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

Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

nationalinterest.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 568 posts

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

#431

Post by pydry »

k8wk1 wrote: post #349
Retric wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and that looks great wind, hydro, and nuclear providing 100% of power at 3pm on a Friday at 2.5c/kWh. But what happens on the weekend when demand for power drops even more? Unfortunately the nuclear power plant operator losses money even faster than they are right now.

Low electricity costs are a problem for all electricity plans, not only nuclear. Renewables are even more susceptible to this because the weather affects all renewable plants of the same type similarly across wide geographic areas, so there will be times when they all generate more than is needed and nothing can be done about it. What's worse, the output is unpredictable, so there's little opportunity for some busine…

>Low electricity costs are a problem for all electricity plans, not only nuclear.

No, it's worst for the more expensive, capital intense sources.

Gas is expensive but not capital intense. An idled plant doesnt lose too much because fuel costs dominate. Solar/wind is capital intense but not expensive - idling is cheap if the whole thing is cheap.

Nuclear power is capital intense and expensive. Idling burns through a lot of cash.

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

#432

Post by pydry »

Manuel_D wrote: post #189
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…

> Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical generation while wind and solar are the cheapest. Except if you add the cost of 12 hours of batteries to solar it's massively more expensive. You can't just compare an intermittent source and a non-intermittent source, without factoring in the cost of storage.

No, it's still massively cheaper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.365.6449.108

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

#433

Post by dale_glass »

Manuel_D wrote: post #420
dale_glass wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

You're stuck on Chernobyl. I repeat, it was an example of a trend. The specific example wasn't intended to be of any particular importance. The trend of accident -> extra security is.

So yeah, Chernobyl was a bad example, but that does nothing to change that when something on a nuclear plant goes wrong, we look at how to stop future accidents, and add extra tech for monitoring/backups/etc, making nuclear more expensive, which is one of the reasons why price hasn't gone down over time. Because we've added extra stuff on top to patch up both big and smaller problems that cropped up.

Though I think that without Chernobyl it's well possible somebody would have eventually suggested maybe a containment building isn't quite necessary. Because it sure isn't free.

Meanwhile, if a wind turbine falls apart somewhere, for the most part we just ignore it. It's a problem for the operator. We're not trying to ensure no wind turbine anywhere doesn't fall apart ever.

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

#434

Post by Manuel_D »

pydry wrote: post #432
Manuel_D wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical generation while wind and solar are the cheapest. Except if you add the cost of 12 hours of batteries to solar it's massively more expensive. You can't just compare an intermittent source and a non-intermittent source, without factoring in the cost of storage.

No, it's still massively cheaper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.365.6449.108

Cheaper how? From your source:

> Last month, the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie estimated the cost to decarbonize the U.S. grid alone would be $4.5 trillion, about half of which would go to installing 900 billion watts, or 900 gigawatts (GW), of batteries and other energy storage technologies. (Today, the world's battery storage capacity is just 5.5 GW.) But as other cities follow the example of Los Angeles, that figure is sure to fall.

The US was able to build nuclear at plants at ~$1B per GW of capacity when nuclear was built at scale during the 60s and 70s [1]. $4.5 Trillion is considerably more expensive even if we assume that serial production would still be 5x more expensive than historical trends.

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...

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

#435

Post by epistasis »

evilos wrote: post #409
epistasis wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it baffling that you can know about the disaster at Vogtle and think that it's something that should be tried again right away. What utility would do this? It is financial suicide. There's no allocator of capital whos going to look at Vogue and think "yes this is worth another shot". None. What investor? There's two half-built reactors in South Carolina. Who would be foolish to even try to complete them now? T…

I guess you should tell Poland because they've just ordered several. The first reactor is always the slowest and most expensive because you're going to make mistakes. Building just one is always a mistake. We've paid the deposit, so now we should reap the benefits of having the experience. We know what not to do now. With your attitude, we'd never build anything big.

It's most definitely not the case that successive reactors are cheaper or faster, that's a myth that gets told but the data says otherwise both in the US and France and many other countries (but not all).

Poland might need to use expensive nuclear, but it's not the case in the continental US. Poland is not the US, has far cheaper labor, and I don't know the status of their construction industry or their funding sources, but they are different from the US's.

Again, if you think that this is a good idea for the US, how are you going to convince a utility to do this? And if it's an investor operated power gen facility, what investor would risk this?

If it's a government-funded and owned facility, then that would solve thee funding source. It's another question if it's a wise use of capital, and yet another of who does the EPC. Perhaps Bechtel? Definitely the most likely to succeed.

My attitude is not to avoid big projects. I think we need to build massive big projects. HVDC. High speed rail. Subways in all major cities. Massive factories, mines, etc. Advanced geothermal. New hydro in select locations. All of these projects will have better pay off, less risk, and increase the construction capacity of the US. Nuclear is not a wise choice for any of this. If we can increase our productivity on large projects, then it's time to try projects with less payoff, like nuclear.

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

#436

Post by llsf »

willis936 wrote: post #262
llsf wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about this ? Not heat is produced ? Cold fusion has been controversial in the 80's ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion ) and never really escape the lab.

They're likely referring to p+B11 fusion which is a potentially viable reaction that emits all its energy as accelerated charged particles (a current), which can, in theory, be slowed down by inducing a current in a coil (direct conversion). This skips the thermal cycle of electricity generation. There would still be heat, but it would be contained to the plasma with some amount of leak/waste. There are a great numbe…

Interesting. But I suspect it would take quite some time to get something like that in production. Nonetheless, we should keep do research, it could be the next generation of fusion reactors.

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

#437

Post by evilos »

epistasis wrote: post #368
evilos wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you think the Koreans and Chinese are just fundamentally different from everyone else then because they're pumping out reactors just fine, today. The French, Americans, Russians, and Japanese have all had periods of time where they built them quickly and cost effectively too. But then various institutional rot sets in. We're going to have to keep building big things anyways so it's not like having that capabi…

There definitely are fundamental differences in our capabilities here, and you seem to believe the same too. Look, for example, at the challenges that are being experienced as we try to build chip fabs in the US. Instintutional knowledge and capability are real things. And I definitely think that construction capability is an important thing to build. But let's improve our construction capability on building real thi…

Reached the thread length limit. With regard to your last comment:

> It's most definitely not the case that successive reactors are cheaper or faster, that's a myth that gets told but the data says otherwise both in the US and France and many other countries (but not all).

Maybe, but Votgle is a massive outlier and successive plants of the same design are all but guaranteed to be faster and cheaper. You don't make those kinds of mistakes twice.

For the long term trend, like you said it depends on the country. You can see in this figure: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overnight-Construction-C...

The giant explosion in costs for the US starts right when the disastrous ALARA regulation is adopted in 1971. Entirely self-inflicted wound. France and South Korea largely don't experience a cost increase in the time periods shown.

You're going to have trouble convincing me that we can't pull off a Messmer plan because it has literally been done before. Yes, the government should be in charge of and finance it. That's the only realistic option and that is what has worked before. Hire the Koreans if we have to. Build us 3 or 4 Barakahs. It's been done. It's being done. It can be done again.

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

#438

Post by acdha »

kyrra wrote: post #358
acdha wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He is now co-founder of fission energy company ThorCon, which is developing liquid fuel fission power plants to generate electricity cheaper than coal, to solve the world climate/energy/poverty crises. I think nuclear will have an important part of dealing with climate change but he has a massive financial stake in this. I wouldn’t trust that more than I’d trust the Exxon guys who told us climate change was a liber…

The problem is that in government, you are rarely if ever punished for being top strict with your regulation. You are only ever chastised if you are too lenient (or the appearance of it). People like scapegoats and will use lax regulations anytime they can. The problem is, a regulator never gets in trouble for being top strict. The incentives are totally wrong here and lead to bad regulations. I trust this guy more t…

Given that misjudgments would have such long half-lives, I’m pretty sure that’s not the only possible interpretation.

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

#439

Post by Retric »

throw0101b wrote: post #426
Retric wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low is relative, in most areas a 3c/kWh wholesale price is wildly profitable for solar and a massive loss for nuclear. Renewables very much provide surplus power at scale, but they don’t always provide that massive surplus. So, Solar could provide 3/4 of its power when wholesale prices are below 1c/kWh and the economics still end up working out over the year. Meanwhile every other source of power needs to deal with e…

> So, Solar could provide 3/4 of its power when wholesale prices are below 1c/kWh […] Except at night.

Batteries fed cheap solar power can provide relatively cheap peaking power whenever you want. That’s going to effectively be the maximum daily wholesale price per kWh long term.

Wind/Hydro and possibly some Nuclear might survive in that kind of an environment, but most industry insiders think Nuclear is basically doomed outside the far north without truly massive subsidies.

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

#440

Post by evilos »

acdha wrote: post #305
kyrra wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For too much radtion, I recommend reading: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-council-nrc-... ( https://archive.is/LITQT ). I'm not sure how France treats radiation levels, but in the US, the guidelines we have set are non-nonsensical.

> He is now co-founder of fission energy company ThorCon, which is developing liquid fuel fission power plants to generate electricity cheaper than coal, to solve the world climate/energy/poverty crises. I think nuclear will have an important part of dealing with climate change but he has a massive financial stake in this. I wouldn’t trust that more than I’d trust the Exxon guys who told us climate change was a liber…

I can't think of a worse way to make money than a thorium energy start up. The people that are into Thorium are zealots, they're not in it for the money. The author of that article founded and sold a software company, worked as a VP for Boston Scientific, and is a professor at Dartmouth. He has easier ways of making money.

That said, Thorcon has one of the more practical Th reactor designs and has government backing already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsi7lzbiq5k

Post reply on HN