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

451–460 of 672 posts

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#451

Post by croes »

fallingknife wrote: post #322
croes wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many wind turbines have to be down to have the same effect as one nuclear power plant being down? Not to mention that some people think Putin could attack other countries after Ukraine. That's not the time you want nuclear power plants as possible target.

Ridiculous argument. A nuclear power plant is much less of a concern as a target than, you know, Berlin.

How long did it take to repair the damage in Berlin after WW2, for how many years has Chernobyl power plant been a problem? And how many years will it remain so?

In any case, I have not heard of any fears that Russian missiles could damage Ukrainian wind or solar power plants.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#452

Post by sto_hristo »

pfdietz wrote: post #120
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.

Why are you choosing a meaningless metric to decide on the technology? Utilities or consumers don't care about energy density of fuels, they care about cost.

Considering power density meaningless puts you in direct confrontation with reality. In physics you can't create energy, you can only convert it. So from what you're converting from is the key consideration to take as that also determines the cost.

And while nuclear is expensive at first, its longevity and reliability pays for itself. As it's further developed, that initial tax will only be reduced.

As if you guys don't realize that this "renewable" stuff is pushed by a nuclear reaction that happened thousands of years ago in the core of a plasma ball that is 8 light minutes away? That is not efficient.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#453

Post by croes »

dsnr wrote: post #278
croes wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas has more use cases than just electricity. These can't easily be replaced by nuclear power.

Actually, gas heating can _easily_ be replaced with heat pumps assuming cheap electricity is provided.

But nuclear energy isn't cheap

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#454

Post by natmaka »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #95
Meandering wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your favorite or most closely watched Gen IV reactor? Figure you'd be one to ask.

I think we should be building the best LWRs right now to decarbonize immediately: ABWR, APR-1400, AP1000. My favorite decarbonize rapidly at scale idea is to build a shipyard-based nuclear reactor gigafactory and mass-produce floating PWRs. (This was actually almost done in the 1970s in Jacksonville Florida. They had a manufacturing license from the NRC, the world's largest gantry crane installed and, everything [1])…

As far as I know there is, after 70 years of research in many nations, not a single industrial satisfactorily working fast-breeder reactor. Is there one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an...

The most advanced one is Russia's BN-800 (now burning 60% MOX). Its planned big brother was cancelled "In 2015, after several minor delays, problems at the recently completed BN-800 indicated a redesign was needed. Construction of the BN-1200 was put on "indefinite hold", and Rosenergoatom has stated that no decision to continue will be made before 2019." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor

This is not due to a lack of interest or funding because Russia launched a new project towards another architecture and builds a small reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#455

Post by SemanticStrengh »

cycomanic wrote: post #273
systemvoltage wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So do we just wave a magic wand and suddenly nuclear power does not cost anything. The article clearly laid out the cost and why even with deregulation LWRs are not cost competitive (while other technology is just not there yet). Or is your argument the government should even heavier subsidise nuclear to make electricity cost nothing? But why electricity and not e.g. housing? Realistically the quickest way to get to…

> do we just wave a magic wand

We have at least 6 magic wands: 1) if the VVER 1200 truly cost 1.4 billion to construct in 4 years, nuclear economics are saved. 2) building a lot of marine nuclear plants https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#economies-of-scale-... They require far less concrete (no need to protect against seisms) and much less redundancy because the cooler (water) will always be there (the ocean won't disappear) hence preventing radiations escalation in a passive way. 3) using disruptively simpler/cheaper models https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... 4) using more complex but significantly more efficient models (I'm mainly talking about the underresearched supracritical reactors) 5) if SMRs are not a scam and can really have a fordism era 6) rationalizing et reconciloating regulations with cost effectiveness.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#456

Post by croes »

dirkt wrote: post #327
dsnr wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't convert about 40 million households [1] in a year or two. Who's talking about a year or two? Germany has been pushing for russian gas since the 90's, against all logic.

The logic was "if we depend on each other, Russia isn't going to pull crazy stuff". Which works with rational people (and after Gorbachev and the German reunion, the perception was that Russia is rational), but not with Putin. And you may have noticed that Russia is not cutting off delivery of Russian gas to Germany. Which they would if the damage was unilateral. Also, electrical heating is one of most wasteful and d…

Not to mention that Ukraine earned some billions in transit fees, which helped upgrading their military.

What if the EU had not bought Russian gas? Then Russia would probably have sold more to others like China or India and Ukraine would not have earned money from transit fees, nor would there be any leverage against Russia at all.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#457

Post by Gravityloss »

smueller1234 wrote: post #331
Gravityloss wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany could have cancelled their nuclear shutdown process. But saving face is more important than Ukrainian lives.

That's a very simplistic way to look at the situation. At a large trade show, I once ran into a retired nuclear engineer and we had a long conversation: he had been called back into service by the state out of desperation. There weren't enough knowledgeable folks who could do safety audits of the plants for TüV. This was 14 years ago and things would be far worse today. Restarting a complex industry (and it's ageing…

Fair points. But maybe one could stop to ask why are there so few experts or why has the nuclear industry been out of favor for literally decades in Germany?

The anti nuclear power movement started from Denmark and they have at least two high profile nuclear startups. While they are of course not direct short term solutions to the current gas crisis, these things change how people can think about nuclear energy.

Again, so much of German writing around the subject has this very peculiar air of complete passivity, to someone looking from the outside. Things seem to just happen to Germany with no role of their own. Look outside Germany to see some counterexamples.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#458

Post by prawn »

systemvoltage wrote: post #170
Maursault wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has nothing to do with economics Nuclear power is not profitable. It has nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with economics. If nuclear power were profitable, you could not stop it. If nuclear power were profitable, the regulations would change with a quickness, because motivated investors remove any and all roadblocks to their money. If it wasn't for the absurdly bad economics, bad track record p…

You're mixing up the matters and has gotten it backwards. The industry has been regulated to teeth after scare mongering by environmentalists post Chernobyl/3-mile-island. It has wiped out any hopes for private industry to build and hope to bring down costs by economies of scale. Too much regulation leads to death of economies of scale. If software was regulated like nuclear power, say because of hypothetical AI risk…

I think they're suggesting that industry motivated by profits will out-lobby environmentalists and anyone else. I've seen it suggested that the anti-nuclear message was propped up by the coal industry who saw it as a direct threat.

Environmentalists have made minimal headway against Murdoch media here in Australia, struggled to make progress against coal/mining, etc. Industrial lobbyists have far more money and power.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#459

Post by pfdietz »

sto_hristo wrote: post #452
pfdietz wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you choosing a meaningless metric to decide on the technology? Utilities or consumers don't care about energy density of fuels, they care about cost.

Considering power density meaningless puts you in direct confrontation with reality. In physics you can't create energy, you can only convert it. So from what you're converting from is the key consideration to take as that also determines the cost. And while nuclear is expensive at first, its longevity and reliability pays for itself. As it's further developed, that initial tax will only be reduced. As if you guys do…

What nonsense. I'm not denying power or energy density of nuclear is higher, I'm denying that this bare fact is relevant to any decision that we might make about using nuclear to power civilization.

And no, power and energy density do not determine cost, in general. They might if all else were equal, but all else is NOT equal. Renewable sources can omit entire categories of equipment that thermal power plants require, and have a much lower requirement on reliability (both because the individual units are smaller, and because the consequences of their catastrophic failure are vastly smaller.)

And no, nuclear's longevity and reliability do not pay for themselves. You're engaging in a bit of confrontation with economic reality there.

Pointing to nuclear reactions occurring in the Sun and pretending that justifies using nuclear on Earth is just completely absurd.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#460

Post by Gwypaas »

trashtester wrote: post #448
patall wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If the only method to be successful is to cheat and coverup issues then that's frightening.

> In November 2012 it was discovered that over 5,000 small components used in five reactors at Yeonggwang Nuclear Power Plant had not been properly certified; eight suppliers had faked 60 warranties for the parts. Two reactors were shut down for component replacement, which was likely to cause power shortages in South Korea during the winter.[23] Reuters reported this as South Korea's worst nuclear crisis, highlighting a lack of transparency on nuclear safety and the dual roles of South Korea's nuclear regulators on supervision and promotion.[24] This incident followed the prosecution of five senior engineers for the coverup of a serious loss of power and cooling incident at Kori Nuclear Power Plant, which was subsequently graded at INES level 2.[23][25]

> In 2013, there was a scandal involving the use of counterfeit parts in nuclear plants and faked quality assurance certificates. In June 2013 Kori 2 and Shin Wolsong 1 were shut down, and Kori 1 and Shin Wolsong 2 ordered to remain offline, until safety-related control cabling with forged safety certificates is replaced.[26] Control cabling in the first APR-1400s under construction had to be replaced delaying construction by up to a year.[27] In October 2013 about 100 people were indicted for falsifying safety documents, including a former chief executive of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and a vice-president of Korea Electric Power Corporation.[28]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea

Post reply on HN