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

Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

scanalyst.fourmilab.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 371 posts

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#301

Post by [deleted] »

zerodensity wrote: post #35
zokier wrote: post #7

If humans were perfect then all problems are trivial. In cryptography there is the idea of misuse resistance, and the same line of thinking applies to other fields where things are expected to be used at scale. Wind and solar are pretty much idiot-proof, and their low density means that the risks are spread out also. As someone who is in principle pro-nuclear but has been following the process of OL3, I am pretty pes…

> Maybe nuclear will make a comeback once the now installed wind/solar plants reach end of life and need replacement, but before that it is just too slow and uncertain to be effective tool (with our current engineering/construction capability!) to combat climate change imho. If we do not start working on brining nuclear power online now it will not be ready when the current generation of renewables needs replacement.…

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#302

Post by dang »

eaasen wrote: post #284
dang wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. " " Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My apologies, this was not intended to be inflammatory but the quotes out of the article and the comments were raised to point out that these kinds of baseless and biased comments from the author detract from the objective quality of the information previously presented in the article and lower the credibility of the author and even the information that the author presents.

I know. But from an HN point of view, the thing to do is to simply ignore the "baseless and biased" aspect and focus on the "objective quality" aspect instead. That's the way to end up having interesting conversations instead of getting stuck in annoying loops.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#303

Post by fnordpiglet »

pfdietz wrote: post #259
fnordpiglet wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pressure on the NRC to lighten up a bit is immense. I suspect we might see some significant acceleration, especially with the various electrification drives, coupled with the multitude of safe nuclear designs, and a general sense that “why is this so broken?” permeating everywhere that cares.

Congress is free to change the law that NRC must operate under. Until that happens, the NRC cannot "lighten up" (if they did so in violation of law, they'd be taken to court.)

They certainly can under executive privilege, and stuff is taken to court quite often. Waiting for congress to act is futile in this age sadly. In this age it’s a game of executive action with judicial review.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#304

Post by three14 »

fsflover wrote: post #249
three14 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to pick on you, but every time this discussion happens on HN, someone argues that the nuclear power industry is burdened by far more red tape than other industries (probably true) and that if we simply reduce the red tape, we could profitably build new nuclear plants (probably true) and they would still be safe (probably not true). This isn't an engineering problem. This is a social problem. Suppose you offer to…

> and they would still be safe (probably not true) Why do you think it's not true? Just look at the existing statistics that includes old designs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant#/media/Fil...

I am sure that new designs would be better on paper. I am also sure that a regulatory regime in which nuclear plants are allowed to be exactly as unsafe as fossil fuel power plants would somehow turn out in the real world of money and politics to actually be worse than fossil fuel plants.

I don't think we as humans know how to create a regulatory structure for nuclear that would keep away people who are willing to sacrifice principles for money, and at the same time allows new designs to easily be built.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#305

Post by three14 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #241
three14 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to pick on you, but every time this discussion happens on HN, someone argues that the nuclear power industry is burdened by far more red tape than other industries (probably true) and that if we simply reduce the red tape, we could profitably build new nuclear plants (probably true) and they would still be safe (probably not true). This isn't an engineering problem. This is a social problem. Suppose you offer to…

> And in the real world, that's not a bad thing It is a bad thing if the increased cost / pollution kills more people either directly or indirectly.

My argument is that is not the choice we are given. We are given only the choice between too much regulation and too little.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#306

Post by pyrale »

cycomanic wrote: post #288
pyrale wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> last year for some time >80% of the power generation was down in France due to maintenance Oh, so low? I heard it was 102%, and we had to activate the hamster wheels in order to make up for the deficit? Hint: Nuclear isn't even 80% of France's nuclear production when every reactor is up.

Yes and for some time 100% of France's nuclear reactors were down, either due to maintenance or heat.

This simply never happened. It's a matter of public record [1], it shouldn't be hard to check your numbers and see that they're wrong...

[1]: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#307

Post by ajuc »

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…

If we tried to clean up the radioactive materials that coal powerplants pump into air - the cost would be even more ridiculous. But somehow we don't care.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#308

Post by opo »

cauch wrote: post #225
opo wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As an aside, I'm pro- wind, hydro, geothermal, solar, and nuclear. (I'm also very pro-smart-design which obviates the need for created energy.) I think many of the people who aren't anti-nuclear, would agree with all that. >However I only really see nuclear proponents (and those of fossil fuels) attacking renewables. I rarely see that here. What I tend to see are people who don't like the idea of nuclear power makin…

> I rarely see that here. What I tend to see are people who don't like the idea of nuclear power making misleading or false statements about nuclear power. (Like in the original message of this thread where the claim is made "After 70 years of trying we haven't built an economic traditional nuclear reactor.") I think it's just easier to notice "misleading or false statements" when they contradict what we like to thin…

>I think it's just easier to notice "misleading or false statements" when they contradict what we like to think rather than when they are going in the same direction.

That is likely true, but what is your point? The statement I said was false and misleading was in the message that started this thread:

>After 70 years of trying we haven't built an economic traditional nuclear reactor.

Are you saying that was a true statement?

>For example, are you 200% sure of your sentence "The only issue with consumer roof-top solar is that it is the most expensive form of power ever created"? Is that true everywhere, all the time? Because if not, how is that not as much as "misleading or false statements" than the original sentence you quote? But of course, this sentence of yours does not strike you as misleading, because you truly believe it's not misleading.

This sort of incessant questioning is a form of sealioning. I guess I could have been more clear I meant that the obvious energy policy issue with consumer rooftop solar is that it is the most expensive form of power thus it has been given huge subsidies. (The money used for such subsidies is not unlimited and this money is fungible - obviously a dollar going to subsidize an extremely expensive rooftop solar installation could have gone much, much farther if it had gone to support a utility grade solar installation.) I think a charitable reading of my sentence would have understood what I meant.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#309

Post by opo »

rewmie wrote: post #291
opo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not my assertion and has been covered in discussions on this web site for a long time. >Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 147 and 221 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour. https://www.statista.com/statist…

> The latest report from Lazard on LCOE also gives similar numbers: I'm not convinced you read the doc you cited. In it, it clearly states that the levelized cost of energy for solar PV rooftop residential ranges from $115/MWH while gas peaking is $114/MWH and nuclear is $141. Your source also states quite clearly that these costs depend on the circumstances (i.e., each case is a case) and it points to unsubsidized c…

>I'm not convinced you read the doc you cited.

I guess I should point out these kind of insults are against the site guidelines.

>In it, it clearly states that the levelized cost of energy for solar PV rooftop residential ranges from $115/MWH while gas peaking is $114/MWH and nuclear is $141.

You are quoting the lowest value in each range, you need to consider the entire range:

$117 to $282 Rooftop residential $115 to $221 Gas Peaking $141 to $221 Nuclear

If you take the average from the range, the most expensive is rooftop solar. As the Statista web site states:

>Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States.

The LCOE of course also undercounts some of the costs associated with consumer rooftop solar. There is real value in having an energy source that isn’t so intermittent. With a low capacity factor, you need to spend money to deal with that. This might be through adding new power lines to bring in power from somewhere else, over building, adding gas peakers, adding energy storage etc. Obviously none of this is free and none of these extra costs are included as part of the LCOE of solar. You can see some estimates of this on page 11 of the report.

>Your source also states quite clearly that these costs depend on the circumstances (i.e., each case is a case)

Yes that is why there is a range. But if your point is that sometimes rooftop solar won’t be the most expensive form of power, that seems like moving the goal posts from your original response:

>>Care to show the basis of your personal assertion? It's an extraordinary and unbelievable claim.

>...and it points to unsubsidized costs.

Yes, that was actually my point. The real question is why is consumer rooftop solar so heavily subsidized? It really is sort of a reverse Robinhood scenario where less well off consumers subsidize their wealthier neighbors. The money available for energy subsidies is not unlimited and this money is fungible. A dollar going to subsidize an extremely expensive rooftop solar installation could have gone much, much farther if it had gone to support a utility grade solar installation.

>If I get a quote from a rooftop vendor that sells gold plated PV panels to install in a cave, that does not mean that residential PV panels have an expensive energy cost.

That isn’t the right way to look at LCOE. Here is some background info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#310

Post by credit_guy »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #106

Nuclear engineer here. I did a similar write-up (gratuitously leveraging GNU Units) since most people don't seem to know this fact about fission breeder reactors. I added some other references at the bottom of people pointing this out throughout nuclear fission's history. https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html In addition to the OP, it's also worth mentioning that you can breed with slow (aka 'thermal'…

Since you are an industry insider, do you have an estimate when we’ll have commercial fast neutron reactors in the US?
Post reply on HN