4 ms·

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 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...
        selectodude 7y ago
        1215 MW during the day when it’s sunny. Not 24/7/365. What is the carbon footprint of enough energy storage to handle that?
        chipsa 7y ago
        You also have to factor in the capacity factor. Sun isn't shining steadily all the time. You have night-time, notably, but also clouds and fog and smog. Capacity factor is very much location dependant, but all the places with good capacity factors are where people don't want to live either. It can be as low as 12% [0], so divide your $/MW by the capacity factor to ascertain the true cost: something like $8 million/MW for solar in Swabia. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauingen_Energy_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauingen_Energy_Park
        zaroth 7y ago
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > Only one nuke plant in the US was shut down over protests (San Onofre) and that took 20 years. You are overestimating the effectiveness of protests and underestimating the effect of sentiment. It isn't normal for a project to get shut down by protests; capital is already deployed, the government is already on side (having given the requisite approvals) and there is a lot of logistical momentum in place. A couple of protestors aren't going to slow down that sort of juggernaut. On the flip side, sentiment has a huge impact on whether investors feel like funding cost-up-front ventures. It takes a decade to make the initial investment back, so they have to be confident that 2-3 distinct governments are not going to come up with a hare-brained energy policy that would disrupt the project's profits. They'd have to be very bold in the current environment, especially given the risk of the recent government activism in Germany spreading. It isn't just possible, it is likely for a nuclear project to have some nonsensical change in standards applied to it by, ironically, anti-science environmentalists.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    San Onofre didn't shut down because of protests. It shut down because the replacement steam generators failed.
- hermitdev 7y ago
  In my recollection, most US plants are closing or have closed due to end of lifetime. Plants are reaching end of 50-60 year planned lifetimes. New plants are hard to build due to burdensome regulations, mostly nonsensical negative public sentiment and enormous capital requirements. I remember hearing that you have to upfront the cost of waste disposal in a trust. I don't have any citations handy, but you're looking at something like 10 billion upfront to build a new fission plant in the US. They also take a long time to build and start up, so you're lucky to see any revenue for at least 5 years on a multibillion investment. Not a very attractive investment, is it? That said, I'm a fan of nuclear fission for power baseline. It has its warts, but it's better for us long term than coal or gas.
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

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...
      - selectodude 7y ago
        1215 MW during the day when it’s sunny. Not 24/7/365. What is the carbon footprint of enough energy storage to handle that?
      - chipsa 7y ago
        You also have to factor in the capacity factor. Sun isn't shining steadily all the time. You have night-time, notably, but also clouds and fog and smog. Capacity factor is very much location dependant, but all the places with good capacity factors are where people don't want to live either. It can be as low as 12% [0], so divide your $/MW by the capacity factor to ascertain the true cost: something like $8 million/MW for solar in Swabia. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauingen_Energy_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauingen_Energy_Park
        zaroth 7y ago
- roenxi 7y ago
  > Only one nuke plant in the US was shut down over protests (San Onofre) and that took 20 years. You are overestimating the effectiveness of protests and underestimating the effect of sentiment. It isn't normal for a project to get shut down by protests; capital is already deployed, the government is already on side (having given the requisite approvals) and there is a lot of logistical momentum in place. A couple of protestors aren't going to slow down that sort of juggernaut. On the flip side, sentiment has a huge impact on whether investors feel like funding cost-up-front ventures. It takes a decade to make the initial investment back, so they have to be confident that 2-3 distinct governments are not going to come up with a hare-brained energy policy that would disrupt the project's profits. They'd have to be very bold in the current environment, especially given the risk of the recent government activism in Germany spreading. It isn't just possible, it is likely for a nuclear project to have some nonsensical change in standards applied to it by, ironically, anti-science environmentalists.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  San Onofre didn't shut down because of protests. It shut down because the replacement steam generators failed.
hermitdev 7y ago
In my recollection, most US plants are closing or have closed due to end of lifetime. Plants are reaching end of 50-60 year planned lifetimes. New plants are hard to build due to burdensome regulations, mostly nonsensical negative public sentiment and enormous capital requirements. I remember hearing that you have to upfront the cost of waste disposal in a trust. I don't have any citations handy, but you're looking at something like 10 billion upfront to build a new fission plant in the US. They also take a long time to build and start up, so you're lucky to see any revenue for at least 5 years on a multibillion investment. Not a very attractive investment, is it? That said, I'm a fan of nuclear fission for power baseline. It has its warts, but it's better for us long term than coal or gas.

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