5 ms·

> Nuclear is already viable in countries with sane regulatory environments (France, and hopefully China, given how fast they’re ramping up). France: https://en

by hannob 7y ago

> Nuclear is already viable in countries with sane regulatory environments (France, and hopefully China, given how fast they’re ramping up). France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... "A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2019 the project is three times over budget and years behind schedule." China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China "Nuclear power contributed 4.2% of the total Chinese electricity production in 2018" "China was planning to have 58 GW of capacity by 2020.[3] However, few plants have commenced construction since 2015, and it is now unlikely that this target will be met." It seems reality doesn't match your beliefs.

johnmorrison 7y ago
> It seems reality doesn't match your beliefs. France is about 75% nuclear, Germany is about 10% French electricity is about 2x cheaper than German, and they have much lower emissions. Since Germany has shut down nuclear plants in favor of renewables, it has been forced to increase coal and has actually increased total emissions and accident deaths significantly. Ontario, Canada is about 60% nuclear and its electricity prices off-peak are about 10x lower than German, on-peak about 5x lower. Nuclear is the safest, most efficient, and more reliable energy source all nations that have it and those who have more have more affordable energy. Reality has shown this consistently for now almost 80 years.
acidburnNSA 7y ago
> reality Between 1975 and 1988 the world added 250 GW of carbon-free nuclear generation. That's 20 GWe/year. https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/power-reactor-information-system-pris https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/power-reactor-infor...
- phaemon 7y ago
  Ok boomer
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Actually boomers are quite anti-nuclear as a generation. Millennial and younger are far more into it largely driven by the seriousness of climate change. The fact I stated is true.
    - phaemon 7y ago
      I'm sure it is and apologies to the fellow HNers who didn't find my comment funny. If you prefer a more serious answer, Nuclear is overpriced garbage. Sure, the industry keeps promising cheap and plentiful energy but what they deliver is Hinckley C.
      - acidburnNSA 7y ago
        Nuclear is extremely low-carbon baseload energy with very low land, waste, death, and raw material footprints. In a world of increasing carbon-related challenges, it's very challenging to write off. We're currently building high-carbon fracked gas plants like crazy because they're cheap. Put some kind of price on carbon emissions and instantly fracked gas is expensive and nuclear is cheap. Nuclear's low-carbon nature is not valued in markets, and that's a great shame. Look to the Koreans and Chinese if you want to see economical and effective nuclear projects.
        pfdietz 7y ago
        In the US, CO2 taxes would have to exceed $300/ton for new nuclear plants to pencil out, vs. new gas combined cycle plants. This means nuclear is an extremely poor way of reducing CO2 emission here. There's a vast array of alternatives that become viable at much lower CO2 taxes. It's not climate friendly to be choosing uneconomical approaches. It's almost as if you're using climate as a rationalization for a position you reached by other means.
        acidburnNSA 7y ago
        That feeling when you work to improve deployment of a 24/7 low-footprint energy source that previously scaled at 20 GWe/yr and emits a mere 12 gCO2eq/kg and someone tells you that you're delusional. :o Just FYI I got into nuclear specifically for climate reasons. Climate has been the goal from before I knew what nuclear reactors really were. The assumption that all new nuclear plants in the US will be as bad as the most recent two is wild, especially when one understands the details of what went wrong in those projects. I don't think the current build process in the West is acceptable. I want to improve serialization and standardization of nuclear deployments to help with climate change quickly. A la Offshore Power Systems. $30/tonne is expected to be fine. See e.g. Table 2.1 in MIT's report [1] [1] http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Carbon-Constrained-World.pdf http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-...

by hannob 7y ago

johnmorrison 7y ago

> It seems reality doesn't match your beliefs. France is about 75% nuclear, Germany is about 10% French electricity is about 2x cheaper than German, and they have much lower emissions. Since Germany has shut down nuclear plants in favor of renewables, it has been forced to increase coal and has actually increased total emissions and accident deaths significantly. Ontario, Canada is about 60% nuclear and its electricity prices off-peak are about 10x lower than German, on-peak about 5x lower. Nuclear is the safest, most efficient, and more reliable energy source all nations that have it and those who have more have more affordable energy. Reality has shown this consistently for now almost 80 years.

acidburnNSA 7y ago

> reality Between 1975 and 1988 the world added 250 GW of carbon-free nuclear generation. That's 20 GWe/year. https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/power-reactor-information-system-pris https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/power-reactor-infor...

phaemon 7y ago
Ok boomer
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Actually boomers are quite anti-nuclear as a generation. Millennial and younger are far more into it largely driven by the seriousness of climate change. The fact I stated is true.
  - phaemon 7y ago
    I'm sure it is and apologies to the fellow HNers who didn't find my comment funny. If you prefer a more serious answer, Nuclear is overpriced garbage. Sure, the industry keeps promising cheap and plentiful energy but what they deliver is Hinckley C.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      Nuclear is extremely low-carbon baseload energy with very low land, waste, death, and raw material footprints. In a world of increasing carbon-related challenges, it's very challenging to write off. We're currently building high-carbon fracked gas plants like crazy because they're cheap. Put some kind of price on carbon emissions and instantly fracked gas is expensive and nuclear is cheap. Nuclear's low-carbon nature is not valued in markets, and that's a great shame. Look to the Koreans and Chinese if you want to see economical and effective nuclear projects.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        In the US, CO2 taxes would have to exceed $300/ton for new nuclear plants to pencil out, vs. new gas combined cycle plants. This means nuclear is an extremely poor way of reducing CO2 emission here. There's a vast array of alternatives that become viable at much lower CO2 taxes. It's not climate friendly to be choosing uneconomical approaches. It's almost as if you're using climate as a rationalization for a position you reached by other means.
        acidburnNSA 7y ago
        That feeling when you work to improve deployment of a 24/7 low-footprint energy source that previously scaled at 20 GWe/yr and emits a mere 12 gCO2eq/kg and someone tells you that you're delusional. :o Just FYI I got into nuclear specifically for climate reasons. Climate has been the goal from before I knew what nuclear reactors really were. The assumption that all new nuclear plants in the US will be as bad as the most recent two is wild, especially when one understands the details of what went wrong in those projects. I don't think the current build process in the West is acceptable. I want to improve serialization and standardization of nuclear deployments to help with climate change quickly. A la Offshore Power Systems. $30/tonne is expected to be fine. See e.g. Table 2.1 in MIT's report [1] [1] http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Carbon-Constrained-World.pdf http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-...