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

Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

constructionphysics.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 298 posts

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#171

Post by ncmncm »

manuel_w wrote: post #36
kinghajj wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even assuming that's the case, isn't the counterargument "Fine, then governments need to subsidize investment into nuclear power plants, just as we do with other green technologies."

Aren't governments subsidizing nuclear power plants a whole lot more than anything else? I heard without government subsidies, nuclear power plants would simply not be buildable. No insurance company would insure them. The cost in case of a nuclear fallout is just too high.

Strictly speaking, oil still gets almost all the subsidies. The rest are chicken scratch.

But yes, nukes all rely heavily on subsidies, always have.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#172

Post by ncmncm »

towaway15463 wrote: post #92
ok_dad wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally, part of the bonus of solar+storage vs. large nuclear is that when you spread out your generation into smaller grid sections, then you can reduce the need for large transmission infrastructure that requires maintenance[1]. Distributed software is good, so why not distributed energy generation? Answer: distributed energy generation is great! [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/05/california-finds-pge-equipm…

Even so, when people say that we’ll just spread out this energy generation infrastructure everywhere I still want to know the actual numbers. Are there enough rooftops and vacant lots in LA to provide all the necessary power? What about lower density areas? What about northern climates with lots of snow and rain? There is still maintenance involved, installation costs are likely increased by doing this piecemeal rath…

There is absolutely no need to use any land exclusively for solar or wind.

Both coexist synergetically with reservoirs, canal, pasture, even crop land. So, zero acres of land needed.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#173

Post by credit_guy »

ncmncm wrote: post #164
credit_guy wrote: post #137

Whenever we talk about nuclear power on HN, people are split in two groups: those who'd love to see nuclear power succeeding, and those who are against it and who support solar and wind. I am pro both nuclear and renewables. Solar and wind have been on an absolute tear lately. At least in the US (where I live) new solar and wind construction has been growing at a breathtaking pace during the last decade. Take a look…

There has never been a nuke plant operated without subsidies, anywhere in the world, and probably never will be. In the US, taxpayers pick up the tab for disaster insurance because no private insurer is big enough. No reactor would be left enough to operate, paying the premiums on that policy. By 2040, all the existing nukes will have been shut down, unable to deliver enough power at the spot price to continue operat…

> and probably never will be

I don't get it. If there will be one, are you going to be unhappy? Because you surely sound like you'd be unhappy.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#174

Post by ncmncm »

kragen wrote: post #102
BMc2020 wrote: post #97

Here's my response from 10 days ago to this same story. 0 points by BMc2020 10 days ago | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? ... I opened all three of these, but did not read any of them I did a Ctrl-F for "subsid" (to find subsidy or subsidies) 0 hits I did a Ctrl-F for "decomm" (to find decommission or decommissioning) 0 hits Having read many of these types of…

You can in theory decommission naval nuclear reactors by letting them sink to the bottom of the ocean in a terrible, sad accident from which fortunately all the sailors were safely rescued. I don't know that anybody has done this; often the sailors all died. But it seems that even without taking decommissioning into account, naval nuclear reactors are not cost-competitive with other power sources. Looking for "subsid…

The Soviets scuttled a nuke sub that way, in shallow water off Novaya Zemlya. Putin has offered to raise and dispose of it "properly".

The international Standard for "properly" appears to mean in deeper water.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#175

Post by ncmncm »

credit_guy wrote: post #173
ncmncm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has never been a nuke plant operated without subsidies, anywhere in the world, and probably never will be. In the US, taxpayers pick up the tab for disaster insurance because no private insurer is big enough. No reactor would be left enough to operate, paying the premiums on that policy. By 2040, all the existing nukes will have been shut down, unable to deliver enough power at the spot price to continue operat…

> and probably never will be I don't get it. If there will be one, are you going to be unhappy? Because you surely sound like you'd be unhappy.

I mean the odds of somebody coming up with a nuke that can be operated purely on non-compulsory commercial power rates are slim to none. No one has ever even tried. Everyone promoting SMR relies heavily on continued massive subsidy to make it seem viable.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#176

Post by tuatoru »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #167
pclmulqdq wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was informed by the parent comment that Nuclear and Hydro were obsolete too. Not just natural gas and coal.

Obsolete means we're unlikely to add a lot more energy generation from them - but not that we'll decommission what we have or stop maintaining them. This is especially true for Hydro. I doubt we'll ever add much more nuclear if not mini nuclear reactors - that's why I'm really excited about the possibilities for them.

Thank you.

To add to that, I said nothing about storage. There is not much clarity about storage as yet. Pumped hydro, compressed air, thermal (hot rocks), hydrogen or ammonia: they could all be viable alongside batteries (for grid stabilization and short term storage). And more besides them, probably.

It's also not clear to me which battery chemistries will win for grid storage. Possibly several of them.

Storage is where the R&D action is.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#177

Post by ncmncm »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #156
ncmncm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be stupid to spend money building out storage before there is renewable generating capacity to charge it from. So, they spend on that, first. Most of the storage, in the end, will not be batteries. Most existing storage is pumped hydro, because the dams were already there. There are lots of alternatives: underground or underwater compressed air, liquified air, underground hydrogen, tanked ammonia, buoyancy,…

"Hydrogen synthesis efficiency is now well over 90%" From what source? Hydrocarbons?

Obviously not.

Anyway that efficiency will not be important.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#178

Post by Schroedingersat »

donmaq wrote: post #90
epistasis wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is our ultimate goal to get nuclear at any cost? Then sure. But nuclear at any cost is not a reasonable goal. The only reason we want nuclear is for its carbon-free energy. At which point it must be evaluated on its merits, not as an end goal of its own

And how can we just ignore the waste problem? [1] In many cases, containment pools are full to the brim with spent rods [2], which is both environmentally hazardous, & a target for terrorists (dirty bombs) 1: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-waste 2: https://ips-dc.org/spent_nuclear_fuel_pools_in_the_us_reduci...

The waste problem is real, and if the nuclear shills can demonstrate that there can exist a nuclear reactor that can compete with solar+storage in winter at 45 degrees north economically then we can bother talking about it.

Until then we dismiss them along with every other technology that does not meaningfully exist.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#179

Post by tomcam »

willis936 wrote: post #112
crote wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Nuclear power plants are rare enough that each project is basically unique. - Nuclear power plants are very complex. They are more "engineered" than "constructed", with hundreds of kilometers of tubes and wires. Pouring the concrete is the easy part. - Nuclear power plants deal with an incredibly dangerous environment: high pressures, high temperatures, radioactivity, hazardous chemicals. Everything has to be teste…

Jumbojets are hugely complex with hundreds of kilometers of pipes and wires and yet a thousand of them are in the air right this second. Complexity is a nothingburger.

Sounds like you have it under control. I suggest you take your business plan to YCombinator and make some serious money.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#180

Post by tomcam »

cmarschner wrote: post #131
kragen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best guess is what Freeman Dyson said in his autobiography Disturbing the Universe : he stopped working on nuclear reactors after TRIGA (01958) and Project Orion (01957 to 01961) because it stopped being fun. It became a question of bureaucracy and national security and empire-building and whatnot. So people like Dyson, who learned calculus by spending his Christmas vacation working his way through a textbok for f…

But why do you prefix years with 0?

I’ve been doing it for 000005 years now
Post reply on HN