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

Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 165 posts

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#21

Post by crhulls »

wolverine876 wrote: post #13

Public financial and in-kind support for nuclear power is transferring wealth from taxpayers to large corporations. Nuclear might be worth it to reduce climate change (a discussion for a different subthread) but let's be careful of corporate welfare. At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.

I see this comment regularly. I also see the complete opposite comment regularly (that even the unsubsidized fully loaded cost with current technology is far cheaper than anything else).

It is usually stated as fact with no backup. I’m open to being swayed either way by evidence. Do you have a link that represents the data that leads you to this conclusion?

And ditto for those who disagree with you.

Otherwise it’s just random people saying the other person is wrong.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#22

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12
pydry wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That’s almost an argument for nuclear power I suppose. That depends how much against the NPT you are and how big a fan of extinction inducing weapons you are I guess. I wouldnt exactly treat the maintenance and construction of nukes as a sunk cost. It is possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy. We've done it before. >Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive It's…

> depends how much against the NPT you are It depends on how realistic you are. > possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy Sure. But the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating. And coupling an entirely separate coördination problem to the already labyrinthian onr of climate change is conceding the game at the opening. > it needs to be lavished with su…

> Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years.

That needs a source. Not a single project in the west the past 20 years is even close.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#23

Post by RobertRoberts »

Why is there so much marketing to support nuclear?

The reason people don't want it in their back yard is because disasters are so drastic (even if rare), the waste nearly permanent (and one of the most toxic we produce on earth), and trust in government and corporations to protect our health and safety is at historic lows.

I simply do not trust lobbiests, CEOs and career politicians with the health and safety of my family, and I don't think anyone else should either.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#25

Post by wolverine876 »

Lonestar1440 wrote: post #17
wolverine876 wrote: post #13

Public financial and in-kind support for nuclear power is transferring wealth from taxpayers to large corporations. Nuclear might be worth it to reduce climate change (a discussion for a different subthread) but let's be careful of corporate welfare. At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.

Couldn't we say the same about any public subsidy for climate-friendly technology (or anything at all)? What makes Nuclear special, and worth singling out?

Two reasons:

First, nuclear requires very large corporations. Other energy sources don't require size to the same degree. Solar panels can be purchased by the homeowner and installed by a local Mom-and-Pop shop.

Second, it depends on how we define 'public subsidy'. If we accurately price externalities, such as climate impact, then we are effectively reducing subsidies (i.e., letting people use the commons for free is a subsidy).

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#27

Post by wolverine876 »

crhulls wrote: post #21
wolverine876 wrote: post #13

Public financial and in-kind support for nuclear power is transferring wealth from taxpayers to large corporations. Nuclear might be worth it to reduce climate change (a discussion for a different subthread) but let's be careful of corporate welfare. At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.

I see this comment regularly. I also see the complete opposite comment regularly (that even the unsubsidized fully loaded cost with current technology is far cheaper than anything else). It is usually stated as fact with no backup. I’m open to being swayed either way by evidence. Do you have a link that represents the data that leads you to this conclusion? And ditto for those who disagree with you. Otherwise it’s ju…

I don't understand your comment.

> even the unsubsidized fully loaded cost with current technology is far cheaper than anything else

What in the GP addresses that question?

What I mean to say doesn't require data, but perhaps I didn't communicate well.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#28

Post by JumpCrisscross »

crhulls wrote: post #21
wolverine876 wrote: post #13

Public financial and in-kind support for nuclear power is transferring wealth from taxpayers to large corporations. Nuclear might be worth it to reduce climate change (a discussion for a different subthread) but let's be careful of corporate welfare. At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.

I see this comment regularly. I also see the complete opposite comment regularly (that even the unsubsidized fully loaded cost with current technology is far cheaper than anything else). It is usually stated as fact with no backup. I’m open to being swayed either way by evidence. Do you have a link that represents the data that leads you to this conclusion? And ditto for those who disagree with you. Otherwise it’s ju…

> usually stated as fact with no backup

It usually comes down to two factors.

One, the time horizon over which we observe and discount the levelised cost of energy (unsubsidised) relative to the plant’s lifetime. Nukes’ long lives mean their tremendous capital costs’ amortisation matters. In this, the anti-nuke tends to fudge its numbers.

Two, the degree to which we believe the Nth model will be cheaper than the 1st. We’ve built two AP1000s in America, both in the same series. China has built four, one in just nine years (multi-year delay for coolant pumps), in two roughly-parallel series. So the anti-nukes’ too-slow argument is bunk. But the pro-nuke team needs a learning curve barely demonstrated in another country to continue.

The meta-debate, however, is between and and or. I’ve seen no good reason not to pursue both building nukes, where the cost curve is unknown, and building wind and solar, where the details around storage (and how we’ll pay for it) is unknown.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#29

Post by mpweiher »

crhulls wrote: post #21
wolverine876 wrote: post #13

Public financial and in-kind support for nuclear power is transferring wealth from taxpayers to large corporations. Nuclear might be worth it to reduce climate change (a discussion for a different subthread) but let's be careful of corporate welfare. At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.

I see this comment regularly. I also see the complete opposite comment regularly (that even the unsubsidized fully loaded cost with current technology is far cheaper than anything else). It is usually stated as fact with no backup. I’m open to being swayed either way by evidence. Do you have a link that represents the data that leads you to this conclusion? And ditto for those who disagree with you. Otherwise it’s ju…

"LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years"

https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE...

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#30

Post by Krasnol »

nikhilsimha wrote: post #24
TradingPlaces wrote: post #20

Nukes are expensive and take forever to build. This ship sailed 40 years ago.

France?

...renationalized EDF because it's so unprofitable, can't build a single reactor on time and on budget and has to subsidize every Watt sold with taxpayer money, so people don't go on the street and burn Cities down.
Post reply on HN