Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#441

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 9:05 AM UTC

logifail wrote: post #438

Dylan16807 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about they just prepay another country for ten thousand years of storage multiplied by 100 square meters? I don't see why it has to be local.

> I don't see why it has to be local If we propose to allow countries to outsource their nuclear waste disposal, wouldn't it be simpler, cheaper and safer to just skip nuclear entirely and outsource the power generation? All those countries with apparently not enough access to sunlight or wind will save an awful lot of time and money messing about with nuclear and just buy in their renewable power. If it works, could…

I think whether it's cheaper is begging the question. And I couldn't tell you what's safer.

But there's definite risk in outsourcing the majority of your power production, risk that doesn't exist if you're outsourcing long-term storage. If something goes wrong with the storage ecosystem, you can keep it on-site for a few extra months.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#442

Post by logifail » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 9:18 AM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #278

throwaway23234 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice perhaps a major push for solar/wind/geothermal would be a higher-ROI solution to our problems, but that's politically much harder to get consensus on. The most awesome thing you get from Solar is that it's going to move forward no matter what. It's just something you can do to lower your bill, or even disconnect from the grid altogether. Personally I am off grid with no propane. Almost unheard of in CA.…

Solar is a perfect solution for like 1/3 of the world for like 1/3 of the day. Batteries though, current batteries are a horrible solution. It's funny that this threads main objection to nuclear is waste/mining/etc but the solar battery revolution generates some far worse environmental effects getting all those rare earth minerals. Compared to the tiny amounts of fuel needed for reactors, the sheer amount of metal ne…

> It's funny that this threads main objection to nuclear is waste/mining/etc

Is it?

I got the impression the discussion has moved to recognising that nuclear is too expensive, not flexible, and looking at the slow-motion-train-wreck that is the EPR project, new reactor projects are likely going to be very late[0][1][2] and hugely over budget.

[0] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fresh-delay-to-F... [1] https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/finlands-olkiluoto-... [2] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CGN-takes-Taisha...

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#443

Post by SiempreViernes » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 9:46 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #311

SiempreViernes wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear regulations sets safety standards substantially higher than safety stands for other power sources. Ok, but this surely only is an argument that other sources should be regulated harsher (and fossil fuels absolutely should), not that we must make nuclear less safe.

What makes you think that? With fossil fuels I'd say we need to worry about taxing emissions more than we worry about safety. But sure, let's make them safer. Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? Don't say it's impossible to be too safe. It's very possible. Imagine if speed limits were 15mph everywhere for an easy example. We can build plants that are much safer than any previous ones; why is that not good enough…

Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk: the fact that going for a drive is riskier than staying at home is not a good argument for removing the front door.

> Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? It's up to you to give me reasons to think that, because the default position is that a the regulation doesn't seek to require more than is necessary. This is explicitly listed in the legislation creating the NRC: it is tasked with running "A program to encourage widespread participation in the development and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public", meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough" (my emphasis).

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#444

Post by duncanawoods » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 10:00 AM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #385

joe_the_user wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What remediation costs do solar or wind have?

Wind turbine blades are next to impossible to recycle or (at the scale we're talking about) re-purpose. 'What What happens to all the old wind turbines?' (bbc.co.uk) [2020] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22265321

There are 100% recyclable blades (including production byproducts) currently being tested. They are using Elium as the composite material which can be chemically broken down back into glass fibre and resin for reuse.

https://www.lmwindpower.com/en/stories-and-press/stories/new...

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#445

Post by trashtester » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 10:08 AM UTC

maccolgan wrote: post #402

trashtester wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of flying has come down by 50% since 1980, and while an airplane is a simpler machine than a nuclear plant, the two industries also have a lot in common (such as the perception of risk not being in their favour). By doing international standardization and coordination in ways similar to the aircraft industry, the same should be possible for the nuclear power industry. It should be possible to consolidate mos…

>handful of companies (like Boing and Airbus) Why yes everyone should consolidate global production of _nuclear power plants_ to a handful of companies probably based in the Western world.

Imagine if there were 200 companies producing airliners instead of a handful? How would the airports know which were safe enough to land?

Imagine if there were 200 operating systems for phones, instead of 2? How would corporations know which were safe enough to install 2-factor auth on?

Imagine if there were 200 suppliers of x86 cpu's, all with small differences in features? How would we build safe software for those?

Consolidation to a few vendors (but more than 1) is a huge benefit for both costs and safety.

And there is absolutely no reason these companies need to be "Western", unless you include Korea, Japan, Taiwan and India in the "Western World".

China would probably have one such company, but would perhaps only be trusted by their allies, just like US companies would probably not be allowed such infra in China or Russia.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#446

Post by jokoon » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 10:11 AM UTC

larsrc wrote: post #210

jokoon wrote: post #131

I'm not an expert but I'm a bit skeptical about small nuclear reactor designs. I want to believe they would be cost effective, but... It doesn't seem there is a prototype that is cheap?

Prototypes are never cheap. Prototypes are where all the research and design costs go. Once you have a design that works and doesn't have to be customised for each instance, you can get economics of scale because now you're just producing the same items over and over.

Sure, but would the economics of scale really apply here?

Would a small reactor be simpler to build and maintain than a big one, for an equivalent energy output?

I'm no nuclear engineer or scientist, but I'm not sure that a smaller reactor can output more energy per dollar. I don't think that smaller reactor equals more safety, and most of the cost involved with nuclear energy has something to do with safety.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#447

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 10:23 AM UTC

SiempreViernes wrote: post #443

Dylan16807 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that? With fossil fuels I'd say we need to worry about taxing emissions more than we worry about safety. But sure, let's make them safer. Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? Don't say it's impossible to be too safe. It's very possible. Imagine if speed limits were 15mph everywhere for an easy example. We can build plants that are much safer than any previous ones; why is that not good enough…

Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk: the fact that going for a drive is riskier than staying at home is not a good argument for removing the front door. > Why do you think nuclear isn't too safe? It's up to you to give me reasons to think that, because the default position is that a the regulation doesn't seek to require more than is necessary. This is explicitly listed in the legislation c…

> Because the opposite is a nonsensical way to reason about risk

Yes, the opposite of that strawman is also a strawman. Neither one is correct.

By my view you're advocating for a strawman of near-infinite safety.

> meaning the current regulations are written to be just on the right sight of "safe enough"

As far as I'm aware, the way the regulation is handled in practice is that you have to be on the bleeding edge of safety innovations at all times. You can't just be much safer than your predecessors and adopt new methods as they become practical, you have to max out safety at tremendous cost.

Probably because there's decades and decades of pushing for safety, and it sounds really bad to say "no, the plant should not be safer than this, that's too expensive" even when it's true.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#448

Post by ethbr0 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 10:31 AM UTC

nhoughto wrote: post #383

ethbr0 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's an idea: offer one of these micro/modular reactors for free to a developer of a new residential division... One word: Epcot It's something Disney and Florida could probably agree on, would be a wholesome PR story about investing in Walt's futurism dreams, and would be easier to negotiate than with a less-planned development. And finally, what better showcase than "If it's safe enough for Disney"? Our Friend…

And also they already can, if you believe it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-15/disney-wo...

Yeah... chose not to highlight that, as it seemed a clickbaity way of saying "Disney has historically had substantial independence in zoning" (which is a more accurate but less exciting way to phrase it).

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#449

Post by raxxorraxor » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 11:04 AM UTC

JodieBenitez wrote: post #232

spoonjim wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t you just dump radioactive uranium into the bottom of the ocean? Can’t imagine it would do much damage with all of the water around it.

There's life down there.

Pretty basic one even that is in a fundamental part in the food chain many successive chains depend on.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#450

Post by natmaka » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 11:29 AM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #428

natmaka wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31689996

From your linked post: > after decades of often huge projects in many nations there is not a single industrial fast breeder reactor working satisfactorily The key word is "industrial." I assume you mean this as a synonym for "commercial." Let me emphasize the part of my original post, which you are replying to: > Nuclear waste is only a problem *if you don’t allow breeder reactors* There have been, as you link to, do…

> were only shut down when the plant reached end-of-life

Which one can be described this way? As far as I know all were and are plagued with problems (mainly liquid sodium leaks, which is not fun at all).

> fear of nuclear power, lobbying from energy companies (for whom traditional designs are more profitable, externalities be damned), and fear over nuclear proliferation

In most nations research were conducted for decades, this is difficult to explain if such hostility was real. Fear of nuclear power is weak here, as breeders reduce the amount of dangerous waste.

The most mature and advanced breeders are in Russia, and all those reason simply don't apply there as governments always were pro-nuclear, without any serious opposition, controlling energy companies, and not really afraid of proliferation because they always export according to their own strategic views.