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

131–140 of 165 posts

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

#131

Post by mpweiher »

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…

China builds 80% of the world's solar panels and 60% of the world's wind turbines.

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

#132

Post by Krasnol »

mpweiher wrote: post #129
Krasnol wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ins…

"Superfund sites are polluted locations in the United States requiring a long-term response to clean up hazardous material contaminations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites Herfa-Neurode stores enough arsenic to kill the entire world population. And tens of thousands tons of extremely poisonous heavy metals. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode Making solar panels produces…

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-ene...

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

#133

Post by Krasnol »

Manuel_D wrote: post #114
Krasnol wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ins…

Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.

So this is it now? Some virtual public you made up is supposed to be your scapegoat to cover up the fact that nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year?

This must be a joke...and just like nuclear: I'm out here.

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

#134

Post by mpweiher »

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 produces 80% of the world's solar panels and 60% of the world's wind turbines. And uses dirty coal to provide the prodigious amounts of energy required, particularly for solar panels.

OK, let's take China out of the equation.

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

#135

Post by Manuel_D »

Krasnol wrote: post #133
Manuel_D wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.

So this is it now? Some virtual public you made up is supposed to be your scapegoat to cover up the fact that nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? This must be a joke...and just like nuclear: I'm out here.

Nobody wants thousands of people to be killed in a dam failure either. Yet nobody is seriously considering decommissioning all of our dams. In aggregate, nuclear power is one of the safest (and in many studies, the safest) form of power generation out there.

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

#136

Post by mpweiher »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #112
mpweiher wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now you don't know what you are talking about. German wholesale electricity prices are both cheaper than French and in line with the rest of Europe. For the public there are quite high taxes to encourage energy efficiency, which the industry of course does not pay.

OK, so you concede that retail prices in France are about half of what they are in Germany. Great. One step at a time, I guess.

So you now claim that wholesale prices are cheaper, without subsidies I would presume. Do you have figures do back up those claims?

Not everybody agrees with you.

https://apnews.com/article/germany-economy-energy-crisis-rus...

"Germany risks “deindustrialization” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere, "

"...a government-funded cap on industrial electricity prices to get the economy through the renewable energy transition."

I guess there may be some subsidies involved.

"...It was mistaken political decisions that primarily developed and influenced these high energy costs. And it can’t now be that German industry, German workers should be stuck with the bill.”

"A 2011 decision to shut down Germany’s remaining nuclear power plants has been questioned amid worries about electricity prices and shortages."

"In the meantime, energy-intensive companies are looking to cope with the price shock."

"“The perception of Germany’s underlying strength may also have contributed to the misguided decisions to exit nuclear energy, ban fracking for natural gas and bet on ample natural gas supplies from Russia,” he said. “Germany is paying the price for its energy policies.”"

By the way, here are some cost figure:

https://www.tech-for-future.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/...

3,0 €Cent/kWh Nuclear, extension

3,9 €Cent/kWh Hydro

5,3 €Cent/kWh Nuclear, new

6,1 €Cent/kWh Wind on shore

7,0 €Cent/kWh solar farm

8,4 €Cent/kWh Wind offshore

11,7 €Cent/kWh solar roof

13,9 €Cent/kWh gas + steam

17,2 €Cent/kWh biomass

17,6 €Cent/kWh coal

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

#137

Post by wolverine876 »

thelastgallon wrote: post #94
wolverine876 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How do you level the playing field of past 100 years of fossil fuel subsidies? I think its fair to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar. If renewables + nuclear are subsidized to the same level as fossil fuels (trillions/year), in 10 years we'll have super cheap, clean, abundant energy.

I should give my money, and everyone else's money, to large corporations because I mistakenly did it before, and I want to be 'fair'? ?

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

#138

Post by wolverine876 »

Sanzig wrote: post #101
wolverine876 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 operat…

Yes, good point, and IMHO that solves the problem I raised in the root comment: Instead of public funding going to private corporations' assets, the public keeps the assets.

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

#139

Post by Krasnol »

mpweiher wrote: post #121
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.

Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. You know how much soil is contaminated by arsenic and heavy metals used in the production of solar panels or wind turbines? I don't either, because it isn't in the news. When an installer falls off a roof, it doesn't make the news. And the other t…

> Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same.

This "assessment" is base upon a single image which is being handed up and down the nuclear astro-turf, and it's ignorant and disrespectful. There are still victims of Chernobyl out there, and there will be for generations.

You can give them some money to append for the use of this meme: https://www.chernobyl-international.com/

And not only there: https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-m...

https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush...

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843

> And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear.

Sure they do. They don't care because you know what's even better? The sun in the sky, for example...

> Nobody is saying that the accidents are not bad. However, they are not actually that bad.

We currently have a country full of reactors which are beyond the time they were supposed to run. Failures, accidents, shutdowns, global warming, etc. are happening to them, but the country doesn't have a diversified energy generation infrastructure. They'll keep it running. Accidents will keep on happening.

Meanwhile, the world keeps on turning. Global conflicts are coming nearer. Mad dictators waging wars, drones, hackers, machine learning, are happening. Why would any sane person even think about keeping or even BUILDING new targets in a densely populated area??

> As evidence, I present you Ukraine: the country that had the absolutely worst nuclear accident in the history of the world. Unstable reactor, no containment, authoritarian government with horrible crisis management. And yet, they kept their nuclear reactors. And not just that, they are among the 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050.

They didn't have a choice back then. Now they have other things to care about. Like invading troops hiding their tanks and ammunition WITHIN their nuclear power plants! How the hell is this supposed to be an argument FOR nuclear?!?

Btw: I doubt they'll have even a fraction of the required money to build a single reactor in the future once the war is over. Renewables are incoming.

And yeah...gota love that "pledge": https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-el...

Nuclear has peaked, and even China invests much more in renewables than it said it would invest into nuclear. (The rest has other use: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-chi...) Time's up. Taxpayers will not be ready to waste money on those nonsense projects if the alternatives are cheaper and faster to build.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-gen...

https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718

https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cd...

> The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents are aware that these are tradeoffs, and have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs favor nuclear.

No they didn't. They greenwash regulations, rip off taxpayers, renationalize companies responsible for construction and maintenance because they can't survive on their own. It's a complete failure and the time is up.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-h...

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Rep...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world...

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

#140

Post by Krasnol »

Manuel_D wrote: post #135
Krasnol wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is it now? Some virtual public you made up is supposed to be your scapegoat to cover up the fact that nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? This must be a joke...and just like nuclear: I'm out here.

Nobody wants thousands of people to be killed in a dam failure either. Yet nobody is seriously considering decommissioning all of our dams. In aggregate, nuclear power is one of the safest (and in many studies, the safest) form of power generation out there.

Dams are being removed for even less dramatic reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal

For environmental reasons, for example. Meanwhile, France is heating up rivers, so fish have to die for their failure to diversify and move on to future tech.

Your derailments are weak. Your argument that 11 years are "ok" remains, and no dam will ever make this madness better.

Post reply on HN