Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

austinvernon.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 672 posts

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#61

Post by missedthecue »

neonsunset wrote: post #57
missedthecue wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what you mean by "inferior". A horse-drawn carriage has less carbon emissions than an automobile, doesn't it? However, that's not the sole criteria.

It seems the "horse-drawn carriage" argument is being repeated across multitude of comments posted by your account. What makes this comparison with nuclear energy even remotely viable?

Much like carriages, more modern alternatives have rendered it obsolete despite the loud voices that continually refuse to accept its eventual extinction.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#62

Post by mateo1 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #18

Energy crises are caused by cheap energy. When energy is cheap people use a lot and stop investing in new sources. The resulting crisis causes high energy prices which causes people to be more efficient and to invest in new energy sources. It takes 20 or 30 years for this to play out. (mid 1970s, early 2000s, current 2022) Each cycle leaves behind a tranche of books that reprise the last crisis, with the interesting…

No post body was provided.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#63

Post by SemanticStrengh »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #55
SemanticStrengh wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have news on Westinghouse? Is had filled bankruptcy, did they survive? how? Are they in maintenance mode or do they pursue evoltution of their models? China has bought their patent and is in the process of upscaling the original Westinghouse design, is westinghouse still collaborating with china? Have they abandoned their own models? It seems according to their website they are joining the small reactor fad..

Here's some recent news: China's announced that they're building 4 more Westinghouse AP1000 PWRs. They'll use the Chinese supply chain, but it's still a big win for W. https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/news/four-westinghouse-... I really wish we could get a few more orders in the USA so that we could leverage the learning and supply chain being so painfully built in Georgia for the AP1000s there.

for 4 AP1000 they are building ~20 CAP1000, westinghouse should never have sold they patents for a penny.. Also they are obscoleting westinghouse with their 4 planned CAP1400 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#64

Post by pg_bot »

I will start this off by saying I am very pro nuclear. However, I think it is likely that the last nuclear power plant to be built in the United States will be built in the next 5-10 years. Looking at the trajectory of renewables and energy storage it seems that every other method of generating power will slowly be priced out of existence.

Given the politics (fission) and uncertainty (fusion) of nuclear, I think it is highly unlikely that there is a long term future for the industry (100 years). Even though we will need some level of baseline power for when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, I think it is likely that geothermal or natural gas plants will fill that role.

Nuclear is too bespoke, and you need a massive amount of capital before you generate one watt of power.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#65

Post by mateo1 »

version_five wrote: post #6

I don't think it's stagnant. I continue to see stuff like small modular reactors making progress. The obvious reason why it doesn't get more play is because it doesn't serve anybody's political goals. Renewables and carbon taxes or other measures to try and reduce quality of life (or opposition to those) get attention because they have good political value. Actually spending money and generating sustainable power, no…

Small modular reactors are not even small. They're 400MW each and size-wise they conveniently don't include the containment building and all the supporting equipment and machinery. I don't know who came up with that name but it's not very descriptive term.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#66

Post by uranium »

"Recently, places as diverse as Texas, California, Oklahoma/Iowa/Kansas/Nebraska (SPP), the UK, and Germany have rapidly decarbonized without nuclear."

Uh...Germany's actually recarbonized by shutting down their nuclear [increasing coal and imported electricity to pick up the slack].

"The nuclear electricity production lost in Germany's phase-out was primarily replaced with coal electricity production and electricity importing. One study found that the nuclear phase-out caused $12 billion in social costs per year, primarily due to increases in mortality due to exposure to pollution from fossil fuels." --[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany]

California's likely to have serious shortages [again] if they shut off the rest of theirs. Plus: "California's electricity rates are among the highest in the United States as a result of the changing energy mix within the state, including aggressive construction of new natural gas power plants." --[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California]

I don't know enough to check the rest of the article, but this certainly gives me some doubts as to its accuracy.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#67

Post by neonsunset »

missedthecue wrote: post #61
neonsunset wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems the "horse-drawn carriage" argument is being repeated across multitude of comments posted by your account. What makes this comparison with nuclear energy even remotely viable?

Much like carriages, more modern alternatives have rendered it obsolete despite the loud voices that continually refuse to accept its eventual extinction.

The only superior potential more modern source of energy we're aware of that can match energy density, resource efficiency and carbon-free characteristics of nuclear fission is nuclear fusion. Other alternatives lose on one or more parameters, especially when it comes to environmental costs.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#68

Post by SemanticStrengh »

jmyeet wrote: post #41

This is a solid write-up. I particularly like this part: > Most fusion concepts are just a more complicated way to heat water. It's kind of wild that our means of power production do ultimately mostly boil down (pun intended) to turning a turbine with steam and, as the article notes, this is an inherent cost problem whereas solar is a direct form of energy. I hadn't really thought about it in those terms but it's tru…

> Nuclear power plants take too long to plan, build and bring online. IIRC it's at least 11 years

It's crazy what people come to believe. To generalize the pathetic bureaucratic failures like the EPR to all model couldn't be farther from reality.

Russian commercialized VVER 1200 models take 57 month to build. Their successor, the VVER-TOI take 40 month, so 3.5 year to build. It output 1300MWe Besides the russian competitive advantage, China build plants in 6 years.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#69

Post by JTBooth »

mateo1 wrote: post #59
DennisP wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago I got to sit in a meeting between reps from a bunch of GenIV reactor startups, and a former chair of the NRC (not Jaczko). The reactor people said their main problem was that the NRC required near-complete blueprints before they would even look at a design. Getting to that point took several hundred million dollars. Then the NRC would give a flat yes or no. If no then you were out of business. That's…

Quoted post unavailable.

It would be nice if, say, ten million dollars into the process of preparing blueprints, the agency could look over the prints and the plans for the remaining prints and say "yes it looks like you're on the right track, make sure the reactor wall you decide on isn't too heavy for those struts." In a much more precise way that probably costs a million bucks, of course.

Regulatory intervention could happen at any point in the process. You could imagine an even worse world where the first inspection is after the plant is built, and changes are typically requested to the high level design.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#70

Post by polski-g »

SemanticStrengh wrote: post #68
jmyeet wrote: post #41

This is a solid write-up. I particularly like this part: > Most fusion concepts are just a more complicated way to heat water. It's kind of wild that our means of power production do ultimately mostly boil down (pun intended) to turning a turbine with steam and, as the article notes, this is an inherent cost problem whereas solar is a direct form of energy. I hadn't really thought about it in those terms but it's tru…

> Nuclear power plants take too long to plan, build and bring online. IIRC it's at least 11 years It's crazy what people come to believe. To generalize the pathetic bureaucratic failures like the EPR to all model couldn't be farther from reality. Russian commercialized VVER 1200 models take 57 month to build. Their successor, the VVER-TOI take 40 month, so 3.5 year to build. It output 1300MWe Besides the russian comp…

Yeah these things don't take 11 years to build. Government makes them take that long.
Post reply on HN