Live data from Hacker News

Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

constructionphysics.substack.com

501–510 of 512 posts

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posts like this make me just despair... we couldn't even scale up this to the world wide needs, but if we could the waste would be huge. Only thing that could get us out there and would only make sense is going renewables everywhere in Manhatten-like projects, but that won't happen because people argueing like this got us into this situation where there is allegedly only a binary choice between failed and failed..

> the waste would be huge Isn’t the opposite true? Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel source by a gigantic margin. The entire US stockpile of waste since the 50s is only 83,000 metric tonnes and could fit on a single football field stacked less than 10 yards deep. If we could all stop clutching our pearls about scary radiation and just agree to store the spent fuel deep underground there’d be abs…

It's easier than this, the waste can be burned in the new generators.

So building more nuclear would actually fix the nuclear waste problem.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post like this make me hopeful that rational minds will prevail and we get clean abundant nuclear energy. It’s becoming clear that the climate alarmism isn't about solutions or even a tax, but forcing us to purchase “carbon credits” from Saudi Arabia and other sovereign wealth funds ranked high in the ESG index.

"It’s becoming clear that the climate alarmism isn't about solutions or even a tax, but forcing us to purchase “carbon credits” Every half educated climate activist knows thay carbon credits are a fraud perpetuates by wallstreet types to pretend they are doing something when they are not. This post is breathtakingly uninformed. I suggest calling it climate illiteracy

> Every half educated climate activist knows thay carbon credits are a fraud perpetuates by wallstreet types to pretend they are doing something when they are not.

The problem with this statement is that the carbon credits ARE being rolled out AS the solution.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#503
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it stands to reason that nuclear power plant design and construction efficiency would have progressed far more quickly with continued construction of nuclear plants. And the amount of fossil fuel usage that greater energy production from nuclear sources would have curbed would have saved thousands of lives via reduced air pollution, particularly from coal usage, without coming at the expense of high energy pr…

Denial is always strong. Meltdowns prove the same thing as non-meltdowns. What we do know is that if solar PV had got the subsidies in the '80s it finally got from China the '00s, PV prices in the '90s would have been where they are now, and we would today be well along toward a fully renewable and radically cheaper energy infrastructure today without looming imminent climate catastrophe. Nobody would be hyping dodgy…

No post body was provided.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#504
post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because if wind is predicted to die down for a week, you order liquified ammonia shipped in from solar farms in the tropics. You might even keep a tank of a week or two's worth, banked against the occasion. You may object that this seems fragile, but it is in fact how we live now. People are importing fuel from dodgy countries all the damn time.

I think much of the anti-renewable mindset is white high latitude racism. It's a difficult pill to swallow for some that these mid to high latitude areas are going to become the world's energy ghettos.

My impression is of post-apocalyptic survivalism. If you are installing renewables, it is because you will not be able to rely on anyone else in the world, for anything, forever; or anyway must never be obliged to.

Dependence upon imported oil, cars, aircraft, microchips, shop tools, home appliances, clothing, and ... everything, really ... has scarred them deeply, and they cannot consider entering into any new such arrangement.

One could ask, but I would expect only sputtering.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not the US here. I live in Europe. The grid in Europe is not designed to transport 100% of electricity needs from one edge of the continenent to the other. Most energy produced in Europe is still renewable or nuclear, and it is produced relatively close to where it is consumed, for the most part. > We have been "pumping" massively energy into storage in the alps. The storage capacity of electricity in the a…

> I live in Europe. So what's the scare? You live in a working grid already. It's the most stable one on this planet already and it's improving constantly. Those improvements are also cheaper than nuclear reactors and make the grid more flexible than a constantly running nuclear reactor. What's your argument? > The storage capacity of electricity in the alps is tiny compared to total electricity consumption. That's w…

> You live in a working grid already.

With the load given to it today, it is stable where I live. But the capacity is limited to serve just the current usage + a safety margin. There is not even enough capacity within the country to even out prices from North to South. (Prices in the South is now >15x higher than in the North because of exports.)

> What's your argument?

My argument is that LCOE of renewables, when including the necessary storage/and or grid expansion to make it profitable, still is much higher than nuclear (even at European prices of nuclear).

> Do you know what's really unpopular in Norway? Nuclear energy. Just as in Germany.

I know what's unpopular in Norway, because I live here. Nuclear is pretty irrelevant here, as we still have more hydro than needed to meet our supply. But because we consumpe a LOT more electricity than most countries (do to prices historically having been very low), the population is also very sensitive to price fluctuations.

One aspect of that, is that many Norwegians actually hare highly critical of Germany shutting down their last nuclear plants this year. There is a growing sentiment that Norway needs to limit net exports of electricy to make sure prices return to historic levels. I don't think the government will survive if they don't manage that by next winter.

> It's working in Germany pretty well and has been for years while France is embarrassing themselves with their rotting nuclear one-way.

To me, as an outsider who's neither French nor German, it seems like it is Germany embarrassing themselves. I suppose opinions may vary.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany, for all it's renewables, let out significantly more greenhouse gases per capita than surrounding countries, such as France. > It's not even close to how costly nuclear is and will continue to be for GENERATIONS. Modern nuclear plants are designed to last for a minimum of 60 years, and can be renewed to last another 40. Modern wind turbines as well as most solar panels have an expected lifetime of around 25 y…

> Germany, for all it's renewables, let out significantly more greenhouse gases per capita than surrounding countries, such as France. This has also nothing to do with nuclear. The reason we have so much dirt is in the name of the commission which is responsible for the COMPLETE phaseout of coal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Growth,_Structur... > Modern nuclear plants are designed to last for a minimum…

>> Germany, for all it's renewables, let out significantly more greenhouse gases per capita than surrounding countries, such as France.

> This has also nothing to do with nuclear.

When comparing to France, it has EVERYTHING to do with France using Nuclear, where Germany still uses a lot of gas and coal.

> They don't leave us with radioactive waste, we have no space to put away.

Don't believe the propaganda about nuclear waste. The volume of high grade waste is tiny, and it remains super-dangerous for much less time than people realize. And low-grade waste is mostly less dangerous than car-exhaust.

> "Modern" is also relative in this case

Gen3 reactors are safe enough, if not already over-engineered for safety in many cases.

>> Germany even pays Denmark to shut down their wind power

> Why do you even bother quoting me when you're not answering to this?

You were bragging of Germany paying, I confirmed that Germany was paying.

> What do you suppose? Give an electric heater to 95% of all German households?

If Germany is serious about getting rid of fossil fuel based heating/cooking etc, they could do like Norway, gradually ramp up taxes of natural gas for heating to a level just above the price of electricity. After 10 years at that level, switching becomes easy. Norway started this 20 years ago, and when fossil fuels were banned in 2020, most had already transitioned.

> Btw: while Norway runs green, they dig for oil and gas and sell it to others making all the good on the environment bad again.

That's one way to see it. If the environmentalist movement in Norway gets their way, Norway will shut down the oil and gas production asap. Realists would say that as long as Europe depends on fossil fuels, it's better that they get it from Norway, than being even more dependent on dictatorships in OPEC+Russia.

Anyway, Germany is in a similar situation with its car industry. Is Germany responsible for the polution generated by German-produced cars? Or do you put all the blame on the oil-producer?

> Nobody said they need it. It's one of the batteries for the rest of the grid. This is how the grid works.

Actually, Norway has very little capacity for pumped storage. If Europe can sell us power on windy days, we can temporarily shut down our hydro plants on those days, and export a similar amount when there is less wind in the North Sea.

But with Europe currently being so low on production capacity, this balance has turned into significant net exports for Norway. The effect of that to the average Norwegian is similar to what it would be if Germany simply banned natural gas heating overnight. Electrical ovens cost almost nothing compared to the electricity itself.

As long as the price differenc between Germany and Norway remains as high as it is, there is no way Norwegian consumers will be willing to pay German prices. Switching back to fossil fuels for heating is not an option here, so consumers are stuck with consumption that is 2-4x higher than most countries.

So be careful about depending on Norway to be part of the grid for much longer. It's simply not in the best interests of the Norwegian population anymore.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link links to MIT's summary, which in turn links to this original paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062... (probably paywalled) > Generally keeping houses warm with low evergy is solved, well insulated passive houses need little heating energy even in places with long cold winters. What is your definition of "places with long cold winters" and how much energy do you think it takes (…

Have a look in eg p.43-46, 75, 117, 143 in https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/passive-houses... for one case of building standards back in 2009. There isn't really a energy efficiency limit there being approached, just a matter of what had been picked as a cost efficient target, so there are no absolutes. I'm betting current designs are more efficient, as that has been a constant trend, but don't have newe…

The savings depend on what you benchmark against. But energy savings between 50-75% for a new house compared to an old one, seems realistic. And maybe older houses could be modernized in ways that would save 25%-50% in many cases.

Tearing down all old houses and building new ones is obviously not an alternative, so a transition to new standards is likely to take 50 years or more, even though some of the benefit can be realized by modernizing existing housing.

But even $30000-€50000 euros to lower energy consumption is also a big investment for many families, and even WITH that investment, heating prices in Norway and Sweden will be 2-3x historic prices if prices stabilize at current levels, especially if the governments stop subsidies.

I think every country will have trouble bringing their population to accept having to use electricity at prices about €0.1/kwh, even if over a very long term, it is possible to build houses (at extra costs) that bring the consumption down a bit. At such prices, people in Germany, Denmark, Poland, Hungary etc will simply continue burning natural gas indefinitely.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#508
post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because if wind is predicted to die down for a week, you order liquified ammonia shipped in from solar farms in the tropics. You might even keep a tank of a week or two's worth, banked against the occasion. You may object that this seems fragile, but it is in fact how we live now. People are importing fuel from dodgy countries all the damn time.

I think much of the anti-renewable mindset is white high latitude racism. It's a difficult pill to swallow for some that these mid to high latitude areas are going to become the world's energy ghettos.

There may be individuals that fit your stereotype, but frankly your statement comes off as every bit as racist as you blame that stereotype of.

Personally, I think it would be great if Africa, India and Mexico could become energy powerhouses. Much better to have energy that can be produced anywhere with a desert or tropical climate than a few monopolist countries, such as OPEC+Russia.

And before you blame that last sentence on racism, keep in mind that Russia is VERY white and also very high latitude. It's not about the race, latitude or skin coloar, but the fact that many OPEC countries are dictatorships that use the profits to wage war on their neighbours, both in the Middle East and Russia/Ukraine.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar is near-useless in colder areas, where you want to use the power for heating in the winter. Heating is super awesome with renewables. As you can store heat in an well isolated home. Yes you need capacity for that but heat pumps well a lot with that.

> Heating is super awesome with renewables. As you can store heat in an well isolated home. Sounds like you're not speaking from experience. Actually, houses are pretty lousy batteries. Most people have a range of only a few degrees that they find comfortable indoors. They will tend to set the thermostat to about the middle of that range. If they turn off the head, the temperature will go the lower end of that range…

If your house gets cold after 2 hours you do have a bad isolation.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Heating is super awesome with renewables. As you can store heat in an well isolated home. Sounds like you're not speaking from experience. Actually, houses are pretty lousy batteries. Most people have a range of only a few degrees that they find comfortable indoors. They will tend to set the thermostat to about the middle of that range. If they turn off the head, the temperature will go the lower end of that range…

If your house gets cold after 2 hours you do have a bad isolation.

The house is 70 years old. 1 wall was renovated, and got modern insulation, but the other 3 have not received that treatment yet. If it's -20C outside, the temperature drops perhaps 2 degrees per hour, if all power is shut off. That means 20C goes to 16C in 2 hours.
Post reply on HN