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

Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 165 posts

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#71

Post by Sanzig »

xxpor wrote: post #18
wolverine876 wrote: post #13

Public financial and in-kind support for nuclear power is transferring wealth from taxpayers to large corporations. Nuclear might be worth it to reduce climate change (a discussion for a different subthread) but let's be careful of corporate welfare. At least, find a way for that wealth transfer to reach the public, not the shareholders.

The TVA exists. Only reason we can't do more of that is politics.

All of Canada's power reactors are government owned, with about half of them operated by a private operator under long-term lease (Bruce Power) and the other half operated directly by provincial crown corporations. Additionally, essentially all of Canada's large hydroelectric facilities (gigawatt scale) are also owned and operated by provincial crown corporations.

Some projects are simply too large with too long a payback period for private investment.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#72

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #54
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uruguay is 100% wind + storage Uruguay pays $170/MWh [1]. That’s what power from the first-of-its-kind and hideously-delayed Vogtle nuclear power plants will cost [2]. [1] https://www.global-climatescope.org/markets/uy/ [2] https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-...

Are you comparing retail price to wholesale price? The generation cost of power is a very small fraction of the retail price in most markets, especially in Uruguay. Distribution and paying off old debts is a massive fraction of the cost.

> comparing retail price to wholesale price?

Yes. If you have an adjusted price, I’d be curious.

That said, we can compare the real-world France and Uruguay. On the basis of both price and cost, France runs cheaper.

Obviously there are many other factors at play. But while I love Uruguay and its bold energy vision, they are not an example of wind + storage proving economically viable.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#73

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

adrianN wrote: post #66
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your argument. We can take a look at all plants we have attempted to construct in the west the past 20 years. - Virgil C. Summer: Contract: 2008. Cancelled 2017 - Vogtle Contract 2008, first reactor done 2023, second 2024(??) - Watts Bar: Construction start 1972, can…

Note that your parent uses time from first concrete poured to grid connection as „construction time“, which is naturally much shorter than what you cite.

Right... if you skip building a power plant for your reactor then it is "faster".

Personally the only number I find interesting is the time from investment decision to in service. Everything else is simply done to muddle the picture because the numbers would get pushback.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#74

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #69
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China is what we want to emulate No, but we don’t throw out data we don’t like. Pre-AP1000, in the modern era, the data are grim. Post-AP1000 it’s much better. > Which means you do not understand economics 101 Have you ever held a senior role in finance or banking? If you’re going to go ad hominem , don’t bring a rubber duck to a battleship. > we aim for 20 years, because that is the current optimum It’s because it…

> Have you ever held a senior role in finance or banking? If you’re going to go ad hominem, don’t bring a rubber duck to a battleship. Why aren't you answering the point? Is it that hard to substantiate your claims that a 60 year amortization + 15 year construction = 75 years is reasonable. > Data sorely lacking. (Outside hydro.) You mean like the data available on economic nuclear energy? :) > Oof, no, it’s not. Ser…

> Is it that hard to substantiate your claims that a 60 year amortization + 15 year construction = 75 years is reasonable

What do you mean reasonable? It’s real. We amortise over long time horizons in project finance all the time. Also, look up residual value. (And dams.)

And yes, I’m contesting both 60 and 15; they’re 80 and 10 and could be 80 and 5 with permitting reform. And within that latter envelope, it works with conventional financing. (The same problem plagues HVDC lines, which also take 10+ years to permit.)

> Do you see the year investment time ending up in the exponent?

You may actually enjoy reading some of the foundational texts whose concepts you’re glancing across. (Principles of Economics, Mankiw, is a classic. For a more-applied text, Fabozzi’s Fixed Income.)

You’re citing real things. But you’re connecting them nonsensically. Investopedia isn’t a replacement for training, though it’s a good reference once you’ve learned the material.

(The exponent comes from compounding time preference. Its time component is orthogonal to technological progress, which embeds in the rate. That’s why it’s constant. If you want to consider obsolescence risk, you start getting into hyperbolic discounting.)

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#75

Post by mpweiher »

tedivm wrote: post #57
mpweiher wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe better communication? Nuclear is, depending on what stats you use, either among the safest or actually the safest energy source. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (And the top 3 are so close that differences are essentially noise)

Just looking at deaths doesn't really tell the whole story. There aren't a lot of towns that have had to be evacuated and abandoned due to solar industry accidents.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

1975 Chinese Dam fails

150K deaths 4.6 million homes destroyed 11 million people displaced

Number of countries getting out of hydro: 0 ( in words: zero )

Japan and Ukraine are both among the countries that signed the “tripling nuclear by 2050” pledge. My guess would be that they have the best information on the risks of nuclear.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#76

Post by analognoise »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43
wolverine876 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China has built four, one in just four years, in two roughly-parallel series. So the anti-nukes’ too-slow argument is bunk. But the pro-nuke team needs a learning curve barely demonstrated in another country to continue. We have much more evidence of contruction being too slow (if that's what you mean); why is one example from the other side more convincing? Also, China is not directly comparable, being able to und…

> why is one example from the other side more convincing Because it’s a Gen III+ design. > the last sentence seems to agree that the evidence is weak It’s a new design. > people who just care about getting the best outcome, aren't on a team that has drawn a predetermined conclusion, and are working with the data Very few people who have done this conclude we should go all in on a single solution. Nuclear, natural gas…

Why do you need natural gas in that mix at all?

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#77

Post by JumpCrisscross »

analognoise wrote: post #76
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why is one example from the other side more convincing Because it’s a Gen III+ design. > the last sentence seems to agree that the evidence is weak It’s a new design. > people who just care about getting the best outcome, aren't on a team that has drawn a predetermined conclusion, and are working with the data Very few people who have done this conclude we should go all in on a single solution. Nuclear, natural gas…

Why do you need natural gas in that mix at all?

> Why do you need natural gas in that mix at all?

It’s cleaner than the alternatives and has its distribution infrastructure already built. While waiting for more solar, or waiting for more solar and wind and nukes, those coal and oil plants are still burning.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#78

Post by bryanlarsen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72
bryanlarsen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you comparing retail price to wholesale price? The generation cost of power is a very small fraction of the retail price in most markets, especially in Uruguay. Distribution and paying off old debts is a massive fraction of the cost.

> comparing retail price to wholesale price? Yes. If you have an adjusted price, I’d be curious. That said, we can compare the real-world France and Uruguay. On the basis of both price and cost, France runs cheaper. Obviously there are many other factors at play. But while I love Uruguay and its bold energy vision, they are not an example of wind + storage proving economically viable.

The Uruguayan transition was led by a nuclear engineer who decided in 2008 that renewables were cheaper than nuclear.

In 2024 renewables are more than an order of magnitude cheaper than renewables were in 2008.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#79

Post by mpweiher »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #61
mpweiher wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time: Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... France nuclearized its entire grid in 20 years, from the early 70s to the early 90s. They've been producing largely CO2 free, cheap electricity ever since. Germany has been trying to achi…

> Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your argument. We can take a look at all plants we have attempted to construct in the west the past 20 years. - Virgil C. Summer: Contract: 2008. Cancelled 2017 - Vogtle Contract 2008, first reactor done 2023, second 2024(??) - Watts Bar: Construction start 1972, can…

You need to read the actual article: construction times have not gotten longer.

No matter how much you cherry-pick examples.

As confirmed by the data from Statistia: plants completed in 2022 were completed in, drumroll, 7.5 years.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#80

Post by bryanlarsen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72
bryanlarsen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you comparing retail price to wholesale price? The generation cost of power is a very small fraction of the retail price in most markets, especially in Uruguay. Distribution and paying off old debts is a massive fraction of the cost.

> comparing retail price to wholesale price? Yes. If you have an adjusted price, I’d be curious. That said, we can compare the real-world France and Uruguay. On the basis of both price and cost, France runs cheaper. Obviously there are many other factors at play. But while I love Uruguay and its bold energy vision, they are not an example of wind + storage proving economically viable.

Re: France vs Uruguay. Yes subsidized electricity is cheaper than unsubsidized electricity.
Post reply on HN