Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#411

Post by zdragnar » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:41 PM UTC

dale_glass wrote: post #380

zdragnar wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mass production in general is made cheaper by simplifying and cutting corners This is painfully wrong. Go shopping for pretty much any industrial part, and you'll pay through the nose for a few. Order a few dozen, and you get massive discounts in price for identical products. It takes time and effort to configure machines and tooling to produce something. Those are fixed costs- the more you order, the per-unit pric…

> That's not gonna happen. No climate model is predicting a doomsday event. I'm not talking about the climate. I'm talking about the grid. My prediction is that we'll keep on building renewables until renewables break the grid, then patch it up in a hurry, and nuclear will still not be built in the end.

If renewables start straining the grid, they'll just face economically infeasible grid connect fees, reduced or negative rates. That's already the case in California.

Power companies don't get to just start supplying electricity to the grid at will; rather than the grid breaking, operators will simply say "no more". At that point, the only urgency will be an artificial, political one.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#412

Post by polotics » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:41 PM UTC

MezzoDelCammin wrote: post #330

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard almost exactly the same thing about Japanese reactors, are you sure you're remembering right, that it is definitely the French because it seems a bit of a coincidence

Nope, he's got that right. It's been a pretty major recurring story in the news in France through this autumn. I haven't really followed through the details, but the idea was that several reactors were down for a planned overhaul/maintenance for something like this (material defects) through the summer. As the delays ("nuclear projects are never on time") piled up story was "will they make it in time for winter". Pre…

The details: one tube on a safety backup system, so with a 0.1% chance of needing to be used, was shown to have the potential to corrode under strain ("corrosion sous contrainte") this led to all plants using that kind of tube being shut down for months because of extreme care. The irony being that this extreme care is keeping things extremely safe, but somehow in the news it comes out as "nuclear is unsafe". The reality is there are many chemicals plants with much more damaging issues, but much less regulations, and significant accidents over the yeras, often not as bad as Bhopal, but still toxic to neighbours, that somehow don't get to newsworthy...

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#413

Post by the_third_wave » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:41 PM UTC

Krasnol wrote: post #389

the_third_wave wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power in Sweden was expensive due to the "effektskatt" [1] (power output tax) which was levied specifically on nuclear power, ostensibly to pay for dismantling nuclear power plants after they were shut down. This tax made up about 25% of the production costs in the end [2]. [1] https://naringslivets-medieinstitut.se/det-var-marknaden-som... [2] https://skatteupproret.se/skatt-pa-karnkraft/

So it actually showed the real price of nuclear since dismantling is part of it.

The taxes and additional payments into the special fund established for this purpose [1] already cover the prospected costs of dismantling all nuclear power stations and treating/storing the waste (spent fuel as well as materials from dismantled reactors). While the additional "effektskatt" has been abolished in 2018 the payments to SKB continue. The total costs are estimated to end up at 171 billion kr allowing for a safety margin and taking price increases into account. Remaining costs as of 2024 are estimated to be 124 billion kr. The fund currently holds 80 billion kr, the additional 'effektskatt' brought in 38.5 billion kr, securities posted by the companies which run the nuclear power stations stand for another 59 billion kr. Payments into the fund continue, the proceeds of which are invested in state bonds and on the stock market. Even without these continuing payments and investments and disregarding compound interest the costs for dismantling current reactors and treating all waste has been paid already. As it stands the plan is for the remaining reactors to run until ~2045 [2]. Payments into the SKB fund will continue so by the time the last reactor is shut down the costs will have been paid several times over.

[1] https://skb.se/det-har-ar-skb/finansiering/

[2] https://www.karnavfallsradet.se/karnavfall-och-slutforvaring...

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#414

Post by forgetfreeman » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:45 PM UTC

evilos wrote: post #397

forgetfreeman wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without doing a lick of research into the particulars of this plant the statement scans based on storage requirements for high level radioactive waste alone. Some of this shit has to be stored for several multiples of recorded civilization before it becomes anything like safe. We're talking borderline geologic time scales.

Fortunately that's not true. The fission products that are actually dangerous only stick around for 300 to 600 years [1]. After that, you'd have to ingest what is left to be harmed. We have existing facilities [2] in the US where we can bury waste in such a way that it essentially becomes crystalized in salt after 100 years. Water moves centimeters per billion years in this salt. This one facility could easily servic…

Except it is true because Pu-239 and other transuranic isotopes absolutely are a thing. In the case of Pu-239 it's half-life is ~20,000 years. Given the 10 half-life minimum storage requirements for high level radioactive waste, we're at 200,000 years, which is 40 times the length of recorded human history or if you prefer 2/3 of the time our species has provably existed on the planet.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#415

Post by pfdietz » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:45 PM UTC

briffle wrote: post #243

KennyBlanken wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear proponents when trying to sell nuclear love to shout about how successful France is. Someone from France is telling you that actually, it's really not that great...and now France's nuclear program is terrible and the result of 20-30 years of neglect and politics? Also, which part of "nuclear plants are sensitive to environmental changes" didn't you get? If there's no cooling water, or the water is too hot, th…

> Also, which part of "nuclear plants are sensitive to environmental changes" didn't you get? If there's no cooling water, or the water is too hot, the plant can't run. That is completely false. Most Gen4 reactors are passively cooled. And even older ones, not all require 'once through' water cooling. there are other options: https://world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/techn...

You grossly misunderstand what passive cooling means. It doesn't mean they don't need water for cooling in normal operation. Air cooled thermal cycles are inherently more costly and less efficient

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#416

Post by dale_glass » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:46 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #392

dale_glass wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Er, no it is the point. We've always been using the safety mechanisms you specified, so it's not going to affect costs because those safety features have always been there. Again, the point is a generic one. When we find a problem with nuclear, we add extra safety systems. Those cost money. This is something much rarer with say, solar or wind because there's less that can go wrong, less backups needed, and breakage…

> Again, the point is a generic one. When we find a problem with nuclear, we add extra safety systems. Those cost money. And again, we already added that safety system. There is no "extra safety systems" because it's already there. > But it does mean there's factories already pumping them out, plentiful production capacity, competition, and cheap prices. Exactly: production is already at scale so making a large order…

> There is no "extra safety systems" because it's already there.

No. Every time we have an accident we think of what could have prevented it, and invent more safety systems.

Eg, Fukushima wasn't just "account for tsunamis", which is a local problem. One resulting requirement is "Ensure that the required parts to keep the reactor said can be made available and brought in by helicopter within 24 hours even if the terrain is impassable".

So that added a nigh universal requirement to store various replacement parts and to ensure some way to deliver water, as well as the availability of helicopters to bring that in. That increases the price of every nuclear plant out there. Maybe not by a huge amount, but it does.

And renewables escape that because nobody cares if something knocks down a wind turbine, so long it doesn't fall on somebody's head.

> As a contrast to nuclear power components - where nuclear plants are the only market - so a tenfold increase in the production of nuclear plants leads to a tenfold increase in the production of pressure vessels.

10X of approximately nothing might still not be enough to bother automating anything, and you'd have to convince those companies that demand is going to stay and make the investment worthwhile. Meanwhile we're not about to stop needing gearboxes and generators.

> Correct, and the solution to intermittency that we've found is to burn fossil fuels.

Fair, but again backs up my view that nuclear isn't going to happen.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#417

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:46 PM UTC

illiarian wrote: post #56

eric-burel wrote: post #12

As a French not expert in the matter but living near nuclear plants: - one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material - rivers are getting too hot to cool down nuclear plants correctly - nuclear plants are very unreliable, we almost got out of power this winter and next winter will be equally tough (only an abnormally hot winter avoid cuts...) - the government wants to simplify control organism and laws around…

> nuclear plants are very unreliable You mean, they are the most reliable base load and load-following power sources we know. > References are easy to find if you want confirmation It's just as easy to find confirmation that all the problems you listed are the result of neglect and politics of the past 20-30 years. > it has to be done properly and safely, which is certainly not the case around here. As in: France has…

> It's just as easy to find confirmation that all the problems you listed are the result of neglect and politics of the past 20-30 years.

This is always my objection to Nuclear. Nuclear's biggest drawback is that it requires proper maintenance and a stable regulatory environment to be safe.

Our world is too political and tumultuous. You have to manage too many externalities. This is only going to get worse as our climate continues to change.

I just don't see decades long nuclear projects helping us in the short term, and the disruptions on the horizon make long term governance of them problematic.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#418

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:49 PM UTC

cyberax wrote: post #405

pydry wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is not as bad as it sounds, because fuel is just about ~5% of the total cost of the produced nuclear energy. Therein lies the problem. Capital costs dominate nuclear plant costs and they are high . If you load followed such that you kept the reactor at an average of, say, 50% nameplate capacity that would lead to a levelized cost per MWh of about 2x$168 = $336. (LCOE listed here is $168: https://www.reuters.com…

I question your estimation of the capital cost. LCOE for most nuclear power plants is way below that: https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ For the US it's $33 per MWh, so doubling it still gives reasonable cost. As for wind, it simply can not compete right now for guaranteed capacity. The adequacy rating for most wind power plants is around 10%, so you need 10x overbuild to even compete.

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#419

Post by pfdietz » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:54 PM UTC

blibble wrote: post #125

fsh wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, coal is barely radioactive at all. The small traces of Thorium and Uranium are completely negligible. An old study from 1978 has estimated that nuclear reactors emit somewhat more radiation than coal power plants, but the levels are overall insignificant [1]. This is only about emissions though. The radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants has many many orders of magnitude more activity than the emissio…

> This is only about emissions though. The radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants has many many orders of magnitude more activity than the emissions. yes I should have probably said "emission" not waste > No, coal is barely radioactive at all. but you need to burn orders of magnitude more of it, producing literal mountains of coal ash and exhaust emissions whereas for nuclear the waste is an extremely sma…

The radioactivity mobilized by U mining for LWRs is about an order of magnitude more than that mobilized by coal combustion, per unit of work produced.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#420

Post by Manuel_D » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:54 PM UTC

dale_glass wrote: post #416

Manuel_D wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, the point is a generic one. When we find a problem with nuclear, we add extra safety systems. Those cost money. And again, we already added that safety system. There is no "extra safety systems" because it's already there. > But it does mean there's factories already pumping them out, plentiful production capacity, competition, and cheap prices. Exactly: production is already at scale so making a large order…

> There is no "extra safety systems" because it's already there. No. Every time we have an accident we think of what could have prevented it, and invent more safety systems. Eg, Fukushima wasn't just "account for tsunamis", which is a local problem. One resulting requirement is "Ensure that the required parts to keep the reactor said can be made available and brought in by helicopter within 24 hours even if the terra…

> No. Every time we have an accident we think of what could have prevented it, and invent more safety systems.

And for the third time, the safety systems that would have prevented Chernobyl are already present in western reactors:

* Western reactors have secondary containment

* Western reactors also use dedicated control and moderator rods

We don't need to spend the money to invent more safety systems if we already have them.

> 10X of approximately nothing might still not be enough to bother automating anything, and you'd have to convince those companies that demand is going to stay and make the investment worthwhile. Meanwhile we're not about to stop needing gearboxes and generators.

It's not a question of automation, it's more of a factor of institutional knowledge and overhead cost of design. When building something unique like a steam generator a new manufacturer typically builds a broken first model and has to iterate a couple times before nailing down the manufacturing process. That overhead cost can be amortized over a larger production run.