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

Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

austinvernon.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 672 posts

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#351

Post by feydaykyn »

dboreham wrote: post #163

Because nuclear power plants and the associated fuel cycle industry is incredibly dangerous and the participants have consistently lied about that danger for all of history? Note: not a tree hugger. I believe nuclear power (in conjunction with significant restrictions on consumption) must play a big part in decarbonization. But...so many lies for so long. Put down the Kool-Aid and admit these things are not safe and…

If you want to have a more scientific approach to the security question, I strongly advise reading this book : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20579068-atomic-accident...

It's the history and detailed analysis of every nuclear accident, from the discovery of the radium to current days. You'll learn in passing that people used to drink radioactive cola to "improve" their health...

My main take away is that if you don't know exactly what you're doing, nuclear will kill you very very quickly. It's been quite reassuring about the security of existing plants

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#352

Post by Krasnol »

planetsprite wrote: post #81
Krasnol wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check up on that Shellenberger meme before you spread it. That was is just the fuel and fuel is just a small part of all the waste. https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/

however the fuel constitutes 97% of the radiation of all waste

Which is just another derailment phrase and completely useless for the discussion of nuclear waste.

Yes it is very radioactive but that doesn't mean that the rest can be stored on a landfill. It is still so radioactive that we don't have a proper solution for it's storage. Only because the fuel is SO MUCH MORE radioactive, doesn't make the rest disappear or the football field argument valid in any way.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#353

Post by natmaka »

oceanplexian wrote: post #229
jillesvangurp wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany Actually, Germany did not have a long term increase in coal/gas due to the nuclear shut down but a decrease. Coal has been in a slow but steady decline in Germany (mainly due to cost); which is on track to decline all the way to 0 as Germany is committing to getting rid of coal based production completely by 2035 or so. Gas production did grow but mainly to offset decli…

> Recent events in the Ukraine are cutting off cheap Russian supply of both coal and gas This is not the impression I have gotten from recent events. The reason Germany hasn’t experienced blackouts is because they are funding the Russian Federation’s war in Ukraine in exchange for energy. Germany has advocated for the continued purchase of Russian gas and has pushed back against the EU admitting Ukraine to the union.…

Nuclear isn't better on this account: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-us-utiliti...

This is even true for France, as most of its uranium comes from Kazakhstan.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#354

Post by ncmncm »

sb057 wrote: post #45
ncmncm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I.e., the more you know about nukes, the less you like them.

I'm not sure about the other regulators, but Jaczko is hardly liked by his colleagues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko >A report by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General Hubert T. Bell accused Jaczko of "strategically" withholding information from his colleagues in an effort to keep plans for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository from advancing. >In October 2011, all the other four NRC co…

The more you know about nukes, the less you like nukes.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#355

Post by imtringued »

mateo1 wrote: post #65
version_five wrote: post #6

I don't think it's stagnant. I continue to see stuff like small modular reactors making progress. The obvious reason why it doesn't get more play is because it doesn't serve anybody's political goals. Renewables and carbon taxes or other measures to try and reduce quality of life (or opposition to those) get attention because they have good political value. Actually spending money and generating sustainable power, no…

Small modular reactors are not even small. They're 400MW each and size-wise they conveniently don't include the containment building and all the supporting equipment and machinery. I don't know who came up with that name but it's not very descriptive term.

A potential SMR power plant from NuScale contains 5 SMR that each can be individually replaced. You forgot to qualify your "each". Each power plant can do 400MW but each individual SMR only does 77MW.

Compare that to conventional nuclear reactors where a single reactor does 400MW and the entire plant does 1.6 GW

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#356

Post by mixermachine »

varajelle wrote: post #206
stkdump wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, by how much did Germany increase its carbon output during the nuclear shutdown? Hint: it didn't. It went from 14.8 to 7.7 tons/capita. You can always argue that it could have decreased faster by keeping nuclear plants online. But please don't believe the headlines of opinion makers without looking at the actual data.

In the same period, France went from 10 to 4.2 t/capita (Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/germany?country=DEU~F... )

And they have a massive problem with their old plants because many are about to be decommissioned. They need to build many new ones while the state run nuclear operator is basically bankrupt.

https://theecologist.org/2017/mar/16/edf-facing-bankruptcy-d...

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#357

Post by Krasnol »

SemanticStrengh wrote: post #94
Krasnol wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any serious sources on this ridiculous conspiracy theory bread in Shellenbergers bubble reactor?

The reason we don't have reactors that recycle nuclear wastes is because ecologists have attacked the next-gen model with a bazooka. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix#Rocket_attack This is why we can't have nice things, the ecologists have prevented the solutions from the issues that legitimate their political existence. In germany and in the U.S the shutdown of nuclear has been a blatant lobby too.

I've asked for sources on OPs conspiracy. Not for even more conspiracies.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#358

Post by cinntaile »

SemanticStrengh wrote: post #48
PaulHoule wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 GW * 50 years is about $100 billion worth of electricity.

That's not the point, construction costs should be ~ requiring about 35% fewer operational personnel than the VVER-1000 This was for VVER 1200 however the new VVER TOI will be the first to use software? > United information space is a multi-platform software and hardware complex intended for control of the engineering data for engineering, designing, as well as arranging communication between territorially-distanced…

No western country will be touching Russian nuclear power plants anytime soon. Maybe they could go for a Korean plant though. And yes, SMRs likely have an even bigger economics problem than regular sized plants but at least the upfront capital costs are lower and that makes (private and state) investors happy.

Re: Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant?

#360

Post by nickelpro »

arinlen wrote: post #340
himinlomax wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignorant? Energy storage is not a short or medium term solution. Pumped hydro is already maxxed out pretty much everywhere it's possible as not all dams are suitable -- in fact most aren't. Battery storage for large grids currently covers minutes of use, a few hours may be attainable. But wind can be absent for days or weeks, and there's such a thing as winter when you're as far from the equator as Germany. Ignorant.…

> Ignorant? Either disingenuous or ignorant, yes. > Energy storage is not a short or medium term solution. The primary role of energy storage systems in renewable energy sources is to balance supply and demand. Your assertion makes no sense because it ignores even the most fundamental aspects of the problem domain. > Pumped hydro is already maxxed out pretty much everywhere it's possible as not all dams are suitable…

> Meanwhile, back in the real world not only are power grids distributed at a continental level but there also multiple sources of power feeding into that grid, including imported energy generated from renewable sources.

There is nothing close to the grid capacity to make this statement true.

Germany lacks base load capacity and imports energy from coal and natural gas burning neighbors when their renewables go offline. To offset this, Germany is building more base load capacity in the form of gas driven plants. This isn't a secret, it's not disingenuous to point it out.

The better option, from the point of view of carbon neutrality, is to make up that availability gap with nuclear. The Germans are unwilling to do this, and likely they hope that eventually they can import energy from neighbors that are willing to make up this gap with nuclear plants the Germans themselves were unwilling to build.

Post reply on HN