Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

scanalyst.fourmilab.ch

11–20 of 371 posts

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#11

Expensive though.

Solar panels are cheaper. They're also useless at night or in winter at higher latitude. The question is not whether it's expensive, the question is whether it's worth the price.

Not sure about that.

On paper, it looks like it.

On practice, my mother pays 30€ a month of electricity in France, where nuclear energy is everywhere. She asked for a quote to get panels on her house, and they got back to her with 20000€.

Sure you can move the needle by noting I drain way more power than her, than she heats her house using fossil fuel and that the quotes could be have been reduced in many ways.

You can also note that solar panels have to be replaced several times, take much more space, don't have to including wiring in their ROI calculation (while nuclear does for some weird reason) and are created by electricity generated by fossil or nuclear fuel, so their building price is already cheap.

I wouldn't say the answer is that clear cut.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#12
The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc.

Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil.

Important to note that the image is for 2018. So, things have shifted a bit in favor of wind and solar since then. There's an updated chart for this: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2022-09/E...

A few nice insights from the two versions of this graph:

- Wind and solar grew a lot.

- Nuclear declined.

- Gas grew a little.

- Coal declined a lot. Oil usage is up.

- Overall energy production went down, usable energy went down, rejected energy actually went up. So a little bit of extra oil and gas usage resulted in more rejected energy for less usable energy.

- fossil fuel usage is dominant for transport. But most of that is rejected energy. Going electric is going to make a massive difference as we'll be able to do more with less.

- Industrial usage of energy is a bit more efficient. A reason for that is a lot of it is heating. So heat is the intended output rather than wasted.

- Renewables are a small portion of the inputs but a large part of the usable output because of the efficiencies. And it grew a lot in just 3 years.

- We don't have to replace most of the inputs if we replace them with more efficient ones. A lot of people ge their back of the envelope math wrong and consider only the energy input and not the output. If you replace something with 40% efficiency with something that is 80% efficient, you can do with 2x less.

Great visualization. Worth studying if you want to understand the energy market at a glance.

Nuclear has a useful role to play. But it is in decline. And that decline is cost driven. Coal is tanking hard for the same reason. Yes coal is dirty and nuclear isn't. But they are both too expensive.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar panels are cheaper. They're also useless at night or in winter at higher latitude. The question is not whether it's expensive, the question is whether it's worth the price.

Not sure about that. On paper, it looks like it. On practice, my mother pays 30€ a month of electricity in France, where nuclear energy is everywhere. She asked for a quote to get panels on her house, and they got back to her with 20000€. Sure you can move the needle by noting I drain way more power than her, than she heats her house using fossil fuel and that the quotes could be have been reduced in many ways. You c…

What do you mean wiring isn't included? How is a quote not the total price, including labour and material costs?

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#14
post #10
post #8

> But due to historical accidents, lack of imagination, government bungling and regulation, incompetent engineering and operation leading to a small number of highly-visible accidents, fear mongering by media and ignorant advocates of other technologies or abandonment of our energy-intensive modern civilisation, nuclear fission power never achieved the ambitious goals (“too cheap to meter”) it originally seemed to pr…

> It didn't prevent aviation from proliferating Planes still crash from time to time. The regulations on the aviation industry are the ant version of regulations compared to the elephants that the nuclear industry has to put up with. planes are only 600x safer than driving by death toll [0]. That would be a shut-the-industry-down safety stat for nuclear plants. That is why people are pointing out the nuclear safety r…

Surely a nuclear accident will affect 600x more people than a plane crash…

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#15
post #14
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It didn't prevent aviation from proliferating Planes still crash from time to time. The regulations on the aviation industry are the ant version of regulations compared to the elephants that the nuclear industry has to put up with. planes are only 600x safer than driving by death toll [0]. That would be a shut-the-industry-down safety stat for nuclear plants. That is why people are pointing out the nuclear safety r…

Surely a nuclear accident will affect 600x more people than a plane crash…

It'll kill a lot less people than a plane crash.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#16

The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. Important to note that the image is…

“Coal declined a lot”

Yes, in the United States (4% of global population), coal usage declined.

Unfortunately, globally coal usage is at all time highs.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/global-coal-cons...

I’d say it’s ok that we overlooked that but we were warned 45 years ago about global coal usage being a large part of the problem.

https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar panels are cheaper. They're also useless at night or in winter at higher latitude. The question is not whether it's expensive, the question is whether it's worth the price.

Not sure about that. On paper, it looks like it. On practice, my mother pays 30€ a month of electricity in France, where nuclear energy is everywhere. She asked for a quote to get panels on her house, and they got back to her with 20000€. Sure you can move the needle by noting I drain way more power than her, than she heats her house using fossil fuel and that the quotes could be have been reduced in many ways. You c…

And that's with the ARENH screwing the French people w.r.t. the actual production price of EDF (mostly) nuclear energy.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#19

The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. Important to note that the image is…

Another aspect is the power it costs to make the power. Oil is a huge industry with enormous transport fuel usage. Nowadays about a 6th of the energy goes into collection. The more we electrify the more that will be saved too coming off the total power we need. Solar, Wind, Hydro and Nuclear are all vastly better in this aspect on production costs and little ongoing transport.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#20
post #14
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It didn't prevent aviation from proliferating Planes still crash from time to time. The regulations on the aviation industry are the ant version of regulations compared to the elephants that the nuclear industry has to put up with. planes are only 600x safer than driving by death toll [0]. That would be a shut-the-industry-down safety stat for nuclear plants. That is why people are pointing out the nuclear safety r…

Surely a nuclear accident will affect 600x more people than a plane crash…

Less people died in Fukushima accident than dies yearly because of coal powerplants pumping radioactive materials into atmosphere.

If you calculate radioactive materials released per energy produced - nuclear is below coal, even including all the accidents.

It's irrational to avoid nuclear powerplants.

Post reply on HN