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

Nuclear Plant Could Bring 1,600 Jobs to Kemmerer, Wyoming

cowboystatedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Nuclear Plant Could Bring 1,600 Jobs to Kemmerer, Wyoming

#31

Post by Kon5ole »

roenxi wrote: post #27
Kon5ole wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You might have heard the funny story about a nuclear contamination incident Here is just one of many actually documented stories about nuclear contamination, none of them are particularly funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident >I'm not entirely happy with the premise that nobody has learned anything about plant design since 1970 The problem isn't plant design. The problem is that the fuel and was…

Much to get through. So, You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there. Nothing to do with nuclear power though, and it certainly didn't cause anywhere near a trillion dollars in damage. > The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous It isn't that dangerous. We've been at this for 50 years. If anything interesting had happened regarding waste we'd have the regressives up…

>You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there.

Not at all, it was a mere 93 grams of misplaced material and just one of many many examples of this happening all over the world. The US generates 20 000 000 times as much high level waste every year, and luckily they spend the money required to keep it safe and not end up in the wrong places.

>It isn't that dangerous.

Think about it for a second - a nuclear fire during a few weeks in Ukraine has caused reindeer over 1000 miles away to be deemed unsuitable for human consumption for over 35 years. It really is mindboggling how far-reaching in both time and space that accident has been, and it wasn't even a worst-case scenario!

Ignoring the facts and just stating out of the blue that "It's not that dangerous" might be a good coping mechanism but it's not factual.

So, it's dangerous - and the danger should be weighed against the benefits compared to the options.

As of at least now in 2024 we get cheaper electricity from solar panels even after converting solar electricity to hydrogen gas and back to electricity. So nuclear is not cost-competitive even when we ignore the trillion dollar risks it carries (No estimates for the cost of nuclear includes the cost of a disaster, governments take that risk from the operators).

As we have seen the past few years in Europe it's also not very reliable. Plants in France, Finland and Sweden have gone offline several times during the year, taking with them a large percentage of the total electricity production of the countries they are in. Nuclear means many eggs in each basket so to speak.

Why should we aim to build electricity sources that are expensive and vulnerable in addition to carrying a proven risk to food production for decades in a 1000 mile radius, when we already have cheaper options in the form of renewables and storage?

If nuclear was 1/10th the cost of the safer options, I could see a point in debating the risks. But when it is actually MORE expensive? It makes absolutely no sense IMO.

Re: Nuclear Plant Could Bring 1,600 Jobs to Kemmerer, Wyoming

#32

Post by LargeTomato »

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #24
mlsu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste is dangerous. Coal ash, tailings, hydrocarbon extraction byproducts; those are also dangerous. Look at cancer rates near refinery areas in Louisiana or Houston -- you might imagine a nuclear bomb went off in those areas based on the cancer rates. Nuclear waste has the unique property that it is very easily detected. This is actually a good thing! It means we can isolate it, test for isolation, and stay…

"Clean" is the short sighted part, because waste does not only revolve around carbon. "Sustainable" is the only long term solution. Your points seem to be correct, NE waste is less and better detectable but its also as long living like PFAS but much more dangerous compared to them. As is said "i dont like the trend", not NE per se. This upcoming NE trend fosters an illusion, that competes with the with wind/solar pow…

We have urgent problems and theoretical, future problems. CO2 levels are an urgent problem. NE can help here. Nuclear waste is not an urgent problem today and likely will never be as urgent as climate change.

Re: Nuclear Plant Could Bring 1,600 Jobs to Kemmerer, Wyoming

#33

Post by oneshtein »

roenxi wrote: post #27
Kon5ole wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You might have heard the funny story about a nuclear contamination incident Here is just one of many actually documented stories about nuclear contamination, none of them are particularly funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident >I'm not entirely happy with the premise that nobody has learned anything about plant design since 1970 The problem isn't plant design. The problem is that the fuel and was…

Much to get through. So, You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there. Nothing to do with nuclear power though, and it certainly didn't cause anywhere near a trillion dollars in damage. > The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous It isn't that dangerous. We've been at this for 50 years. If anything interesting had happened regarding waste we'd have the regressives up…

> At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly.

It's not a debate about coal vs nuclear. Nuclear is better than coal, but worse than renewables.

Re: Nuclear Plant Could Bring 1,600 Jobs to Kemmerer, Wyoming

#34

Post by roenxi »

oneshtein wrote: post #33
roenxi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much to get through. So, You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there. Nothing to do with nuclear power though, and it certainly didn't cause anywhere near a trillion dollars in damage. > The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous It isn't that dangerous. We've been at this for 50 years. If anything interesting had happened regarding waste we'd have the regressives up…

> At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly. It's not a debate about coal vs nuclear. Nuclear is better than coal, but worse than renewables .

I suppose my point here is that if we should hold nuclear to a reasonable standard of harm - say an order of magnitude less harm then we are presently living under - then the economics of nuclear will likely crush solar.

Nuclear is uncompetitive but still in the conversation at the current absurdist standard. It'd be an easy winner on a realistic standard. The harm of nuclear and solar is similar (on average, about 0) but nuclear can deliver a lot more bang for buck.

There is a two pronged argument against nuclear, one prong the somewhat ignorant argument that the risk is excessive and the other argument that it costs too much. If we use evidence and handle the risk to a sane standard, it is reasonable to expect it'll be dirt cheap and the other argument falls away.

People say solar is cheaper but they seem to by lying. All the places that have heavily invested in solar have gut-wrenchingly high electricity prices. If nuclear was given a fair shot it's got a great chance of winning the fight for the power source with the best cost-benifit ratio.

Re: Nuclear Plant Could Bring 1,600 Jobs to Kemmerer, Wyoming

#35

Post by Moldoteck »

throwaway5959 wrote: post #30
Moldoteck wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed. Real waste should be stored for merely 300yrs

Merely 300 years. Jesus. That’s 10 generations.

yeah, storing some solid stuff underground for 300 yrs in a geologically stable region is soooo hard)

Re: Nuclear Plant Could Bring 1,600 Jobs to Kemmerer, Wyoming

#36

Post by Kon5ole »

roenxi wrote: post #34
oneshtein wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly. It's not a debate about coal vs nuclear. Nuclear is better than coal, but worse than renewables .

I suppose my point here is that if we should hold nuclear to a reasonable standard of harm - say an order of magnitude less harm then we are presently living under - then the economics of nuclear will likely crush solar. Nuclear is uncompetitive but still in the conversation at the current absurdist standard. It'd be an easy winner on a realistic standard. The harm of nuclear and solar is similar (on average, about 0…

>I suppose my point here is that if we should hold nuclear to a reasonable standard of harm - say an order of magnitude less harm then we are presently living under - then the economics of nuclear will likely crush solar.

You believe that nuclear is paying too much, but the truth is that it's paying too little. In France, the US and Sweden the money set aside to handle waste and decommissioning or restitution of old plants is underfinanced by as much as 50%, meaning half the money is missing.

In all countries operating nuclear power, there is a growing hidden debt. France recently paid over 50 billion euros on their debt when they nationalized EDF, but it's not enough.

These costs, and a myriad of other costs, are never included in estimates for nuclear power, because it's regulated in the contract for the operator that they don't have to pay it. Taxpayers pay it.

So when you are looking at the cost of nuclear power, you are often looking at the contracted price that the operator is liable for, but not the true, full cost of actually operating nuclear power.

Recently this arrangement has been reconsidered in many countries, so when you look at any estimates of what new nuclear will cost it has almost doubled in the past few years. This is entirely because a little bit more of the actual cost of nuclear has to be paid by the operators instead of the governments.

>People say solar is cheaper but they seem to by lying.

IEA has recently stated that Solar is the cheapest electricity ever: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricit...

Here is a list of solar plants selling power for as little as 1 cent per kwh, 2 cents being common:

https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-...

So, no lies here.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that solar has fallen in price so fast that if you are looking at data from 5-6 years ago you're looking at bad data.

Also worth noting is that the average price of electricity in Germany, who has invested heavily in Solar, was lower than in France for all of 2023. Do you have an example of a place with lots of solar that has high electricity prices?

Re: Nuclear Plant Could Bring 1,600 Jobs to Kemmerer, Wyoming

#37

Post by Kon5ole »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #25
Kon5ole wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we held nuclear to a similar safety standard to the airline, coal or solar industry it'd probably be cheaper No it would be much more expensive. Chernobyl and Fukushima are estimated to cost over 1000 billion usd each, and your suggestion would cause similar accidents every 4-6 years.

> suggestion would cause similar accidents every 4-6 years That seems like somewhat absurd speculation. Both of those events made future incidents significantly less likely. Also Chernobyl was totally avoidable and only happened because of extreme incompetence prevalent in the USSR.

>That seems like somewhat absurd speculation.

A speculation for sure but I think it's realistic given the premise. Same safety standards as the Boeing 737 Max for nuclear power plants, same standards as coal power for storing the waste? If anything my speculation is optimistic!

Re: Nuclear Plant Could Bring 1,600 Jobs to Kemmerer, Wyoming

#38

Post by ffgjgf1 »

Kon5ole wrote: post #37
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> suggestion would cause similar accidents every 4-6 years That seems like somewhat absurd speculation. Both of those events made future incidents significantly less likely. Also Chernobyl was totally avoidable and only happened because of extreme incompetence prevalent in the USSR.

>That seems like somewhat absurd speculation. A speculation for sure but I think it's realistic given the premise. Same safety standards as the Boeing 737 Max for nuclear power plants, same standards as coal power for storing the waste? If anything my speculation is optimistic!

> Same safety standards as the Boeing 737 Max for nuclear power plants

Not really though.

Post reply on HN