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

61–70 of 165 posts

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

#61

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

mpweiher wrote: post #38
TradingPlaces wrote: post #20

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

Time: Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... France nuclearized its entire grid in 20 years, from the early 70s to the early 90s. They've been producing largely CO2 free, cheap electricity ever since. Germany has been trying to achi…

> Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years.

Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your argument. We can take a look at all plants we have attempted to construct in the west the past 20 years.

- Virgil C. Summer: Contract: 2008. Cancelled 2017

- Vogtle Contract 2008, first reactor done 2023, second 2024(??)

- Watts Bar: Construction start 1972, cancelled 1985. Restarted 2007. Finished 2016.

- Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024.

- Hinkley Point C: Political decision and construction start 2008. Investment decision 2013. Hopefully done by 2028.

- Olkiluoto 3: Construction start 2005. Done 2023

- Hanhikivi: Never passed the phase when they tried to certify a Russian reactor for western safety requirements

- NuScale SMR Cancelled before they even started building.

7.5 years is simply a laughable prospect in 2023.

> "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" even for the "expensive" US Westinghouse AP1000

A 60 year payback time + 15 years construction is 75 years. That is like Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the height of the second world war making investments that only pans out in 2023. In the real world, where you spend your own money, that is called insanity.

The risk is huge, and extending the amortization cost like that is simply bad math. You should understand the Time Value of Money and suggesting such amortization times are simply nonsensical.

Understanding the Time Value of Money: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp

But this is typical nukebro accounting. Finding the lowest possible number in the face of reality and then with the blindfold on repeating it hoping that we can subsidize nuclear enough to make it happen one more time. Just skip seeing the subsidies.

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

#62

Post by pfdietz »

zaphar wrote: post #48
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.

We don't need nuclear for base load. Nuclear and renewables don't play together well either.

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

#63

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wolverine876 wrote: post #51
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> someone has the evidence

For what? These threads are littered with citations and specific data.

> Do you work in the industry?

Nope.

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

#64

Post by pfdietz »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #23

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 f…

I think those in the nuclear business understand this is the last hurrah. It's now or never, so the marketing is being pushed to the maximum. It also means you shouldn't trust a single word from them; they're desperate and care nothing for their future reputation if they fail.

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

#65

Post by jmyeet »

Nuclear is going nowhere. It’s too expensive, takes too long to build, requires significant government subsidies and the failure modes have an exceptionally bad long tail.

$122 billion has been spent in the Fukushima clean up to date with no end in sight. Likely this will take decades, maybe a century or more, and when all is said and done, may well cost over $1 trillion.

The Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone is still quite literally 1000 square miles, nearly 40 years later.

Yet the very real examples get hand waved away despite their being multiple catastrophic incidents when we’ve only built less than 700 nuclear power reactors.

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

#66

Post by adrianN »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #61
mpweiher wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time: Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... France nuclearized its entire grid in 20 years, from the early 70s to the early 90s. They've been producing largely CO2 free, cheap electricity ever since. Germany has been trying to achi…

> Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your argument. We can take a look at all plants we have attempted to construct in the west the past 20 years. - Virgil C. Summer: Contract: 2008. Cancelled 2017 - Vogtle Contract 2008, first reactor done 2023, second 2024(??) - Watts Bar: Construction start 1972, can…

Note that your parent uses time from first concrete poured to grid connection as „construction time“, which is naturally much shorter than what you cite.

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

#67

Post by Krasnol »

zaphar wrote: post #48
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.

imho we're today already at a point where investing in nuclear is a waste of (taxpayer) money.

Base load is no issue anymore in a grid which is large enough. There is always wind/sun/water somewhere.

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

#68

Post by JumpCrisscross »

flashback2199 wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> China's economy is a black box

We can independently verify the plant was built. And we can confirm what Westinghouse was paid. We can’t see other costs incurred, which is why I’m solely citing them for time, not cost.

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

#69

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Why aren't you answering the point? Is it that hard to substantiate your claims that a 60 year amortization + 15 year construction = 75 years is reasonable.

> Data sorely lacking. (Outside hydro.)

You mean like the data available on economic nuclear energy? :)

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

Do you see the year in the investment time ending up in the exponent? Of course in reality you expect the money to trickle in over time reducing the risk a bit.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp#toc-calc...

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

#70

Post by mpweiher »

rightbyte wrote: post #56
mpweiher wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope, this is including two accidents.

And Concorde was retired because they could no longer operate it, for example no spare parts.

Post reply on HN