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

Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

dpa-international.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#561

Post by Chico75 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #525
booi wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$5.6B actually sounds like a good deal. It outputs 2GW+ of power. While solar is definitely cheaper for 2GW of power, you still need batteries for when the sun is down. So you probably need approximately 30GWh of batteries to just replace this one power plant. The batteries alone would cost nearly $7B of grid-scale batteries that must be replaced every 20 years. Ignoring the fact that the nuclear plant already exists…

> $5.6B actually sounds like a good deal. It outputs 2GW+ of power. I don't understand. Are you talking about 1985 dollars of 2026 dollars? After some research, I learned that thermal powerplants (coal/gas/oil) completed in 1985 cost about 0.8B to 1.2B USD per GW. 5.6B USD in 1985 for 2GW sounds like a terrible price -- at least twice the cost.

Price is not the only factor, paying double for energy that does not contribute to global warming and other health issues seems more reasonable.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#562

Post by ardit33 »

simplyluke wrote: post #556

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

[flagged]

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#563

Post by dalyons »

citrin_ru wrote: post #454
dalyons wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree storage is a problem. But the concept of “base load” is outdated. As I mentioned in another comment - Because actually “base load” nuclear is terrible in a grid increasingly full of nearly-free variable sources (solar&wind). The nukes need to stay at 100% all the time selling their power at a high fixed price to have any remote chance of being economical. Cheap variables push nuke's expensive power off the gr…

May be base-load is not the best term but in case if batteries and other storages will run out during long cloudy stretch with weak winds nuclear will at least allow to power critical infrastructure. It’s bad that some consumers will loose power but less bad than total apocalypses when the storage is empty and you have no unintermittent power source in the grid.

for the foreseeable future that weather-anomoly backup role is going to be filled by gas. Spins up very fast, nearly zero marginal cost while sitting idle. And yes, it creates emissions, but if you're only using it for rare weather events, you're probably talking >5% of the supply annual total that produces emissions. Which is fine.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#564

Post by dalyons »

macintux wrote: post #548
dalyons wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree to an extent… but a state forcing a nuclear share and locking the populace into higher power prices for 30+ years is going to politically very unpopular. Short term economic concerns dominate today.

Tough luck. That's the point of representative government: look out for the interests of the nation and sell it to your populace. If you can't sell it, be prepared to be voted out, but do the right thing.

you're talking about "should". Im talking about the world we live in. They are unfortunately not the same.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#565

Post by ZeroGravitas »

simplyluke wrote: post #556

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

Why do so many nuclear fans try to suggest climate change only exists if you like nuclear? It's very odd.

Compare:

If you believe COVID exists you need to use hydroxychloroquine.

It makes you sound like you don't even believe in the problem you are proposing an (unpopular with experts) solution for.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#566

Post by thrownthatway »

Danox wrote: post #547
thrownthatway wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You reckon during the 44 years Fukushima Daiitchi operated there were no systems control and data acquisition upgrades? And you reckon that the site operated for 44 years on a Gen II design without melting down is somehow an insisted or how unsafe those reactors were. If that earthquake and tsunami had been only a bit different in either magnitude or location, those reactors could be operating still now. Or if the pl…

Fukushima failed because of the aftermath of a 9.1 earthquake.

Huh! News to me. I thought it was a CIA false flag Mossad MKUltra LSD Lizard people remote viewing black ops program.

And your telling me it just a regular commercial off the shelf run if the mill garden variety earthquake.

Man to I need to touch grass.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#567

Post by rayiner »

dv_dt wrote: post #496
rayiner wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a choice between nuclear and PV. It’s a choice between nuclear and the other things that provide base load: gas and coal.

A requirement for base load is a fallacy promulgated by fossil fuel preservation lobbying

I suggest you read a power system engineering textbook.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#568

Post by otikik »

crote wrote: post #324
otikik wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake > Irrelevant. Well, that needs more nuance. You have to understand that Japan is unusually well prepared for natural disasters. From earthquake resistant building codes, to alarm systems, education, to building, to earthquake refuges. I would venture to say that it is the most earhquake-prepared country in the world (although I have no proof of that point and I don't feel l…

Sure, but Chernobyl didn't require a massive tsunami, and neither did Three Mile Island. On top of that there have been dozens of near-misses. On the other hand: what would have been the result of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami hitting a wind farm, or a PV installation? Nuclear reactors are inherently a very risky business, with virtually unlimited damages if something goes seriously wrong. I'm sure all the re…

I was arguing about the fact that the number of deaths on the tsunami was relevant. I think you must have answered to the wrong thread.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#569

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #409
Alexsky2 wrote: post #253

A bit unrelated to the Belgium story but I recently visited Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, CA and learned a ton about the technical details, safety systems, and policy decisions that go into operating a nuclear power plant. When operating at full capacity, it provides up to 10% of California power! While there is certainly always more such facilities can do for safety and efficiency, my impre…

I did some research about that nuclear power plant. In 1985 dollars, the total construction cost was 5.6B USD. That is an astonishing amount of money. That is at least 16B USD in 2026 money. If you also include decomissioning costs of about 4-5B USD... how the fuck does nuclear power make any economic sense? PV solar plus batteries: ALL THE WAY. To be clear, I am not anti-nuclear power by any means. I think it is a t…

[deleted]

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#570

Post by boznz »

booi wrote: post #486
throwaway2037 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did some research about that nuclear power plant. In 1985 dollars, the total construction cost was 5.6B USD. That is an astonishing amount of money. That is at least 16B USD in 2026 money. If you also include decomissioning costs of about 4-5B USD... how the fuck does nuclear power make any economic sense? PV solar plus batteries: ALL THE WAY. To be clear, I am not anti-nuclear power by any means. I think it is a t…

$5.6B actually sounds like a good deal. It outputs 2GW+ of power. While solar is definitely cheaper for 2GW of power, you still need batteries for when the sun is down. So you probably need approximately 30GWh of batteries to just replace this one power plant. The batteries alone would cost nearly $7B of grid-scale batteries that must be replaced every 20 years. Ignoring the fact that the nuclear plant already exists…

Due to increased regulation etc you cannot just translate 1985 $, £ or Euro to a 2026 one. There is an actual example in the UK Hinkley Point C current estimate $43b, (£35b) where as sizewell B commissioned in 1987 was $3.2b billion (£2b) or about $7b in todays $. This is probably the worst example but makes the point.
Post reply on HN