Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022) • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#161

Post by effed3 » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:10 PM UTC

Detrytus wrote: post #148

effed3 wrote: post #51

All the analysis like this forget to count the cost of decommissioning the nuclear technology, reactors and fuels. Cost for end of life reactors are an order of magnitude those of contruction, and no safe definitive solution for fuel exist, both payed by -public-. The technology is not safe, a nuclear incident will span years and affect a wide area, people life, healt, and economic impact are to count in, not easy to…

Nuclear technology is safe enough, and the storage of the waste is non-issue: the amount of waste produced thorough last 80 years since we first split atom would fit in a single storage facility of the size of the football stadium. If we want to move away from fossil fuels then the nuclear is our best bet, solar and wind are just impractical toys.

> Nuclear technology is safe enough "enough" is a point of view, is your, so ok for you, not enough for me. Fukushima was not enough safe, but again, for me. And there are many others "not enough" situations others than 3 famous.

> storage of the waste is non-issue.. To me, is not a volumetric problem, but for time ad long term safety. At fukushima disposing of the contaminated water is still a big problem now, imagine the big part of plants, and there is a 90km avoidence zone for many years.

Make nuclear really safe maybe can be done, at witch cost? Will stay still in market? I doubt. Probably some nuclear technology will remain and can be used and developed for research and bootstrap, not for supply the whole.

> solar and wind are just impractical toys These toys are in lowering cost, rising efficiency and world wide spread and deployment, more than any others technology, and 10 yrs. ago was difficult to think, now is reality, and investing resources on solar/wind/others will make a difference -now-, can be widespread, create more workplaces, where building more nuclear will make some effect to 10 years, and can be done only by few big companies (apart environment issues).

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#162

Post by mcpackieh » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #37

Nuclear is the only optimistic energy solution—I.e. one that could enable continually increasing human prosperity, rather than rationing. Forget simply replacing today’s energy generation. That’s sad. What does the future look like when we have 10 times as energy available? Moreover, technology that will “level up” civilization is almost certainly going to be an outgrowth of nuclear development, or something similarl…

I fear this sort of argument will fall on deaf ears here. This is a forum where tons of people believe rural/suburban people should be coerced into a car-less urban lifestyle. It works for them, so it should work for everybody else.. Getting people to live in dense urban housing and be dependent on public transit is considered a desirable outcome, not a regrettable but necessary consequence of reducing emissions. Talk of reducing emissions is used as a justification, but isn't the root motivation for these urbanization advocates. Offering up technical solutions that reduce the environmental toll of the present social order isn't met with enthusiasm because it misses the point, which is to change up the social order.

If you find a way to explain how nuclear reactors will get more people riding buses and bicycles in cities, then you'll have their attention.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#163

Post by pyrale » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #153

pyrale wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the power having been sold and used at a price that did not fund those costs, they are well and truly screwed. I don't know where you read that, but that's nowhere in actual reasonable sources. Actual serious sources [1] report funding is being set aside for dismantling, which may be significantly eased by the fact that these reactor are actually going to serve for longer than expected. [1], in french: https://…

https://energypost.eu/how-much-will-it-really-cost-to-decomm... Whereas Germany has set aside €38 billion to decommission 17 nuclear reactors, and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that clean-up of UK’s 17 nuclear sites will cost between €109‒250 billion over the next 120 years, France has set aside only €23 billion to decommissioning its 58 reactors. That's about 6X less than Germany, per reactor. W…

The article is from 2017, yet reports number from 2013. In 2017, the total provisioning was 28~Bn€. Also French reactor are still working (and producing returns), as opposed to German reactors.

If you focus on dismantling costs, the example of Maine Yankee [1]: is way less dramatic: "In January 2002 Maine Yankee put the total decommissioning cost at $635 million."

The number provided for UK reactors is ludicrous compared to existing dismantling costs, and simply factors in 150 years of dry cask storage, whereas France has a deep storage facility on the way.

Also the author, Paul Dorfman, is an anti-nuclear proponent, it's not surprising to see this kind of numbers from him.

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dismantling-nucle...

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#164

Post by zdragnar » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

bell-cot wrote: post #140

chrisco255 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia's economy is currently heavily dependent on oil exports, so there may at least be some incentive there to suppress it. China on the other hand, had quadrupled its nuclear power generation in the past 10 years (1). (1) https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2023/05/17/h...

> Russia's economy is currently heavily dependent on oil exports... All the more reason for them to build nuclear plants. Every barrel of oil that their own economy doesn't need (because they have plenty of nuclear plants) is another barrel they can make money exporting. And if or when using oil becomes unfashionable, or their oil reserved start running low...then being recognized experts on how to build & run lots o…

Nuclear competes with natural gas and coal, not oil.

Beyond powering the grid, there are myriad uses for oil that nuclear cannot substitute directly for- asphalt, plastic, nylon, even Aspirin (synthesized from benzene).

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#165

Post by epaulson » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

Yes, we could get a lot more energy out of our fission fuel. The reason the USA doesn't is because Jimmy Carter set a policy of not reprocessing fuel because he felt it encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation, coming just a few years after India exploded its first device. Carter's statement: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120960615.pdf

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#166

Post by effed3 » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #111

effed3 wrote: post #51

All the analysis like this forget to count the cost of decommissioning the nuclear technology, reactors and fuels. Cost for end of life reactors are an order of magnitude those of contruction, and no safe definitive solution for fuel exist, both payed by -public-. The technology is not safe, a nuclear incident will span years and affect a wide area, people life, healt, and economic impact are to count in, not easy to…

> and no safe definitive solution for fuel exist This is certainly wrong, unless the word "definitive" is used to shift the goal post such that it's effectively impossible to meet. Like the people who said, of Yucca Mountain, that "sure, it's been geologically stable for millions of years, but we can't definitively say there won't be an earthquake tomorrow", or "what if society collapses and, ten thousand years from…

we dont have a time machine, so seems to me the right aproach to search for maximum safety, not a relative one.

No definitive solution exist even for plastic/polymers, there substances discarded are spreading the world, and the effect are still unclear.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#167

Post by mcpackieh » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:15 PM UTC

bob1029 wrote: post #120

effed3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What does the future look like when we have 10 times as energy available? What does the future look like when we have 10 times the efficency on energy use? This is the right question/goal. Denemark (IIRC) has sometimes reached the 100% solar/wind coverage, sure in a sunny day and low demand situation, but 10 years ago this was unthinkable. This appear the true way of prosperity, not the growt of availability/consump…

> This is the right question/goal. No. I have seen the effects of this "goal" at scale in my personal life. Semi-non-effective HVAC systems that I now have to run 24/7/365, LED lights with weird flicker that perpetually antagonize me everywhere , vehicles with obnoxious start/stop mechanisms that absolutely induce premature wear (causing much more serious waste than otherwise). Oh yeah - my washing machine doesn't re…

The water saving thing is truly obnoxious because water is a very regional issue. Why are people in regions with more than ample fresh water made to use inferior toilets designed to use little fresh water? Because activists from dry places think their regional water problems are universal and try to foist their water-saving nonsense onto everybody else. They're coming for high-flow shower-heads too; it takes me three times as long to rinse out my hair with those shower-heads so the water savings don't even exist. I think it's probably only a matter of time before they start making shower heads with built-in timers that force everybody to take navy showers.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#168

Post by otherme123 » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:17 PM UTC

ChatGTP wrote: post #31

ajuc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you seen the economic costs of the cleanup operation though? It's absolutely astronomical (for various reasons). That money is not money going to new nuclear plants or renewables, but going to nowhere. This effects people too. Edit: Really don't get the down vote here. It's costing the Japanese anywhere from $200-$800 billion? (Depending on how you look at it) Is this controversial or something? Is that not a lo…

I had suffered the downvoting on reddit before: write something backed with data against nuclear (specially if your source is a pro-nuclear report), and in less than 5 minutes you get -10 and no replies.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#169

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

mcpackieh wrote: post #162

rayiner wrote: post #37

Nuclear is the only optimistic energy solution—I.e. one that could enable continually increasing human prosperity, rather than rationing. Forget simply replacing today’s energy generation. That’s sad. What does the future look like when we have 10 times as energy available? Moreover, technology that will “level up” civilization is almost certainly going to be an outgrowth of nuclear development, or something similarl…

I fear this sort of argument will fall on deaf ears here. This is a forum where tons of people believe rural/suburban people should be coerced into a car-less urban lifestyle. It works for them, so it should work for everybody else.. Getting people to live in dense urban housing and be dependent on public transit is considered a desirable outcome , not a regrettable but necessary consequence of reducing emissions. Ta…

> This is a forum where tons of people believe rural/suburban people should be coerced into a car-less urban lifestyle.

This is a forum where a few people believe rural/suburban people should be coerced into a car-less urban lifestyle, and say so very vocally. Don't mistake that for a consensus. It's not. You can find a lot of other viewpoints here as well.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#170

Post by JackFr » Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

They had me until the antepenultimate paragraph:

> Fear-mongers may be expected to gin up opposition to any human future which does not involve half-naked pithecanthropoids digging for grubs with dull sticks, and design, construction, management, and operation of these facilities will require teams of people recruited, evaluated, and compensated by merit, not metrics of “diversity”, “equity”, or “inclusion”.

For me that turned the whole piece from a level-headed well-reasoned argument from domain experts to a Facebook political rant. That isn’t to say I agree or disagree with DEI initiatives, that sentence simply undermines the credibility of all that came before.