6 ms·

Nuclear energy has its advocates—it spews little by way of emissions and is produced relatively cheaply. Nuclear is anything but cheap. It's a net negative ene

Nuclear energy has its advocates—it spews little by way of emissions and is produced relatively cheaply. Nuclear is anything but cheap. It's a net negative energy source, meaning the the electricity costs more to produce than it can be sold for. This is why the industry requires massive subsidies to stay alive. (If I recall correctly, the last round of subsidy in the US was over $50 billion.) Nuclear power also requires massive amounts of carbon, as the uranium fuel must be mined and extensively processed before it is useful. The mining and milling process is horribly polluting and has ruined the land and water in many places on Earth. Now, having said that, I certainly hope this guy can come up with a way to transmute radioactive elements with lasers. That would be terrific. But I'm doubtful.

graeme 7y ago
Got a source? I'd read the EROI of nuclear is quite high.
- mimixco 7y ago
  The simplest source is the closure of many existing nuclear plants and the cancellation of all but one which we're planned for the US. It's not well known that the industry requires billions in government subsidies to even exist today. If taxpayers are footing the bill, that tells you that selling electricity isn't paying its own way. Fewer people still know that nuclear plants are uninsurable, for somewhat obvious reasons. Government insurance for nuclear accidents is another huge subsidy that shows the industry isn't viable on its own. For more info, see Helen Caldicott's excellent book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    It's as likely they were cancelled due to negative public sentiment towards nuclear energy. We're going to need some sources.
    - mimixco 7y ago
      Google is your friend! Only one nuke plant in the US was shut down over protests (San Onofre) and that took 20 years. The press releases from plant owners who closed or cancelled their plans all cite negative economics as the reason.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        Generally on HN, unlike other comment zones on the Internet, it's on people making claims to back them up with sources. Ideally if you have something controversial or interesting you provide links and resources, so we can all learn, instead of farming out the work of backing up your opinion to each reader.
        mimixco 7y ago
        I appreciate that and I often do. However, nothing I said was controversial. Many nuke plants in the US have closed and all others (but one) have been cancelled. This is stuff you can see on the evening news. I don't really have to time to re-research every single case but, if someone doubts me it might be worth their time to do it. Most likely, it's easier to just dismiss comments like mine if you're already pro-nuclear. It happens to me whenever I talk about nuclear here.
        mimixco 7y ago
        This is a start... https://nuclear-news.net/category/1-nuclear-issues/business-and-costs/ https://nuclear-news.net/category/1-nuclear-issues/business-...
        zaroth 7y ago
        I found a story about a new nuke plant in Georgia [1] which they seem like they are regretting building. It's a $25 billion project which is several years late now. [2] They are building two new generators which should each produce 1,215 MW of power. So that's ~$10 million per MW. Solar by comparison is about $1 million per MW, although a 1,215 MW solar installation would cover about 10 sq km. I have to assume that solar, without any waste to process or high security requirements or chance of a meltdown, also has lower operating costs. [1] - https://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-power-parent-after-vogtle-new-nuclear-until-maybe-2040/ADjetBmiCnISHQIOP10uvJ/ https://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-power-parent-after-vogt... [2] - https://www.power-eng.com/articles/2018/08/vogtle-cost-upgrade-causes-rethinking-of-nuclear-plant-s-future.html https://www.power-eng.com/articles/2018/08/vogtle-cost-upgra...
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Nuclear plants in the USA are closing early specifically because electricity revenue dropped below what was expected (and needed) to pay for operation and maintenance costs. Revenue dropped specifically because fracked natural gas became very cheap and undercut the price in deregulated markets. The idea that nuclear plants are net energy negative is very inaccurate. A 1 GWe plant runs for 60 years releases roughly 2000 PetaJoules of energy from atomic nuclei. Vastly less energy goes into building and operating the plant. They're massive, massive carbon-free energy sources. But operation cost is high. There are lots of highly trained operators working 4 shifts. There are complex regulations, and safety upgrades after 9/11 and Fukushima. As for insurance, if fossil plants had to pay insurance for the global warming they're causing, they'd be far far more uninsurable. Right now, fossil makes 85% of the world's energy. Would it be viable if it was liable for climate change? Not a chance. Also, nuclear energy kills fewer people per Watt*hour generated than almost all other energy sources. So why wouldn't it be insurable compared to the others? [3]. Nuclear subsidies in the USA are 1% of the total energy subsidies [1]. Helen Caldicott is not an authority on nuclear energy. She is the number 1 anti-nuclear activist in the world and has said countlessly many things that are wholly unsupported by even minor scrutiny [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Energy-Related_Tax_Preferences.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Energy-Related_Tax_P... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-n... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
    - mimixco 7y ago
      "Carbon-free" is a standard industry lie. Uranium mining and processing produces massive amounts of carbon and pollutes the earth with tailings. The nuclear industry externalizes their costs so that they don't ever hit the balance sheet. What is "insurance for global warming?" That isn't even a thing. But government insurance for nuclear plants is very much a thing.
      - acidburnNSA 7y ago
        > "Carbon-free" is a standard industry lie. Wrong. Here is an IPCC meta-analysis reference from a consensus of scientists showing that it's very low, 12 gCO2-eq/kWh, on par with wind. Solar is 40. Natural gas is 490 [1]. See Table A.III.2 | Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies. Think about it. There is 2,000,000x more energy in a kg of uranium than in a kg of coal or gas or oil or lithium. A single train car of uranium can power a nuclear reactor for a year, vs. a mile-long traincar per day for a equivalent power coal plant. Energy density is where nuclear shines. And shines it does! That's why it's exciting and useful for a carbon-free future. It's the only large-scale low-carbon energy source we have that runs 24/7 and can be installed in very many geographical locations. It also has a tiny overall footprint. This is why James Hansen and Jim Lovelock and Bill Gates are so excited about it. Same data in graphical form too, if you prefer [2]. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... [2] https://i.imgur.com/IpeULoF.png https://i.imgur.com/IpeULoF.png
- godelski 7y ago
  I have a counter source[0]: France is highly powered by nuclear and is on the cheaper side of European cost of electricity. Not the cheapest, but cheaper than the average and especially so for being a major country. Part of the reason France does so well is that 17% of its energy comes from recycled nuclear waste. That's not 17% of nuclear power is from waste, that's 17% of TOTAL power is just from waste. [0] https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/ https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/
  - andor 7y ago
    I think the point of the OP was that pollution and long-term storage are not priced in. Try coming up with a price for safely storing nuclear waste for the next few thousand years.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > Try coming up with a price for safely storing nuclear waste for the next few thousand years. Quoting the article: "Environmental group Greenpeace estimates that there’s a global stockpile of about 250,000 tons of toxic spent fuel spread across 14 countries, based on data from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Of that, 22,000 cubic meters—roughly equivalent to a three-meter tall building covering an area the size of a soccer pitch—is hazardous, according to the IAEA." That's really not a lot. Who says we need to store this for thousands of years? There's no physical limit to what we can do with it, just economic limits. Future technology may well reduce this waste to nothing at an affordable price.
      - mimixco 7y ago
        It has to be stored and cooled because otherwise it kills people.
      - godelski 7y ago
        > "Environmental group Greenpeace" Let's be honest here, Greenpeace is an environmental group the same way PETA is an animal rights group. One thing I think a lot of people forget is that many of the same problems that nuclear has are issues with other power sources. For example, coal also has radioactive waste. To put it into perspective, an average coal plant produces 5-10 tonnes of Uranium and Thorium ash per year.[0] Let alone the 400tonns of coal ash. I should also note that ash is more dangerous. I'm not trying to say here that these aren't concerns. But I'm trying to say that when people mention these things that it always feels either uninformed or disingenuous. There is an issue of scale, so if the concern is about radioactive contaminants then we should be prioritizing the one that is producing more. > That's really not a lot. Which shows an understanding of scale (which is difficult). For reference, total waste per person from most nuclear powered countries is about a liter bottle per year, which only ~3% is high level waste[1] (~30ml, < a 10th of a soda can). So taking into account the scale, even when including toxicity and radioactivity, it is still one of the cleanest forms of energy we have. But the reason for that is scale. More radioactive, more toxic, but magnitudes less waste. [0] https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... [1] Only shows UK, but it is relatively similar waste levels across most countries. https://nuclearpoweringvision2020.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/how-much-waste-is-produced-from-a-nuclear-power-plant/ https://nuclearpoweringvision2020.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/h...
arcticbull 7y ago
This is true not of nuclear energy in general but -- if what you're saying is true -- of the Uranium cycle commonly in use today. To my knowledge, it was originally selected because it can support production of weapons-grade Plutonium. I'd wager, at the time, the power generation (and economics) was more of a side-effect. I'm personally more interested in seeing Thorium reactors re-visited, as Thorium is much more prevalent in the earth, can't be used to produce weapons-grade Plutonium, is much safer, more stable, yields fissile products with much shorter half-lives, and so on. That's not to say there aren't challenges but I think this would be something worth investing in. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
- mimixco 7y ago
  Since there is no working thorium reactor at scale, it would be more accurate to say that it is true today and some people hope that we could escape the uranium cycle with thorium. So far, no one has.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    I'm saying that "nuclear power" != "uranium cycle power" and that if we continue to couple the two, nobody ever will. It's on us, if we think there is opportunity, to advocate for better technology options where possible. Casually linking the two is part of why we don't have use at scale.
    - mimixco 7y ago
      Yet, in practice, the two are the same. It's like Uber saying "Never mind, we're not profitable. We'll make flying taxis!" The reasons that thorium reactors don't work aren't because people don't like nuclear. They don't work for technical reasons. Besides, this story is about uranium power and that's where all our problems lie today. Even if we had thorium reactors tomorrow, we still have over 100 nuke plants in the US that would need to be de-commissioned along with all the waste they've already created -- and that's billions more in subsidies.
tlocke 7y ago
A big problem with nuclear is expense. The figures from France are misleading because the state and the power companies are deeply entangled financially. A clearer view is possible in the UK because they have market system, and subsidies tend to be more transparent. The message from the UK is that nuclear power is not financially viable, and no nuclear power stations would be built without government subsidy. The subsidy required is far greater than that required by renewables. See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/22/hinkley-point-c-subsidy-consumers-mps-contract https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/22/hinkley-poin...
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  does that take into account that the designs for nuclear reactors are optimised not for economic production of electricity, but for plutonium output for nuclear weapons programs? Not a coincidence that nuclear power plants have been mostly built during the cold war. Or that nuclear power is inextricably linked with nuclear weapons in the minds of defence people (see Iran). However, there's no actual need for this, and a pacifist nuclear power program could be very economically viable. But there wouldn't be any government subsidies for it, of course, because it would be useless militarily.
  - jabl 7y ago
    > does that take into account that the designs for nuclear reactors are optimised not for economic production of electricity, but for plutonium output for nuclear weapons programs? I'm sure it doesn't, because it's patently false.
- mimixco 7y ago
  ^^ This

graeme 7y ago

Got a source? I'd read the EROI of nuclear is quite high.

mimixco 7y ago
The simplest source is the closure of many existing nuclear plants and the cancellation of all but one which we're planned for the US. It's not well known that the industry requires billions in government subsidies to even exist today. If taxpayers are footing the bill, that tells you that selling electricity isn't paying its own way. Fewer people still know that nuclear plants are uninsurable, for somewhat obvious reasons. Government insurance for nuclear accidents is another huge subsidy that shows the industry isn't viable on its own. For more info, see Helen Caldicott's excellent book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  It's as likely they were cancelled due to negative public sentiment towards nuclear energy. We're going to need some sources.
  - mimixco 7y ago
    Google is your friend! Only one nuke plant in the US was shut down over protests (San Onofre) and that took 20 years. The press releases from plant owners who closed or cancelled their plans all cite negative economics as the reason.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Generally on HN, unlike other comment zones on the Internet, it's on people making claims to back them up with sources. Ideally if you have something controversial or interesting you provide links and resources, so we can all learn, instead of farming out the work of backing up your opinion to each reader.
      - mimixco 7y ago
        I appreciate that and I often do. However, nothing I said was controversial. Many nuke plants in the US have closed and all others (but one) have been cancelled. This is stuff you can see on the evening news. I don't really have to time to re-research every single case but, if someone doubts me it might be worth their time to do it. Most likely, it's easier to just dismiss comments like mine if you're already pro-nuclear. It happens to me whenever I talk about nuclear here.
      - mimixco 7y ago
        This is a start... https://nuclear-news.net/category/1-nuclear-issues/business-and-costs/ https://nuclear-news.net/category/1-nuclear-issues/business-...
        zaroth 7y ago
        I found a story about a new nuke plant in Georgia [1] which they seem like they are regretting building. It's a $25 billion project which is several years late now. [2] They are building two new generators which should each produce 1,215 MW of power. So that's ~$10 million per MW. Solar by comparison is about $1 million per MW, although a 1,215 MW solar installation would cover about 10 sq km. I have to assume that solar, without any waste to process or high security requirements or chance of a meltdown, also has lower operating costs. [1] - https://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-power-parent-after-vogtle-new-nuclear-until-maybe-2040/ADjetBmiCnISHQIOP10uvJ/ https://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-power-parent-after-vogt... [2] - https://www.power-eng.com/articles/2018/08/vogtle-cost-upgrade-causes-rethinking-of-nuclear-plant-s-future.html https://www.power-eng.com/articles/2018/08/vogtle-cost-upgra...
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Nuclear plants in the USA are closing early specifically because electricity revenue dropped below what was expected (and needed) to pay for operation and maintenance costs. Revenue dropped specifically because fracked natural gas became very cheap and undercut the price in deregulated markets. The idea that nuclear plants are net energy negative is very inaccurate. A 1 GWe plant runs for 60 years releases roughly 2000 PetaJoules of energy from atomic nuclei. Vastly less energy goes into building and operating the plant. They're massive, massive carbon-free energy sources. But operation cost is high. There are lots of highly trained operators working 4 shifts. There are complex regulations, and safety upgrades after 9/11 and Fukushima. As for insurance, if fossil plants had to pay insurance for the global warming they're causing, they'd be far far more uninsurable. Right now, fossil makes 85% of the world's energy. Would it be viable if it was liable for climate change? Not a chance. Also, nuclear energy kills fewer people per Watt*hour generated than almost all other energy sources. So why wouldn't it be insurable compared to the others? [3]. Nuclear subsidies in the USA are 1% of the total energy subsidies [1]. Helen Caldicott is not an authority on nuclear energy. She is the number 1 anti-nuclear activist in the world and has said countlessly many things that are wholly unsupported by even minor scrutiny [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Energy-Related_Tax_Preferences.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Energy-Related_Tax_P... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-n... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
  - mimixco 7y ago
    "Carbon-free" is a standard industry lie. Uranium mining and processing produces massive amounts of carbon and pollutes the earth with tailings. The nuclear industry externalizes their costs so that they don't ever hit the balance sheet. What is "insurance for global warming?" That isn't even a thing. But government insurance for nuclear plants is very much a thing.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      > "Carbon-free" is a standard industry lie. Wrong. Here is an IPCC meta-analysis reference from a consensus of scientists showing that it's very low, 12 gCO2-eq/kWh, on par with wind. Solar is 40. Natural gas is 490 [1]. See Table A.III.2 | Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies. Think about it. There is 2,000,000x more energy in a kg of uranium than in a kg of coal or gas or oil or lithium. A single train car of uranium can power a nuclear reactor for a year, vs. a mile-long traincar per day for a equivalent power coal plant. Energy density is where nuclear shines. And shines it does! That's why it's exciting and useful for a carbon-free future. It's the only large-scale low-carbon energy source we have that runs 24/7 and can be installed in very many geographical locations. It also has a tiny overall footprint. This is why James Hansen and Jim Lovelock and Bill Gates are so excited about it. Same data in graphical form too, if you prefer [2]. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... [2] https://i.imgur.com/IpeULoF.png https://i.imgur.com/IpeULoF.png
godelski 7y ago
I have a counter source[0]: France is highly powered by nuclear and is on the cheaper side of European cost of electricity. Not the cheapest, but cheaper than the average and especially so for being a major country. Part of the reason France does so well is that 17% of its energy comes from recycled nuclear waste. That's not 17% of nuclear power is from waste, that's 17% of TOTAL power is just from waste. [0] https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/ https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/
- andor 7y ago
  I think the point of the OP was that pollution and long-term storage are not priced in. Try coming up with a price for safely storing nuclear waste for the next few thousand years.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Try coming up with a price for safely storing nuclear waste for the next few thousand years. Quoting the article: "Environmental group Greenpeace estimates that there’s a global stockpile of about 250,000 tons of toxic spent fuel spread across 14 countries, based on data from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Of that, 22,000 cubic meters—roughly equivalent to a three-meter tall building covering an area the size of a soccer pitch—is hazardous, according to the IAEA." That's really not a lot. Who says we need to store this for thousands of years? There's no physical limit to what we can do with it, just economic limits. Future technology may well reduce this waste to nothing at an affordable price.
    - mimixco 7y ago
      It has to be stored and cooled because otherwise it kills people.
    - godelski 7y ago
      > "Environmental group Greenpeace" Let's be honest here, Greenpeace is an environmental group the same way PETA is an animal rights group. One thing I think a lot of people forget is that many of the same problems that nuclear has are issues with other power sources. For example, coal also has radioactive waste. To put it into perspective, an average coal plant produces 5-10 tonnes of Uranium and Thorium ash per year.[0] Let alone the 400tonns of coal ash. I should also note that ash is more dangerous. I'm not trying to say here that these aren't concerns. But I'm trying to say that when people mention these things that it always feels either uninformed or disingenuous. There is an issue of scale, so if the concern is about radioactive contaminants then we should be prioritizing the one that is producing more. > That's really not a lot. Which shows an understanding of scale (which is difficult). For reference, total waste per person from most nuclear powered countries is about a liter bottle per year, which only ~3% is high level waste[1] (~30ml, < a 10th of a soda can). So taking into account the scale, even when including toxicity and radioactivity, it is still one of the cleanest forms of energy we have. But the reason for that is scale. More radioactive, more toxic, but magnitudes less waste. [0] https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... [1] Only shows UK, but it is relatively similar waste levels across most countries. https://nuclearpoweringvision2020.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/how-much-waste-is-produced-from-a-nuclear-power-plant/ https://nuclearpoweringvision2020.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/h...

arcticbull 7y ago

This is true not of nuclear energy in general but -- if what you're saying is true -- of the Uranium cycle commonly in use today. To my knowledge, it was originally selected because it can support production of weapons-grade Plutonium. I'd wager, at the time, the power generation (and economics) was more of a side-effect. I'm personally more interested in seeing Thorium reactors re-visited, as Thorium is much more prevalent in the earth, can't be used to produce weapons-grade Plutonium, is much safer, more stable, yields fissile products with much shorter half-lives, and so on. That's not to say there aren't challenges but I think this would be something worth investing in. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

mimixco 7y ago
Since there is no working thorium reactor at scale, it would be more accurate to say that it is true today and some people hope that we could escape the uranium cycle with thorium. So far, no one has.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I'm saying that "nuclear power" != "uranium cycle power" and that if we continue to couple the two, nobody ever will. It's on us, if we think there is opportunity, to advocate for better technology options where possible. Casually linking the two is part of why we don't have use at scale.
  - mimixco 7y ago
    Yet, in practice, the two are the same. It's like Uber saying "Never mind, we're not profitable. We'll make flying taxis!" The reasons that thorium reactors don't work aren't because people don't like nuclear. They don't work for technical reasons. Besides, this story is about uranium power and that's where all our problems lie today. Even if we had thorium reactors tomorrow, we still have over 100 nuke plants in the US that would need to be de-commissioned along with all the waste they've already created -- and that's billions more in subsidies.

tlocke 7y ago

A big problem with nuclear is expense. The figures from France are misleading because the state and the power companies are deeply entangled financially. A clearer view is possible in the UK because they have market system, and subsidies tend to be more transparent. The message from the UK is that nuclear power is not financially viable, and no nuclear power stations would be built without government subsidy. The subsidy required is far greater than that required by renewables. See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/22/hinkley-point-c-subsidy-consumers-mps-contract https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/22/hinkley-poin...

marcus_holmes 7y ago
does that take into account that the designs for nuclear reactors are optimised not for economic production of electricity, but for plutonium output for nuclear weapons programs? Not a coincidence that nuclear power plants have been mostly built during the cold war. Or that nuclear power is inextricably linked with nuclear weapons in the minds of defence people (see Iran). However, there's no actual need for this, and a pacifist nuclear power program could be very economically viable. But there wouldn't be any government subsidies for it, of course, because it would be useless militarily.
- jabl 7y ago
  > does that take into account that the designs for nuclear reactors are optimised not for economic production of electricity, but for plutonium output for nuclear weapons programs? I'm sure it doesn't, because it's patently false.
mimixco 7y ago
^^ This