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

101–110 of 672 posts

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#101

Post by tuatoru »

robocat wrote: post #93

The article doesn’t include the word “baseload”, which is an important consideration. Utilities pay more for peaker capacity. For the same reason, market pricing regulations need to encouraging sources that provide a base amount of power despite weather conditions: network reliability and security of supply are valuable. (Let’s ignore Texas though). In New Zealand, we are dependent on seasonal rain for our hydro-powe…

While the governments' (plural, all the recent ones) car-centrism and lack of action on new energy are disapppointing (so 20th century), I disagree for a couple of reasons.

Main reason: end-user subsidies of any kind (whether for cars or for rooftop solar or $asset) are merely a transfer from poor taxpayers to high-income or wealthy people, those who own their homes or can afford to purchase the asset. They entrench inequality.

I'd be able to tolerate subsidies if NZ funded them with a smallish fraction of a capital tax/land value tax and/or a capital gains tax. (Such taxes being recommended by the Tax Working Group but rejected by successive governments).

The idea of low-income people buying EVs is ludicrous. The typical budget for a "good" car where I work is NZD $2000 - $6000, and it's a very significant purchase.

Second reason. NZ doesn't actually have a lot of land suitable for solar that doesn't have higher-value uses, but it does have a lot of wind, and wind power can share land use. Although wind is not as cheap as solar, it's cheaper than everything else (except already-built hydro). Wind farms are being built now in unsubsidised projects with ordinary commercial leases from land owners.

Bonus reason: hydro operators don't need subsidies; it's worth them installing some solar on their lakes today. They are merely as anti-entrepreneurial as the governments.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#102

Post by robonerd »

ncmncm wrote: post #50
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #23

Nuclear is not popular because the fossil fuel industry co-opt the environmentalist to fight on their behalf. We should have better developed nuclear for the last few decades and we would be in a much better energy posture. Especially for an EV future.

You mean environmentalists have been ceded total control over all utility decisions? They can't even stop government sponsored mass wolf kills.

What would environmental organizations coopted by the fossil fuel industry care about wolves? Their ineffectiveness at anything other than stopping nuclear power plant construction is a symptom of what TrispusAttucks said.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#103

Post by systemvoltage »

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.

We need to build hundreds of Nuclear Power Plants. Electricity should be so cheap, it’s not worth monitoring usage for homes.

The fact that this hasn’t happened is a testament and an indictment of dysfunction in our society.

I’ll turn into a single issue voter if any candidate for the President is pro-nuclear in a big way.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#104

Post by pfdietz »

nine_k wrote: post #77
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…

There is a known way to handle "nuclear waste": burn it in fast-neutron reactors [1]. The waste is mostly still uranium. The rest can still be burned, turning it into much less active isotopes and producing energy. Yes, these machines produce plutonium suitable for nuclear weapons. But plutonium is a perfectly good nuclear fuel, too, and the US already has nuclear weapons, longer than any other country. [1]: https://…

That only handles (some) actinides. It doesn't handle fission products, seven of which have very long half lives.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#105

Post by pfdietz »

sb057 wrote: post #31

The fact that nuclear power regulators are routinely anti-nuclear power probably isn't helping things. https://www.powermag.com/blog/former-nuclear-leaders-say-no-... >Dr. Greg Jaczko, former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg, former Head of the Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Waste, Federal Environment Ministry, Germany Dr. Bernard Laponche, former Director…

The NRC exists to separate nuclear advocacy from nuclear regulation (AEC did both.) Perhaps you are confusing non-advocacy with opposition?

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#106

Post by tomrod »

mateo1 wrote: post #62
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

I consider this an unfair comment. Paul is a polymath and typically on point. Please point out the issues.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#107

Post by [deleted] »

tuatoru wrote: post #101
robocat wrote: post #93

The article doesn’t include the word “baseload”, which is an important consideration. Utilities pay more for peaker capacity. For the same reason, market pricing regulations need to encouraging sources that provide a base amount of power despite weather conditions: network reliability and security of supply are valuable. (Let’s ignore Texas though). In New Zealand, we are dependent on seasonal rain for our hydro-powe…

While the governments' (plural, all the recent ones) car-centrism and lack of action on new energy are disapppointing ( so 20th century), I disagree for a couple of reasons. Main reason: end-user subsidies of any kind (whether for cars or for rooftop solar or $asset) are merely a transfer from poor taxpayers to high-income or wealthy people, those who own their homes or can afford to purchase the asset. They entrench…

[deleted]

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#108

Post by pfdietz »

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…

Closed cycle gas turbines still need heat exchangers (at least two).

One very interesting grid energy storage concept (currently being commercially developed by Babcock & Wilcox) involves heating sand using electric resistance heating to about 1200 C, storing then using that heat to drive a gas turbine (round trip efficiency > 50%). I mention this because you can transfer heat from sand to compressed air in a very compact and cheap device that mixes the two, then separates the air with cyclone separators.

(This concept would likely also need something to destroy thermal NOx in that air, though.)

Nuclear is going to have to compete with heat from cheap renewables stored in sand, then turned back to power using a machine like this with only the one really cheap heat exchanger.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#109

Post by SemanticStrengh »

systemvoltage wrote: post #103
acidburnNSA wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We need to build hundreds of Nuclear Power Plants. Electricity should be so cheap, it’s not worth monitoring usage for homes. The fact that this hasn’t happened is a testament and an indictment of dysfunction in our society. I’ll turn into a single issue voter if any candidate for the President is pro-nuclear in a big way.

The system needs voltage

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#110

Post by pfdietz »

nimbius wrote: post #8

investment cost and payoff. a gas turbine plant can deliver returns in as little as six years and requires minimal oversight. a nuclear plant may take as long as 30 years before it returns a profit, and it lives under a government regulatory and security magnifying glass. personal opinion but the modern american investor has no patience for anything but instant profits. nuclear could be great but the executives you h…

In a time where energy technologies are changing rapidly, patience is not a virtue. Investments had damned well better pay off quickly.
Post reply on HN