low. Oh and the government has an incentive to carefully monitor every nuclear reactor just to make sure someone isn’t making plutonium.
Back to the original topic of AI timelines: with AI systems there isn’t a 10 year investment or a need to get specialized parts only made in Japan to make an AI. It’s not just the software you will need, AI systems do need specialized compute platforms, but there are multiple vendors for these and most countries are going to be able to buy as much of them as they want. Therefore if a country can be lax in regulating AI systems and get “10x lower labor costs” by having the AI systems do labor instead of humans, they get an economic benefit. Therefore unless regulatory regimes are so “viral” they take over everywhere, in every nation, and prevent this everywhere, you see AI grow like wildfire in certain places, and everyone else will be forced to laxen their rules or be left behind.
As a simple example, if China banned near-term AI systems or regulated them too severely, but Australia allowed them, Australia could use them to mine for resources in deep mines too dangerous for humans and then build self replicating factories. In 5-10 years of exponential growth their industrial output would exceed all of China’s with 25 million people + a few million AI specialists they might need to bring in if they can’t work remotely. [due to regulations]
So either China has to allow them to ‘keep up’ or stop being a superpower.
We still have many of those reactors built in the 1970s. They are linked in the lazard data above as ‘paid for’ reactors. They are $29 a megawatt-hour. Solar hits as low as $31 a megawatt-hour, and natural gas $28 in the same ‘paid for case’.
Your claim here is that under optimal regulatory policy we could not possibly do better today than with 1970′s technology?
My other point was that if other nations could do it—not all of them have the same regulatory scheme. If other nations could build reactors at a fraction of the price they would benefit. And China has a strong incentive if this were true—they have a major pollution problem with coal. But, “the industry has not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016”.
from the article you linked
The 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant shocked Chinese officials and made a strong impression on many Chinese citizens. A government survey in August 2017 found that only 40% of the public supported nuclear power development.
It seems perfectly reasonable to believe China too can suffer from regulatory failure due to public misconception. In fact, given it’s state-driven economy, wouldn’t we expect market forces to be even less effective at finding low-cost solutions than in Western countries? Malinvestment seems to be a hallmark of the current Chinese system.
Your claim here is that under optimal regulatory policy we could not possibly do better today than with 1970′s technology?
Yes. I do claim that. Even if the reactors were ‘free’ they are still not better than solar/wind. So if the regulatory agencies decided to raise the accepted radiation doses by many orders of magnitude, and to just stop requiring any protections at all—ok to build a nuclear reactor in a warehouse—I am saying it wouldn’t be cost effective.
If only we had a real world example of such a regime. Oh wait, we do.
I recommend reading the Roots of Progress article I linked to in the post. Most of the reason why nuclear power is high cost is because of the burdensome regulations. And of course, regulation is not uniformly bad, but it seems from the chart Devanney Figure 7.11 in the article that we could have relatively safe nuclear energy for a fraction of its current price.
Ok, I look at the chart. It seems to show that in the 1970s the cost per kw of capacity of nuclear hit a trough at about $1 a watt*. Was this corrected for inflation? And that the cost of new capacity has soured to ridiculous levels.
We still have many of those reactors built in the 1970s. They are linked in the lazard data above as ‘paid for’ reactors. They are $29 a megawatt-hour. Solar hits as low as $31 a megawatt-hour, and natural gas $28 in the same ‘paid for case’.
So it appears that no, actually, we cannot get energy for 10x lower than the current price. (I think as a rational agent you need to ‘update’ now or prove that this statement is false?)
My other point was that if other nations could do it—not all of them have the same regulatory scheme. If other nations could build reactors at a fraction of the price they would benefit. And China has a strong incentive if this were true—they have a major pollution problem with coal. But, “the industry has not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016”.
So this suggests that either : the inefficient and unproductive regulatory scheme you mention is so ‘viral’ that even a country that appears to be able to shove through other major changes overnight just can’t help itself but to make nuclear unproductive through too much regulation. Or in fact there isn’t the opportunity for 10x lower costs, that in fact a nuclear reactor is complicated and made of expensive parts that are made in tiny quantities and hard to reduce in cost, that after a reactor is paid for it still requires a huge crew to care and feed it, and that the radiation fields whenever there is a leak or need to work on certain areas of the plant make it far more difficult and expensive to work on, even though the risk to the general public may be very low. Oh and the government has an incentive to carefully monitor every nuclear reactor just to make sure someone isn’t making plutonium.
Back to the original topic of AI timelines: with AI systems there isn’t a 10 year investment or a need to get specialized parts only made in Japan to make an AI. It’s not just the software you will need, AI systems do need specialized compute platforms, but there are multiple vendors for these and most countries are going to be able to buy as much of them as they want. Therefore if a country can be lax in regulating AI systems and get “10x lower labor costs” by having the AI systems do labor instead of humans, they get an economic benefit. Therefore unless regulatory regimes are so “viral” they take over everywhere, in every nation, and prevent this everywhere, you see AI grow like wildfire in certain places, and everyone else will be forced to laxen their rules or be left behind.
As a simple example, if China banned near-term AI systems or regulated them too severely, but Australia allowed them, Australia could use them to mine for resources in deep mines too dangerous for humans and then build self replicating factories. In 5-10 years of exponential growth their industrial output would exceed all of China’s with 25 million people + a few million AI specialists they might need to bring in if they can’t work remotely. [due to regulations]
So either China has to allow them to ‘keep up’ or stop being a superpower.
Your claim here is that under optimal regulatory policy we could not possibly do better today than with 1970′s technology?
from the article you linked
It seems perfectly reasonable to believe China too can suffer from regulatory failure due to public misconception. In fact, given it’s state-driven economy, wouldn’t we expect market forces to be even less effective at finding low-cost solutions than in Western countries? Malinvestment seems to be a hallmark of the current Chinese system.
Your claim here is that under optimal regulatory policy we could not possibly do better today than with 1970′s technology?
Yes. I do claim that. Even if the reactors were ‘free’ they are still not better than solar/wind. So if the regulatory agencies decided to raise the accepted radiation doses by many orders of magnitude, and to just stop requiring any protections at all—ok to build a nuclear reactor in a warehouse—I am saying it wouldn’t be cost effective.
If only we had a real world example of such a regime. Oh wait, we do.