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

441–450 of 672 posts

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#441

Post by merb »

pojzon wrote: post #207

Its stagnant because public opinion has been scared with stories of Fukushima and Chernobyl. Ppl dont understand that we can build reactors that not only can be powered up bu old nuclear waste but also are physically impossible to explode. But yea.. lets subsidize coal and oil industries more putting one more nail to humanity coffin. Corrupt politicians and stupid ppl voting for them are the issue, like always.

> Ppl dont understand that we can build reactors that not only can be powered up bu old nuclear waste but also are physically impossible to explode.

we would be able to yes, but we can't. not because it's technically impossible, but because people are stupid. fukushima did not happen because it wasn't safe, fukushima happend because people were stubborn. Tepco knew what will happen and dismissed it because they were greedy (their offical report on that matter was "we did not do it, because it would scare people...").

thats why nuclear will never work, because we humans operate it. if we would build as much plants as we need, it would be 100x the amount we have right now which would also raise the death tool by accidents. and there is also no reason for nuclear, since wind and solar is cheaper and can replace nuclear.

I also will never understand why people write about nuclear that often. what nuclear provides is solved with wind and solar. however no matter if we go the nuclear route or the renewables we still need to figure out how to reduce gas and built peaker plants that run on technology that is way more carbon friendly, but nobody ever writes about that.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#442

Post by bsagdiyev »

bamboozled wrote: post #196
maccam94 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the root cause here is that people are afraid to live near nuclear plants, and would get mad at their political representatives if they got built in their area. Making these limits more stringent makes it look like the politicians are forcing the plants to be safer, when really they are just blocking the plants from being built in their districts at all.

Would you like to live near one ?

I do live near one, near Shearon Harris actually. I'm not bothered by it in the least.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#443

Post by trashtester »

cycomanic wrote: post #394
jhgb wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing German gas consumption and German electricity consumption. It couldn't escape my attention that many people especially from the US make this fatal mistake (presumably because of the prevalence of natural gas electricity generation in the US - almost 40% in the US, compared to ~15% in Germany). In Germany, the vast majority of gas is being used for heating or for industrial purposes (chemistry etc.).…

The other aspect of the Ukraine war used for advocating for nuclear, which the nuclear proponents like to omit is that 25% of European uranium comes from Russia, so Europe's dependence on Russia is even stronger for Uranium than for gas. It's simply dishonest to use the current situation as an argument for nuclear. If anything it shows that we should have invested into renewables much more strongly, but nuclear propo…

I would say that comparing the purchase of gas to the purchase of uranium is uninformed, if not dishonest, for two reasons: - Fuel costs for nuclear is only 15-20% of the total cost, half of which is the uranium itself [1]. For natural gas, the majority of the cost is the fuel, even during "normal" times. In other words, natural gas imports generate a lot more $ per GWh of energy produced, even if imported from the same country (Russia). - The reserves of Uranium across the globa are still huge, much of which can be found in (relatively) politically stable places such as Australia and Canada. For natural gas, one is locked into imports from countries such as Russia, Saudi-Arabia (and similar Arab monarchies), Venezuela and Russia for the forseeable future.

I'm not suggesting that investment in renewables should be slowed down, only that coal and gass should be removed BEFORE nuclear. If Germany is able to produce the energy they need from renewables only, and to provide a stable supply, all the power to them.

But to bring up renewables in a discussion about nuclear vs natural gas, is just a diversion tactic (or at best a dilusion).

Oh, btw, I'm Norwegian. My country is making a $100 billion profit from the current energy situation in Europe, just this year, meaning that my household of 4 indirectly profits about $80000 from this in 2022 alone. So I'm not arguing from personal interest....

[1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#444

Post by natmaka »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #257
jayd16 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's just about regulation why hasn't China (or anyone) broken the stagnation? It's unwarranted regulations in every country?

Actually China seems to be the only country where nuclear is alive and thriving. There were some hiccups for some years due to lack of experience with 3G designs, as well as US sanctions (forcing some companies to drop France's AP-1000 design and to design their own), but they have now solved those problems and are ramping up nuclear fast because they are serious about 2030 peak carbon target. Source: David Fishman,…

No, China bets on renewable energy way more than on nuclear: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31466725

Note: the AP1000 isn't French: its a Westinghouse reactor. This Westinghouse division filed for Chapter 11, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company

The French one is the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)

2 of them were built in China. The project reached 60% overcost, was 5 years late and according to the French financial Court of Audit may not reach the break-even point. Then one of the reactors had an incident and is shutdown since mid-2021. Not sure all this is "thriving"... https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/31/asia/taishan-nuclear-plant-in...

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#445

Post by SemanticStrengh »

epistasis wrote: post #181
polski-g wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's absolutely false, check out what has happened in Georgia and South Carolina and you will not be able to find any government interference or regulation slowing things down. It's just rank incompetence, bad management, and three-party contracts where each party is preparing for failure and a gigantic lawsuit in the end. Meanwhile, the latest excuse for the recent US failure in building was that they commenced bu…

> I've been asking "which regulations" for years, nobody has ever, literally ever pointed me to which.

Well it looks like you have been asking in the wrong places: https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#public-concern-grow...

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#446

Post by natmaka »

colinmhayes wrote: post #373
froglets wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UAE are building nuclear plants as well.

I believe the UAE's plants are being built by the south Koreans, who have been the biggest builders this century. Unfortunately even with so many plants being built south Korea has been unable to lower costs.

In Korea, around the date of the deal with the UAE, there was quite a scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#447

Post by freemint »

sb057 wrote: post #164
pfdietz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not sure how a statement describing nuclear power as "too costly... too costly and risky... unsustainable... financially unsustainable... militarily hazardous... inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents... subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems... [and] too unwieldy and complex" can be construed as anything other than opposition to nuclear power.

They can be construed as opposition to tax payer founded nuclear power which technically is so something else then nuclear power. One is a policy the other a technology.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#448

Post by trashtester »

patall wrote: post #433
cycomanic wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other aspect of the Ukraine war used for advocating for nuclear, which the nuclear proponents like to omit is that 25% of European uranium comes from Russia, so Europe's dependence on Russia is even stronger for Uranium than for gas. It's simply dishonest to use the current situation as an argument for nuclear. If anything it shows that we should have invested into renewables much more strongly, but nuclear propo…

To add to that, Rosatom was even set to build a new nuclear power plant in Finland [0]. Supposedly, because the french built one is taking too long to be build. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

From what I've been reading lately, South Korea is currently the country with the best expertise in building cost-efficient nuclear plants. Maybe Finland should switch vendor.

[1]. https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction...

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#449

Post by natmaka »

pfdietz wrote: post #414
mdp2021 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> land is still available for other uses How many uses are there that exclude prolonged presence of living things?

Wind turbines are often sited on operating farms. The point that was being made is that while a field of wind turbines may be spread over a large area, most of that area can still be farmed.

Moreover in many nations the main potential for wind power is off-shore: more power, better load-factor...

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#450

Post by jillesvangurp »

holoduke wrote: post #338
jillesvangurp wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany can't wave a magic wand and switch off Russian imports overnight. But they did just commit a few hundred billion to accelerate their plans to get rid of coal and gas based generation. That's a direct consequence of the Ukrainian situation. Like the US, Germany was overly depending on cheap gas until recently. Now that it has to import the gas in liquid form from the US (and a few other places), it's going to…

And those plans will be reconsidered in 5 years from now. Cheap Russian gas will likely flow again. And don't forget Ukrainian recent found giant gas reserves. One of the reasons for this conflict.

Don't underestimate the Germans. They'll get this done. They'll be pretty far done executing those plans in five years and probably will raise the ambition level rather than lowering it. I also predict they will trigger a pretty big economic boom doing so. All that money flowing into the economy will do a lot of good. They've actually been criticized for holding back too much in the last few decades. This looks like it might be the trigger that fixes that in a hurry.

Cheap Russian gas might make a brief comeback depending on if Russia is able to fix its leadership issues that are causing the current crisis. Right now it is looking pretty bad. But nothing that a Russian revolution wouldn't be able to fix. If that fails to happen, I doubt the Russians are going to get a lot of gas business from Europe with Putin remaining in power. Basically right now they are dealing with the stick part of this stick/carrot strategy. But even if that does happen, the message that they can't be trusted was received loud and clear. Business as usual is not going to be a thing any time soon.

Whatever they currently still receive in terms of gas revenues will start drying up either way. Oil is going to stop flowing pretty soon. And either the Russians close of the gas or the Germans will diversify their supply to the point where it won't matter if they do because the threat of the Russians cutting them off is now both very credible and completely unacceptable as a status quo.

That will make gas a lot more expensive permanently for the Germans and will only increase their ambition level with respect to reducing their dependence on it. If heating prices double or triple permanently, people are going to be pretty eager and creative getting into more cheaper ways to heat their houses. That's already happening in a lot of places.

Post reply on HN