Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear energy is clean

collectifission.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 709 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#181

Post by brutusborn »

joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

Do you have any sources for utility scale batteries with reasonable cost? The biggest I know of are in Australia and are extremely expensive, and provide such little reserve they are basically a rounding error.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#182

Post by ajdude »

joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

And then even after building the plant your community may turn around and decide they don’t want the plant anymore. Then you’re out €1.4bn e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#183

Post by cowtools »

Retric wrote: post #153
TheDong wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroelectric dams typically cause even more damage when they fail, but I rarely see people worrying about whether using them for power will lead to war-time issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure Of course, the Geneva Convention bans attacking dams, just like it bans attacking nuclear power plants. The pollution from burning coal has already killed more people than nuclear disasters conceivably could. If…

Hydroelectric dams actively save lives by reducing flooding. It’s the only power source with net negative death rates and as such doesn’t see the same kind of pushback from disasters.

Okay, but wouldn't a hydroelectric dam encourage people to build in areas that would be otherwise unsafe, thus putting them at risk of a terrorist attack on the dam?

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#184

Post by tcfhgj »

brutusborn wrote: post #181
joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

Do you have any sources for utility scale batteries with reasonable cost? The biggest I know of are in Australia and are extremely expensive, and provide such little reserve they are basically a rounding error.

Are you talking about lithium batteries?

Why on earth?

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#185

Post by kirso »

joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

Not sure what do you mean? In many countries nuclear is government subsidised and is the cheapest & cleanest source of energy available compared to say renewables. In fact countries build these because of the price of other alternatives: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/czechs-st...

The caveat is indeed incredibly large CAPEX and very long time, but what is the alternative? At least then you are secured partially for 20-40 years depending on needed capacity.

EDIT: typos

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#186

Post by desindol »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #98
TheDong wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroelectric dams typically cause even more damage when they fail, but I rarely see people worrying about whether using them for power will lead to war-time issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure Of course, the Geneva Convention bans attacking dams, just like it bans attacking nuclear power plants. The pollution from burning coal has already killed more people than nuclear disasters conceivably could. If…

The other issue with solar/wind of course being that it’s not a suitable electricity source for base load on a grid :-/

If one more reactor goes down nuclear isn’t either in your country. Germany has to run their load balancing gas plants right now to fix your nuclear fever dreams.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#187

Post by jaredklewis »

joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

Oil refineries also take years to build and are built on site.

The difference is that oil goes onto open markets and it is thus possible for oil refiners to get a return on their investment.

We don’t need innovation in nuclear. The nuclear technology we have today is already a miracle technology.

Can’t speak to Europe but in the US the issue absolutely is regulation. The exact regulations vary by state, but energy grids are not open markets and the regulations universally disadvantage nuclear and benefit other sources. Safety focused regulations do impose a cost, but the primary issue is that we don’t let nuclear power operators turn a profit.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#188

Post by afterburner »

joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

I'm glad this kind of comment is floating to the top of these threads now, instead of the straw man arguments more commonly propagated in the past which consisted of blaming "fear". It's always been $money$.

Let's spend the money on the better alternative sources wherever we can. If nothing else, we will see the benefits faster, which is now an even more critical factor than ever as feet have been dragged for decades.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#189

Post by addicted »

joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

Nuclear projects globally aren’t collapsing because they aren’t “green”. They’ve been collapsing because of the economics despite green subsidies. And where they have succeeded they’re charging customers a lot more money than equivalent solar and wind alternatives have.

This is the problem that needs to be solved. And it’s not clear to me how it gets resolved in a much higher cost of borrowing environment than what we’ve had for a decade.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#190

Post by afterburner »

jaredklewis wrote: post #187
joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

Oil refineries also take years to build and are built on site. The difference is that oil goes onto open markets and it is thus possible for oil refiners to get a return on their investment. We don’t need innovation in nuclear. The nuclear technology we have today is already a miracle technology. Can’t speak to Europe but in the US the issue absolutely is regulation. The exact regulations vary by state, but energy gr…

> We don’t need innovation in nuclear

The Nuclear industry will need that innovation, in order to remain even remotely competitive with the alternatives. It's not improving faster than those alternatives though.

Post reply on HN