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

101–110 of 165 posts

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

#101

Post by Sanzig »

wolverine876 wrote: post #25
Lonestar1440 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> First, nuclear requires very large corporations.

Nuclear power plants can be state-owned, and commonly are outside the US. For example, all Canadian nuclear power reactors are owned by provincial governments (about half of Ontario's reactors are on long term lease to a private operator under a public-private partnership deal, but the reactors are still government owned). In France, the company which owns and operates all the reactors in the country is majority owned by the French state.

Requiring generating assets to be owned and operated by private enterprises seems to be a primarily American phenomenon.

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

#102

Post by Krasnol »

peterfirefly wrote: post #98
mpweiher wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. The west never built reactors that dangerous, and nobody operates reactors that dangerous (that type was fixed). Anti-nukies have this feeling that anything nuclear is categorically more dangerous than anything non-nuclear. They imagine the exclusion zone around Chernobyl to be a liefeless wasteland out of a dystopian sci-fi movie, when in reality i…

> Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. > thriving wild-life reserve I know. > where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. I know. > In Chernobyl as well. I know. > In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effec…

> I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power.

Why did you do it then?

I didn't.

Also, the argument that "event x is not valid because it can't happen this way anymore" is as useless as the initial promise of safety. Some things don't happen this way. Others can still happen, and it can still end up being disastrous. There is always the human and nature factors. You just can't ignore them. Sure they are unlikely, but they still can happen and all those unlikely things that can happen to renewable sources are just by far less terrible than what can happen if you have a nuclear reactor around.

This is why your number games will never end up being fruitful. People who usually play those games accuse their adversaries as ignorant, when in fact they are the ignorant ones.

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

#103

Post by Krasnol »

Manuel_D wrote: post #87
Krasnol wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still build new homes on that land once it's dry. It's not contaminated with radioactivity. Imagine one of the old French reactors "going nuclear" right in the middle of dense populated Europe. It looks like a derailment and OPs argument still stands, imho. The only thing is that you can add results of radiation throughout generations, where people develop mutations and/or die early. None of those cases are i…

Nuclear contamination can be rehabilitated. In fact, in 2022 all of the Fukushima exclusion zone was lifted as cleanup was completed. Chernobyl wasn't rehabilitated because Pripyat's sole reason for existing was to support the nuclear plant. So rehabilitation would be a waste of money.

Sure. Nothing bad about millions of tons of contaminated soil in plastic bags... Seriously? This is a HUGE waste of money. It's a waste of money on top of waste of money, and we're talking only about soil. No houses, streets, infrastructure and finally PEOPLE.

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

#104

Post by [deleted] »

Krasnol wrote: post #103
Manuel_D wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear contamination can be rehabilitated. In fact, in 2022 all of the Fukushima exclusion zone was lifted as cleanup was completed. Chernobyl wasn't rehabilitated because Pripyat's sole reason for existing was to support the nuclear plant. So rehabilitation would be a waste of money.

Sure. Nothing bad about millions of tons of contaminated soil in plastic bags... Seriously? This is a HUGE waste of money. It's a waste of money on top of waste of money, and we're talking only about soil. No houses, streets, infrastructure and finally PEOPLE.

[deleted]

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

#105

Post by Manuel_D »

Krasnol wrote: post #103
Manuel_D wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear contamination can be rehabilitated. In fact, in 2022 all of the Fukushima exclusion zone was lifted as cleanup was completed. Chernobyl wasn't rehabilitated because Pripyat's sole reason for existing was to support the nuclear plant. So rehabilitation would be a waste of money.

Sure. Nothing bad about millions of tons of contaminated soil in plastic bags... Seriously? This is a HUGE waste of money. It's a waste of money on top of waste of money, and we're talking only about soil. No houses, streets, infrastructure and finally PEOPLE.

Again, people have been allowed to return since 2022. We're not just talking about soil.

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

#106

Post by mpweiher »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #95
fexatious wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's about $0.16/KWh which is the average electricity rate across the whole US and significantly less than the price in the Northeast. I haven't dug into whether that's apples to apples - whether the country average is (generation + delivery) or just generation, while the rate bing paid to the plant is presumably just generation. But either way just the cost of electricity generation ignoring delivery on my bill is…

For Hinkley Point C that is only generation. No delivery. Add another 10 - 20 cents for delivery depending on if it's a city or rural.

That cheap green German electricity is currently > 40 cents per kWh.

Last I checked that was with the subsidies (in use most places right now) that buffer the Russia-induced energy crisis. These are running out, partly because the way all the different subsidies were being hidden was unconstitutional.

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

#107

Post by Krasnol »

Manuel_D wrote: post #105
Krasnol wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Nothing bad about millions of tons of contaminated soil in plastic bags... Seriously? This is a HUGE waste of money. It's a waste of money on top of waste of money, and we're talking only about soil. No houses, streets, infrastructure and finally PEOPLE.

Again, people have been allowed to return since 2022. We're not just talking about soil.

How is this supposed to be reassuring that you can return after 11 years? Or even after 1 year? Are you joking? Can you imagine telling the whole of Luxembourg that they have to just stop existing for 11 years? Or just Antwerp? In what mad world is this supposed to be uplifting news or an argument pro nuclear?

Especially with far safer, cleaner and cheaper alternatives already there and being rolled out in months instead of years....madness.

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

#108

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you mean reasonable? It’s real. We amortise over long time horizons in project finance all the time. Also, look up residual value. (And dams.) Residual value for nuclear power plants are negative. The plant is EOL and now it is time to decommission the entire site. Now you try to equate nuclear power with infrastructure, even though we have cheaper alternatives which the public don't even have to finance. S…

> Residual value for nuclear power plants are negative Not what residual value means. > you try to equate nuclear power with infrastructure, even though we have cheaper alternatives which the public don't even have to finance Infrastructure isn’t dependent on source of financing. Neither do ROI calculations, though you might scope them differently for public benefit. We are doing none of that here. > risk premium for…

Please explain then

The investment horizon is so long that we can't model it. Sounds good!

Looking at Hinkley Point C, Lazard, IEA, NuScale and the French accounting agency the number is $120-180/MWh.

You've found one low quality source which massage the numbers to fit your narrative and continue harping about it.

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

#109

Post by mpweiher »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #32
nikhilsimha wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France?

Coasting on old nuclear. They’ve been importing renewables from Germany due to reduced capacity factor. The fleet is a money pit. https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/embattled-edf... https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230105-how-france-s-pri...

Old news, a one time occurrence in 2022 when they scheduled a lot of inspections and maintenance they had put off in the COVID years. At that point the long underinvestment caught up with them.

In 2023, they were net exporting again, like they were in the last 20+ years or so.

But you are right that they had been coasting and were exploiting their nuclear plants without reinvesting.

That has now changed.

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

#110

Post by mpweiher »

Krasnol wrote: post #67
zaphar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That turns out not to be the case.
Post reply on HN