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

Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

neutronbytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#31

Post by Jedd »

DeathArrow wrote: post #29
acidburnNSA wrote: post #9

It really does seem relatively easy to raise money in nuclear power for making a few dubious claims about factory production, reactor performance, and delivery timeline. In the industry, we call the 10 years it takes to realize that it's a lot harder than newcomers initially think, and that the people who tried in the past didn't fail merely because they were idiots who didn't think about economics: "getting run over…

Is that true in any country or just US? I have the impression that in China is not so difficult to build nuclear power plants.

The sets { USA } and ¬ { China } aren't equivalent, of course.

I think the extra challenges 'in the west' (UK has a spectacularly famous on-going example, but Europe's experience is closer to the USA's than China's) are a function of safety regulations, and you're obviously not going to suffer the same challenge(s) in a locale that lacks those.

Where you believe your nation's regulations around build & operations sits along the spectrum from sensible to pesky will presumably correlate with how strongly you believe that fission power plants are the (misunderstood / underappreciated) answer.

(I'm in AU and a few minutes after wrapping a decade of federal administration where they never thought or mentioned the idea - the now opposition (conservative) political party started suggesting fission nuclear power was A Great Idea. We're in a unique position here in AU, but this was clearly a political, not a pragmatic, advocacy.)

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#32

Post by wordofx »

epistasis wrote: post #30
wordofx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This has been completely disproven by the entire history of nuclear power. Rickover's letter about paper versus real reactors has been linked in the comments already. You're talking about paper reactors, but unfortunately we need real reactors if we want electricity.

> This has been completely disproven by the entire history of nuclear power.

lol no it hasn’t.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#33

Post by Xylakant »

wordofx wrote: post #27
acidburnNSA wrote: post #9

It really does seem relatively easy to raise money in nuclear power for making a few dubious claims about factory production, reactor performance, and delivery timeline. In the industry, we call the 10 years it takes to realize that it's a lot harder than newcomers initially think, and that the people who tried in the past didn't fail merely because they were idiots who didn't think about economics: "getting run over…

[flagged]

So the result of the “fast and loose with regulation around nuclear stuff” is perfectly visible in Germany right now. Low to medium active nuclear waste was deposited in an old salt mine in Lower Saxony. There were strong indications that the mine is structurally unsafe dating back to 1979, but the warnings were ignored. Nuclear waste was dumped in barrels with no further protection. Now, water is seeping into the mine - dissolving the salt which serves as a protective barrier for the radiation and at the same time resulting in a corrosive brine that makes the barrels rust. Plans were drawn up to recover the waste at huge cost, but recently, the water ingress became so high, that it’s doubtful that the mine will survive until recovery can begin. We’ll likely end up with a lot of fun radioactive and poisonous materials in the local aquifers. Cancer rates are already elevated in the region.

In theory, nuclear materials can be handled safely. Sadly, humans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#34

Post by pjc50 »

DeathArrow wrote: post #29
acidburnNSA wrote: post #9

It really does seem relatively easy to raise money in nuclear power for making a few dubious claims about factory production, reactor performance, and delivery timeline. In the industry, we call the 10 years it takes to realize that it's a lot harder than newcomers initially think, and that the people who tried in the past didn't fail merely because they were idiots who didn't think about economics: "getting run over…

Is that true in any country or just US? I have the impression that in China is not so difficult to build nuclear power plants.

In China, if you're the medium rank politician charged with ensuring that a nuclear reactor gets built in province X, and ten years later there is not an operating nuclear reactor in province X, then the Party tends to get mad. And if they find out you've stolen the money then the consequences can be fatal.

If there's any one thing that's causing a ""decline"" in the west, it's a tolerance for fraud and failure of big projects.

Edit: found a really interesting backgrounder on details of the Chinese nuclear programme. https://world-nuclear.org/Information-Library/Country-Profil...

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#35

Post by pjc50 »

verisimi wrote: post #12
anoy8888 wrote: post #10

The only way to win here is to make it expensive to produce lies . Make people take responsibility of the consequences and punish them .

Who has the truth though?

It's not usually difficult to determine whether a nuclear reactor does or does not exist.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#36

Post by jillesvangurp »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #9

It really does seem relatively easy to raise money in nuclear power for making a few dubious claims about factory production, reactor performance, and delivery timeline. In the industry, we call the 10 years it takes to realize that it's a lot harder than newcomers initially think, and that the people who tried in the past didn't fail merely because they were idiots who didn't think about economics: "getting run over…

Nuclear has actually been a really hard sell for the last few decades, which is why there are so few new plants coming online.

Politicians are opportunistic and short term focused. So they'll back anything that makes them look good and important during the next election cycle. Nuclear projects take too long to complete for them to be interesting. There are some brownie points of course for approving one but it's not the same as the instant gratification you get with renewables where they might see operational solar, wind, batteries, whatever within a single term. Anyway, politicians and the people voting for them are the main target of nuclear lobbying to unlock subsidies, grants, permits, etc.

Those are needed to lure in investors. Investors are more skeptical of course. And these are very risky projects. Time delays and budget overruns are common. By triple digit percentages typically. And the ROI is uncertain too. So, raising money for new nuclear is not that easy. Government support somewhat mitigates the risks but not completely. Which is why there's a lot of talk about nuclear but not a whole lot new capacity coming online for the foreseeable future.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#38

Post by verisimi »

jessriedel wrote: post #21
verisimi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who has the truth though?

Prediction markets

Good answer, but isn't that a practical answer, based on consensus? Ie its what people believe is true, but might not be actually true.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#39

Post by verisimi »

pjc50 wrote: post #35
verisimi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who has the truth though?

It's not usually difficult to determine whether a nuclear reactor does or does not exist.

The comment I responded to said:

> The only way to win here is to make it expensive to produce lies .

But which authority can be trusted to provide truth, in order to have a metric on what a lie is? Which authority is even unbiased and impartial?

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#40

Post by johnchristopher »

Spivak wrote: post #2

"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…

I was told verbatim "we don't care about fact checkings, we have had enough of it and you always bring them up" in a thread about covid.

People like that are not in the fight because of some facts they disagree with, it's about raging against the Man for other reasons.

Post reply on HN