Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

scanalyst.fourmilab.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 371 posts

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#171

Post by Zigurd »

pyrale wrote: post #163
Zigurd wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://energypost.eu/how-much-will-it-really-cost-to-decomm... Whereas Germany has set aside €38 billion to decommission 17 nuclear reactors, and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that clean-up of UK’s 17 nuclear sites will cost between €109‒250 billion over the next 120 years, France has set aside only €23 billion to decommissioning its 58 reactors. That's about 6X less than Germany, per reactor. W…

The article is from 2017, yet reports number from 2013. In 2017, the total provisioning was 28~Bn€. Also French reactor are still working (and producing returns), as opposed to German reactors. If you focus on dismantling costs, the example of Maine Yankee [1]: is way less dramatic: "In January 2002 Maine Yankee put the total decommissioning cost at $635 million." The number provided for UK reactors is ludicrous comp…

The numbers are from the respective national nuclear authorities.

Also, as of 2019, the ongoing cost of securing spent fuel at Maine Yankee is about $10M per year. At what point does the spent fuel storage there age out and need replacement?

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#172

Post by effed3 »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #125
effed3 wrote: post #51

All the analysis like this forget to count the cost of decommissioning the nuclear technology, reactors and fuels. Cost for end of life reactors are an order of magnitude those of contruction, and no safe definitive solution for fuel exist, both payed by -public-. The technology is not safe, a nuclear incident will span years and affect a wide area, people life, healt, and economic impact are to count in, not easy to…

Decomissioning is factored into all nuclear lifecycle analyses. Long term waste solutions are in operation today (see WIPP) and expanding soon (see Onkalo). https://whataboutthewaste.com

On the technical level, i think yes, there are analysis and solution.

But at practical level (economic/politics) decommissioning is left to the posterity (cost rising years after years, shifting of milestone, more taxes.. and so on)

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#173

Post by pyrale »

adrianN wrote: post #156
hedora wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The French managed to. I guess they have super-human engineering prowess. The trick is that they keep building the same obsolete US-based design instead of re-inventing the entire thing from scratch for each plant. Imagine how much more accessible computers would be if you could just copy the operating system from one "printed" circuit board to another, instead of hand-wiring all the transistors, then hand coding pro…

It is my understanding that the French massively subsidize nuclear power because they essentially run it as a job program to keep nuclear engineers employed so that they can build nuclear bombs.

France produced military nuclear fuel in separate facilities, with separate engineers.

Also, France stopped producing military-grade radioactive fuel since 1996, when the Pierrelatte military factory closed [1].

[1], in french: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usine_militaire_de_Pierrelatte

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#174

Post by acidburnNSA »

epaulson wrote: post #165

Yes, we could get a lot more energy out of our fission fuel. The reason the USA doesn't is because Jimmy Carter set a policy of not reprocessing fuel because he felt it encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation, coming just a few years after India exploded its first device. Carter's statement: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120960615.pdf

Considering that Reagan reversed this policy by unbanning reprocessing in 1981, this isn't the only reason we don't do it today. Other reasons include that reprocessing is expensive and that we found a lot more uranium ore than originally expected.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#175

Post by pyrale »

throwaway1777 wrote: post #122
Gwypaas wrote: post #118

After 70 years of trying we haven't built an economic traditional nuclear reactor. Even less a breeder. It is like saying we have infinite fossil fuels because we can use renewables to create it from water and air. The interesting part of the conversation is the efficient allocation of money and people. In that conversation nuclear power never materialized.

Did you forget about externalities and politics? Because nuclear would be way cheaper with practice building reactors, economies of scale, without billions in red tape, etc. not to mention it’s the best source of base load without creating massive amounts of air pollution or battery waste

> without billions in red tape

I would prefer to keep the red tape, thank you very much.

Sure, nuclear is an expensive industry, but it's also a very safe industry, and I believe we should keep this part of it.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#176

Post by mcpackieh »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #169
mcpackieh wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear this sort of argument will fall on deaf ears here. This is a forum where tons of people believe rural/suburban people should be coerced into a car-less urban lifestyle. It works for them, so it should work for everybody else.. Getting people to live in dense urban housing and be dependent on public transit is considered a desirable outcome , not a regrettable but necessary consequence of reducing emissions. Ta…

> This is a forum where tons of people believe rural/suburban people should be coerced into a car-less urban lifestyle. This is a forum where a few people believe rural/suburban people should be coerced into a car-less urban lifestyle, and say so very vocally. Don't mistake that for a consensus. It's not. You can find a lot of other viewpoints here as well.

Okay fair, but they make sure to over-represent themselves in every HN conversation concerning power generation, cities, cars or bicycles.

I think the style of argument rayiner is employing is essentially preaching to the choir; it won't land with people who derive their anti-nuclear stance from a pro-urbanization goal. And this seems to be the primary motivation of anti-nuclear people on HN specifically. In the general public, earnest if misguided concern for safety is more common than a pro-urbanization motive, but HN isn't representative of the general public.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#177

Post by bob1029 »

mcpackieh wrote: post #167
bob1029 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the right question/goal. No. I have seen the effects of this "goal" at scale in my personal life. Semi-non-effective HVAC systems that I now have to run 24/7/365, LED lights with weird flicker that perpetually antagonize me everywhere , vehicles with obnoxious start/stop mechanisms that absolutely induce premature wear (causing much more serious waste than otherwise). Oh yeah - my washing machine doesn't re…

The water saving thing is truly obnoxious because water is a very regional issue. Why are people in regions with more than ample fresh water made to use inferior toilets designed to use little fresh water? Because activists from dry places think their regional water problems are universal and try to foist their water-saving nonsense onto everybody else. They're coming for high-flow shower-heads too; it takes me three…

> I think it's probably only a matter of time before they start making shower heads with built-in timers that force everybody to take navy showers.

Moen already has a "smart" shower.

https://www.moen.com/smart-home/smart-shower

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#178

Post by chrisco255 »

zdragnar wrote: post #164
bell-cot wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia's economy is currently heavily dependent on oil exports... All the more reason for them to build nuclear plants. Every barrel of oil that their own economy doesn't need (because they have plenty of nuclear plants) is another barrel they can make money exporting. And if or when using oil becomes unfashionable, or their oil reserved start running low...then being recognized experts on how to build & run lots o…

Nuclear competes with natural gas and coal, not oil. Beyond powering the grid, there are myriad uses for oil that nuclear cannot substitute directly for- asphalt, plastic, nylon, even Aspirin (synthesized from benzene).

And yet the biggest use of petroleum by far is for transportation. Worldwide demand for petroleum would plunge 90+% if all cars were electric and nuclear was fully deployed.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#179

Post by pyrale »

Joeri wrote: post #130
throwaway1777 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you forget about externalities and politics? Because nuclear would be way cheaper with practice building reactors, economies of scale, without billions in red tape, etc. not to mention it’s the best source of base load without creating massive amounts of air pollution or battery waste

China and Russia do not build and run nuclear power plants at dramatically lower costs, despite having none of those handicaps. Edit: Hmm, actually, I find wildly diverging LCOE numbers in different locations online. Some indicate they build at half the cost from France, while others say at a similar cost. So, if anyone knows which LCOE numbers are reliable please indicate.

From what I understand, Lazard's LCOE, which are quoted everywhere, mainly rely on US numbers. That means they probably are reliable for US situations.
Post reply on HN