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

141–150 of 672 posts

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#141

Post by LegitShady »

nine_k wrote: post #136
LegitShady wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are a service They are not a service. They are a regulator. It's almost the opposite of a service.

Any governmental agency is formally in service of the public good. Are they doing a reasonable job of that?

> in service of the public good.

being in service of the public good is not offering a service. Their job is to regulate industry, not offer it a service.

If you want a service you hire someone to fulfill it. The US government created the 'service' but not for industry, but for the regulation of industry. The 'service' isn't offered to industry for the good of industry. It's the opposite of a normal understanding of service.

If you are regulated have no choice whether to take the service or not, and your say in their 'services' is extremely limited.

Calling it a service is an activity in intentionally misleading what an organization like the NCR does. They are not a service. They are a regulator.

You are intentionally conflating two disparate definitions of service ('they offer a service' vs 'they are in the service of') and really for no gain except to come up with your own mandate for an NCR that already has one, and doesn't care about your opinion because they receive their mandate from government and not from you and your intentionally misleading arguments.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#142

Post by pmoriarty »

JoeyBananas wrote: post #122

It has nothing to do with economics, nuclear energy is stagnant because the industry is a regulatory hell. From eia.gov: Of the 104 operating nuclear power reactors in the United States: The last construction permit for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1978 for Progress Energy Inc.'s Shearon Harris plant, near Raleigh, North Carolina. The last operating license for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1996 to the T…

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that nuclear power plants are uninsurable without government subsidies.

Why is that?

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#144

Post by tbrownaw »

jeffbee wrote: post #132
JoeyBananas wrote: post #122

It has nothing to do with economics, nuclear energy is stagnant because the industry is a regulatory hell. From eia.gov: Of the 104 operating nuclear power reactors in the United States: The last construction permit for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1978 for Progress Energy Inc.'s Shearon Harris plant, near Raleigh, North Carolina. The last operating license for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1996 to the T…

These statements do not seem factual. Didn't the NRC issue a construction license for Virgil C. Summer units 2 and 3 in 2012? Which subsequently failed to be built despite spending 9 billion dollars, because companies like Westinghouse are structured solely for the purpose of robbing the American public blind.

AIUI new reactors at existing sites are slightly less headachey than entirely new sites.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#145

Post by EarthMephit »

JoeyBananas wrote: post #122

It has nothing to do with economics, nuclear energy is stagnant because the industry is a regulatory hell. From eia.gov: Of the 104 operating nuclear power reactors in the United States: The last construction permit for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1978 for Progress Energy Inc.'s Shearon Harris plant, near Raleigh, North Carolina. The last operating license for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1996 to the T…

One of the points that the article brings up is that a nuclear power plant takes around ten years to build, and that's ignoring the political red tape that you mentioned which would add on another 5+ years, plus the huge upfront capex costs.

With the energy industry changing so rapidly at the moment, that's a huge risk for anyone wanting to invest.

In that ten years for construction its likely that battery, solar, and wind prices all drop by two or three times. So by the time that the nuclear plant is completed its very likely to be far too expensive.

As the article mentions, the only future for nuclear is going to be small, cheaper reactors that are quick to construct.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#146

Post by pmoriarty »

DennisP wrote: post #97
mateo1 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NRC is not a free consultancy group for postgrads who think they can build a nuclear reactor on their own.

No, NRC services are not free. They charge several hundred dollars per hour. All the reactor people were asking for was to pay in several stages, instead of all at the end after a very expensive reactor design process.

It seems strange to me that they'd want that rather than finding out up-front before they spent a much greater amount of money actually building something which might be rejected.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#147

Post by kogok89 »

lovemenot wrote: post #76
sto_hristo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry. Largest power density is still in the atom. Can't work your magic around this. The only reasonable and sane strategy is to R&D around nuclear. Whoever gets it right will rule, the others will be ruled. Not single bubble kept its integrity; renewables will burst as well.

You are right about power density, If only we had an absolutely massive fusion reactor that could passively manage its own containment. It would be so powerful that one such nuclear reactor would produce millions of times more power than we could ever consume. The reactor could be designed to run indefinitely. No fuel or decommissioning costs incurred. We could site the reactor at a large enough distance from populat…

I see what you did there.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#148

Post by acidburnNSA »

pmoriarty wrote: post #142
JoeyBananas wrote: post #122

It has nothing to do with economics, nuclear energy is stagnant because the industry is a regulatory hell. From eia.gov: Of the 104 operating nuclear power reactors in the United States: The last construction permit for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1978 for Progress Energy Inc.'s Shearon Harris plant, near Raleigh, North Carolina. The last operating license for a nuclear power plant was issued in 1996 to the T…

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that nuclear power plants are uninsurable without government subsidies. Why is that?

Imagine if fossil and biofuel combustion plants had to insure themselves against the air pollution deaths they are known to directly cause. 4.2 million dead per year, year after year, according to the WHO [1].

And then there's climate change.

It's wild that nuclear has to insure against things that may happen while 80% of our primary energy sources don't have to pay at all for the deaths and climate change they cause during normal operation.

Heh yeah if we did apples to apples, then compared to that nuclear insurance would be an amazing bargain.

[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#149

Post by eunos »

SemanticStrengh wrote: post #27

Russophobia aside, the next-gen russian nuclear model (first exporter in the world, of nuclear plants) is built in 3.5 years, which is state of the art. And at the same time has a high throughput (1300MWe) (much higher than the billion dollar mini-reactor fad) and state of the art longevity. It's very difficult for me to find the actual prices, of the different nuclear plants models competitors, but since most of the…

Exported to Pakistan and likely to Argentina

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#150

Post by acidburnNSA »

pfdietz wrote: post #104
nine_k wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can partition the LLFPs into special irradiation targets and transmute them to short-lived things if you really want to, also in fast reactors.

I'm still a bigger fan of stable geologic disposal.

https://www.iaea.org/publications/7112/implications-of-parti...

Post reply on HN