Nuclear energy is clean

Post by m2fkxy » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #205

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…

100% correct. Not only have nuclear costs not improved in the three quarters of a century it has existed, it's only gotten more expensive while wind and solar have plunged, dramatically, in costs. In the US, nuclear capacity is being replaced by wind and solar at six times the rate it's being "lost"; the hysterics you read here on HN and reddit are just that. And the rate of solar and wind deployment is skyrocketing.…

Post by rattray » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 1:59 AM UTC

m2fkxy wrote: post #179

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…

> In conclusion, (...) nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive What do you mean? 50+ reactors are under construction as we write [1], and almost twice as much are planned [2] (with even more proposed). Furthermore: > A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped Marine nuclear reactors (of which 200-ish are in active service) and Chukotka's floating nuclear power plants are notable co…

Post by KennyBlanken » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 2:00 AM UTC

trashtester wrote: post #138

joebob42 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is technically true, I think a developed-ish nation might blow up your electric facilities before it would destroy a city.

Attacking a nuclear plant on purpose will be seen as similar to attacking with a nuclear bomb in the eyes of the world. If all you want to do is to knock out the electrical system of a country, you can use an EMP burst bomb over that country, and the grid will be down for months.

Post by themaninthedark » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 2:04 AM UTC

mjhay wrote: post #154

mah4k4l wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok yes my bad forgot to post the limits. At least used to be lake fish two times in week tops.

It is not recommended to eat the fish from the river where I live more than twice a month. That's just standard historic mining pollution. Coal poisons the water far worse, both from mining, air pollution, and coal ash. It even emits far more radiation than nuclear power.

Post by bob1029 » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 2:13 AM UTC

Panzer04 wrote: post #145

bob1029 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar has less single points of failure and if it fails not much happens On the surface this is very true. However, types of solar have caveats that do not manifest until you have a certain amount of utilization in the grid. Photovoltaics do not contribute to inertia. This is the Newtonian concept that ensures instantaneous voltage stability separate from any active demand/generation management functions. The more…

Batteries are more "inertia" than any rotational generator could ever hope to be. Inertia is only a concept because the grid has traditionally relied on rotational generators (which do have inertia). It's by no means necessary for the functioning of a power grid - isolated inverters don't need it, nor do portable rotational generators. It's useful in traditional grids because we didn't have electronics that could mor…