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

41–50 of 165 posts

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

#41

Post by wolverine876 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What long economic payback time means is that the risks are huge. A 15 year construction and 40 year payback time and we are in the 1960s. A 60 year paybac…

> A 15 year construction and 40 year payback time and we are in the 1960s Don’t do that. China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. > can extend the amortization for renewables power plants with similar effects No, you can’t, because they aren’t being built t…

> China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting.

Maybe it's safety, democracy (locals and others get a say in having a local nuclear plant) or lots of other things we could speculate. What does the evidence say? And even if permitting is involved, that could just be the mechanism of safety, democracy, etc.

Words like 'obviously' and 'bunk' (in a prior comment) aren't persuasive, just provocative - they signal to me that you won't listen to anyone else (maybe you don't mean it that way).

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

#42

Post by mpweiher »

pedrocr wrote: post #33
nikhilsimha wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France?

According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Fran... the last time France put a new nuclear reactor online was over 20 years ago. There was probably a window where we could have powered our grids with nuclear and done well with that versus the alternatives. A bunch of factors, including lobbying by fossil fuel interests, meant that didn't happen. These days that same lobbying and other f…

France was on the renewables train until last year. They've since changed course and are reinvesting massively into nuclear.

Macron calls for nuclear 'renaissance' to end the France's reliance on fossil fuels

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-n...

This is not just talk

France's Assemblée Nationale adopts 'nuclear acceleration' bill on first reading

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/03/21/france-s...

402 votes in favor, 130 against. 75% approval. So broad consensus.

p.s.: Doesn't mean they are stopping renewables entirely. Still doing some off-shore wind that can be brought online relatively quickly.

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

#43

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wolverine876 wrote: post #37
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> China has built four, one in just four years, 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. We have much more evidence of contruction being too slow (if that's what you mean); why is one example from the other side more convincing? Also, China is not directly comparable, being able to und…

> why is one example from the other side more convincing

Because it’s a Gen III+ design.

> the last sentence seems to agree that the evidence is weak

It’s a new design.

> people who just care about getting the best outcome, aren't on a team that has drawn a predetermined conclusion, and are working with the data

Very few people who have done this conclude we should go all in on a single solution. Nuclear, natural gas, solar and wind look like a solid mix.

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

#44

Post by thelastgallon »

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.

Can we start with corporate welfare of fossil fuel companies? Fossil fuel companies take in welfare of trillions of dollars per year and cause 10 million deaths/year from air pollution. Deaths per TWH is negligible from nuclear or renewables, compared to fossil fuels.[1-5]

And then ethanol subsidies. 40m acres are subsidies to grow corn for ethanol, which is a net energy loss. [6,7]

1) https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022

2) Last year, fuels that drive climate change and pollute the air were underpriced to the tune of $7 trillion. It’s hard to think of a more misguided policy: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-16/climat...

4) Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year. Why Do We Accept That as Normal?: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-p...

5) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

6) Ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs6per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/07/the-stupidest-fe...

7) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acre-corn-grown-ethanol-vs-so...

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

#45

Post by flashback2199 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36
nikhilsimha wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France?

Or China, which built an AP1000 in nine years [1], about as long as it takes us to NEPA a transmission line [2]. Given about half of that was waiting for a reactor-coolant pump, it can likely be done in 5. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-double-first-in-china-for-advanc... [2] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-clean-energy-s...

Withdrawn

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

#46

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wolverine876 wrote: post #41
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 15 year construction and 40 year payback time and we are in the 1960s Don’t do that. China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. > can extend the amortization for renewables power plants with similar effects No, you can’t, because they aren’t being built t…

> China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. Maybe it's safety, democracy (locals and others get a say in having a local nuclear plant) or lots of other things we could speculate. What does the evidence say? And even if permitting is involved, that could just…

> What does the evidence say?

That it’s not safety related. The evidence being in the block you quoted: it shouldn’t take 10 years to clear a wire through environmental review.

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

#47

Post by wolverine876 »

thelastgallon wrote: post #44
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.

Can we start with corporate welfare of fossil fuel companies? Fossil fuel companies take in welfare of trillions of dollars per year and cause 10 million deaths/year from air pollution. Deaths per TWH is negligible from nuclear or renewables, compared to fossil fuels.[1-5] And then ethanol subsidies. 40m acres are subsidies to grow corn for ethanol, which is a net energy loss. [6,7] 1) https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fo…

I'm not sure I understand. Of course we should cut corporate welfare to fossil fuel companies. Does that somehow mean we should supply it to nuclear power companies?

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

#48

Post by zaphar »

Krasnol wrote: post #35

> Thomas Mundy, chief commercial officer for NuScale Power, said his company’s product could be built and put into use in about three years, a fraction of the time it takes to build larger reactor units. Funny somebody dug this out from 2022 when the news are so disastrous: > Investors Sue NuScale (SMR) for Concealing True Cost of Flagship Nuclear Reactor Project-Hagens Berman https://www.globenewswire.com/news-relea…

The fact is that we probably need all of the following to have any hope of reaching carbon neutral:

1. Nuclear for base load

2. Wind and solar with storage for supplemental

3. Carbon capture and storage

Any discussion that tries to exclude one of them is in my mind non-serious and the ultimate form of greenwashing. In practical terms it's not going to be possible to get there without some form of all of the above.

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

#49

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #39
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are links between civilian and military nuclear. (That’s almost an argument for nuclear power, since the military spending is a sunk cost.) Gen III+ reactors, which China is competently constructing, get past many of those problems. > only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) Solar and wind, yes. Only solar and wind, hilariously no. Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not c…

> Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive in most markets. That's not even close to being true. Uruguay is 100% wind + storage. 90% - 98% from wind, with 2% - 10% from hydro. The US has two advantages that Uruguay doesn't: a continental sized energy grid and a mix of wind & solar. Plus the advantage of building it out in the 2020s rather than the 2010s when both solar and batterie…

> Uruguay is 100% wind + storage

Uruguay pays $170/MWh [1]. That’s what power from the first-of-its-kind and hideously-delayed Vogtle nuclear power plants will cost [2].

[1] https://www.global-climatescope.org/markets/uy/

[2] https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-...

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

#50

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What long economic payback time means is that the risks are huge. A 15 year construction and 40 year payback time and we are in the 1960s. A 60 year paybac…

> A 15 year construction and 40 year payback time and we are in the 1960s Don’t do that. China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. > can extend the amortization for renewables power plants with similar effects No, you can’t, because they aren’t being built t…

> Don’t do that. China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting.

Yeah, because China is what we want to emulate. Of course, if it paints nuclear power in a positive light you gotta do what you gotta do.

> No, you can’t, because they aren’t being built to actually last that long. Nukes are.

Which means you do not understand economics 101, while still trying to justify something that goes against it.

They are built for a certain lifespan because that is what investors find are the optimal between construction cost and payback time. It is trivial to engineer renewable a plant to last 40 or 60 years. The construction cost would of course not double or triple to achieve this.

Thus we aim for 20 years, because that is the current optimum.

> You’re confusing technological progress with the time value of money.

Technological progress, means risk, because your solution might become obsolete and a stranded asset before it pays back the investment.

Technological progress is the time value of money. The same as political progress. Imagine you construct a factory in eastern Ukraine in 2005. What is the risk of Russia invading?

This is why the time value of money is an exponential factor, the longer out you go the larger the profit must be because the risk increases exponentially.

Post reply on HN