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

51–60 of 165 posts

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

#51

Post by wolverine876 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46
wolverine876 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If someone has the evidence, that would be great. Your comments seem so dismissive and determined that it's hard to take them at face value. Do you work in the industry?

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

#52

Post by JumpCrisscross »

flashback2199 wrote: post #45
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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Withdrawn

> impossible to draw any conclusion from a successful big project abroad

Wait, we can draw conclusions from France building a different reactor (but only its latest ones, which were most expensive) but not from China building an AP1000?

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

#53

Post by flashback2199 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52
flashback2199 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Withdrawn

> impossible to draw any conclusion from a successful big project abroad Wait, we can draw conclusions from France building a different reactor (but only its latest ones, which were most expensive) but not from China building an AP1000?

Withdrawn

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

#54

Post by bryanlarsen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49
bryanlarsen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-...

Are you comparing retail price to wholesale price? The generation cost of power is a very small fraction of the retail price in most markets, especially in Uruguay. Distribution and paying off old debts is a massive fraction of the cost.

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

#55

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #50
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…

> 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…

> China is what we want to emulate

No, but we don’t throw out data we don’t like. Pre-AP1000, in the modern era, the data are grim. Post-AP1000 it’s much better.

> Which means you do not understand economics 101

Have you ever held a senior role in finance or banking? If you’re going to go ad hominem, don’t bring a rubber duck to a battleship.

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

It’s because it divides by 5. It’s a short-hand, similar to the value of a company being 10x and a reasonable margin of error 15%. (It’s also an available risk-free rate in most currencies.)

> 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.

Data sorely lacking. (Outside hydro.)

> Technological progress is the time value of money

No, it is not.

> This is why the time value of money is an exponential factor

Oof, no, it’s not. Seriously, you can derive this and it’s elementary finance. Also, like, the marshmallow test.

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

#56

Post by rightbyte »

mpweiher wrote: post #19
osigurdson wrote: post #8

Public support for nuclear is a pure function of time since last disaster. The last one was in 2011 so in the public's mind we are back in "probably will never happen again" territory. However, we will still see more Fukushimas in the future (according to [1]). A 100X improvement in safety would really help the cause. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961... .

Or maybe better communication? Nuclear is, depending on what stats you use, either among the safest or actually the safest energy source. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (And the top 3 are so close that differences are essentially noise)

In the same way the Concordes were the safest passenger jets, until they suddenly weren't.

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

#57

Post by tedivm »

mpweiher wrote: post #19
osigurdson wrote: post #8

Public support for nuclear is a pure function of time since last disaster. The last one was in 2011 so in the public's mind we are back in "probably will never happen again" territory. However, we will still see more Fukushimas in the future (according to [1]). A 100X improvement in safety would really help the cause. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961... .

Or maybe better communication? Nuclear is, depending on what stats you use, either among the safest or actually the safest energy source. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (And the top 3 are so close that differences are essentially noise)

Just looking at deaths doesn't really tell the whole story. There aren't a lot of towns that have had to be evacuated and abandoned due to solar industry accidents.

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

#58

Post by _aavaa_ »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28
crhulls wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> where the details around storage (and how we’ll pay for it) is unknown.

The storage details are not unknown. Battery prices are very known and continuously decreasing. As are the costs for wider grids. As are the costs of hydro storage. Some of them may be higher than we’d like, but they’re very known and going down. Unlike nuclear which has not been going down or getting faster.

Even in China, they are building solar wind and hydro far faster (and with increasing speed) than nuclear.

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

#59

Post by adrianN »

mpweiher wrote: post #29
crhulls wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

After costing about three to four times that much for the first 40 years of operating, if the assumptions in the paper are met…

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

#60

Post by JumpCrisscross »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #58
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.…

> where the details around storage (and how we’ll pay for it) is unknown. The storage details are not unknown. Battery prices are very known and continuously decreasing. As are the costs for wider grids. As are the costs of hydro storage. Some of them may be higher than we’d like, but they’re very known and going down. Unlike nuclear which has not been going down or getting faster. Even in China, they are building so…

> storage details are not unknown. Battery prices are very known and continuously decreasing

They’re known and currently high. The unknown is when it reaches a lower level.

> Unlike nuclear which has not been going down or getting faster

AP1000s are being built faster. We don’t know if we can manage cheaper.

> they are building solar wind and hydro far faster (and with increasing speed) than nuclear

Yes. Both. That’s my point.

Post reply on HN