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

231–240 of 672 posts

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#231

Post by mdp2021 »

jhgb wrote: post #222
mdp2021 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Practically irrelevant unless you're Singapore or the like No. Very many Countries have very dense territories, and not much land naturally destinable to that kind of degradation.

And many do not. So? Considering that you want to build very large grids to smooth over your generation (my country is a part of a synchronous grid supplying almost half a billion people with electricity), it's very hard to argue with "but where will we put these things?", because in almost all cases you will find a place.

You have stated that land use is «practically irrelevant» with the exception of «Singapore or the like». It is not.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#232

Post by cycomanic »

gregwebs wrote: post #176
uranium wrote: post #66

"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…

The article on the site about solar is equally bad. Both are full of lots of good information but then have some key misunderstandings. The solar article doesn't acknowledge that installing a solar requires installing a gas peaker plant on the grid as well. [1] Although solar certainly reduces carbon emissions (the gas peaker plants only runs some of the time), the result is that the cost to the grid, rather than bei…

Gas peaker plants are needed for nuclear just as much. Generally the article is looking at the most favourable conditions for the technology, e.g. only considering OCC and not interest cost for building and decommissioning of nuclear plants.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#233

Post by jhgb »

mdp2021 wrote: post #231
jhgb wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And many do not. So? Considering that you want to build very large grids to smooth over your generation (my country is a part of a synchronous grid supplying almost half a billion people with electricity), it's very hard to argue with "but where will we put these things?", because in almost all cases you will find a place.

You have stated that land use is «practically irrelevant» with the exception of «Singapore or the like». It is not.

It is practically irrelevant in the sense that you can virtually always find an acceptable place to put a wind turbine in in a several hundred kilometer radius. While there are places with very densely populated territories, there are no places with territories that are very densely populated over hundreds of thousands of square kilometers.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#234

Post by ulfw »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #209
uranium wrote: post #66

"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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany Actually, Germany did not have a long term increase in coal/gas due to the nuclear shut down but a decrease. Coal has been in a slow but steady decline in Germany (mainly due to cost); which is on track to decline all the way to 0 as Germany is committing to getting rid of coal based production completely by 2035 or so. Gas production did grow but mainly to offset decli…

Germany has one of the highest electricity costs on the planet. That leads to reduction of use (as people just can't afford it) and this is before the Russian corrupt cheap gas deals. Who knows what it'll look like with higher gas and oil prices.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#235

Post by runarberg »

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.

Yes. If wikipedia is correct, construction on two new reactors at Virgil C. Summer started in 2013 and the project was abandon in 2017. The bankruptcy filings cited 9 billion dollar loss. This affair is dubbed The Nukegate Scandal.

And before that, at the Alvin W. Vogtle plant in Georgia, there are 2 new reactors under construction. Approved by the NRC in 2009, they are projected to open next year at the cost of over $30 billion. Initial planning had the reactors open in 2016-2017 with an upper estimate of $16.4 billion. Big surprise, there is also a bankruptcy case aligned with this construction, which is the only nuclear project under construction in the USA.

I honestly don’t know where parent got 1978 from.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#236

Post by cycomanic »

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…

So you say: don't look believe the researched article which has plenty of researched evidence, but instead believe my one meaningless data point instead.

If you read the article, it goes through the cost analysis and even calculates the numbers for heavy deregulated, it still does not add up.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#237

Post by jillesvangurp »

likecarter wrote: post #33
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…

No EU or CANZAUKUS country would import a Russian design in the current environment or foreseeable future, as the Russians will be the ones to have the expertise to maintain it.

Finland just pulled the plug on a project to build a new nuclear plant for this reason: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finnish-group-ditches-r...

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#238

Post by Drblessing »

psadri wrote: post #117

My theory - technology advances at the rate of half life of each buying cycle. Phones advance quickly because people replace them every 2-3 years. Cars, every 7-10 years. Nuclear reactors every 59 years. Hence the slow rate of advancement.

Interesting theory - why is that?

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#240

Post by Drblessing »

dboreham wrote: post #163

Because nuclear power plants and the associated fuel cycle industry is incredibly dangerous and the participants have consistently lied about that danger for all of history? Note: not a tree hugger. I believe nuclear power (in conjunction with significant restrictions on consumption) must play a big part in decarbonization. But...so many lies for so long. Put down the Kool-Aid and admit these things are not safe and…

Question: How many people does coal burning kill a year?
Post reply on HN