4 ms·

That's because its a bit of a bait and switch. When people pull that out, it's about keeping existing plants running- extending them to run for 60+ years. Tha

That's because its a bit of a bait and switch. When people pull that out, it's about keeping existing plants running- extending them to run for 60+ years. That's pretty cheap, since the cost of fuel is tiny and you just need to pay for the ~1000 people onsite. The issue there is risk- you can't just open up all the valves to check how worn out they are, or if all the computers still have nice transistors and clean relays. You can do some basic stuff like looking for cracks, but the system is ancient. Who knows if that is okay or not. Then, if you talk about new construction, the issue is cost but the conversation is entirely about risk. There's very, very little danger even for many decades. Cost is another matter. The best estimates are that nuclear costs as much as the most expensive other technologies to build, but the actual end figure has just gotten higher and higher over time. Manufacturing is not what it used to be and these huge plants have been outpaced by smaller plants and different technologies.

Retric 6y ago
That’s just part of the story, annual nuclear refueling is also surprisingly expensive. The raw material is cheap, but you need to refine it to reactor grade, creating fuel rods, and only use ~6% of it before replacing the rods. So on net it ends up being quite costly before considering long term storage. You also need to shutdown the reactor for refueling. Other costs like maintenance starts to really add up over time. Similarly, reactors are small but nuclear power plants take up a lot of land for security, staff, etc. It’s really a combination of several factors that’s keeping Nuclear so expensive in every country around the world not just the US.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Also the nuclear waste problem. Nuclear reprocessing looks nice on paper, but the technical implementation is problematic, it's chemistry but in a radioactive environment. If something catches on fire there's problems.
  - titzer 6y ago
    France has successfully processed 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or 14 years worth. With zero incidents. In fact it works so well, they process other countries' spent fuel, too. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nu...
    - Retric 6y ago
      That article shows the issue. “The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French.” Reprocessing is simply not cost effective due to how cheap reactor grade Uranium is.
      - titzer 6y ago
        So you are saying the reason a huge problem exists is because money? Hold the phone.
        Retric 6y ago
        This is mostly just a problem in the minds of the general public. Individual nuclear fuel rods get significantly less radioactive over time as short half life byproducts decay. Which makes both reprocessing and long term sequestration cheaper. Storing them for ~100 years is relatively cheap and can be funded ahead of time, so punting the issue seems quite reasonable IMO.
        titzer 6y ago
        Well, sure, we are lucky that the waste from nuclear reactors is primarily solid heavy metals rather than fly ash or anything else, so we can just plunk them into pools and forget about them for a while. But eventually it makes sense to do something with all that waste.
        Retric 6y ago
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  What is "quite costly", compared to wha? The statement is so vague its not informative - how much is it actually? It's cheaper than millions of tons of coal needed to produce an equivalent amount of energy, or any other fossil fuel. Only renewables have lower running costs. Nuclear is not expensive in Russia , France or China
  - Retric 6y ago
    If Uranium fuel rods where the only cost, nuclear would be ~50% as expensive as direct Solar in the US. Unfortunately, it represents 10% of of nuclear’s overall costs per kWh in the US. So compared to the perception or competing energy sources, refueling is surprisingly expensive. With current US nuclear subsides it’s less expensive for power companies to use unsubsidized solar power and lithium batteries than build Nuclear. That’s not a question of which is more green, just basic economics. PS: Numbers from a very pro nuclear article: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...

Retric 6y ago

That’s just part of the story, annual nuclear refueling is also surprisingly expensive. The raw material is cheap, but you need to refine it to reactor grade, creating fuel rods, and only use ~6% of it before replacing the rods. So on net it ends up being quite costly before considering long term storage. You also need to shutdown the reactor for refueling. Other costs like maintenance starts to really add up over time. Similarly, reactors are small but nuclear power plants take up a lot of land for security, staff, etc. It’s really a combination of several factors that’s keeping Nuclear so expensive in every country around the world not just the US.

HarryHirsch 6y ago
Also the nuclear waste problem. Nuclear reprocessing looks nice on paper, but the technical implementation is problematic, it's chemistry but in a radioactive environment. If something catches on fire there's problems.
- titzer 6y ago
  France has successfully processed 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or 14 years worth. With zero incidents. In fact it works so well, they process other countries' spent fuel, too. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nuclear-fuel-the-french-do-it-why-cant-oui https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nu...
  - Retric 6y ago
    That article shows the issue. “The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French.” Reprocessing is simply not cost effective due to how cheap reactor grade Uranium is.
    - titzer 6y ago
      So you are saying the reason a huge problem exists is because money? Hold the phone.
      - Retric 6y ago
        This is mostly just a problem in the minds of the general public. Individual nuclear fuel rods get significantly less radioactive over time as short half life byproducts decay. Which makes both reprocessing and long term sequestration cheaper. Storing them for ~100 years is relatively cheap and can be funded ahead of time, so punting the issue seems quite reasonable IMO.
        titzer 6y ago
        Well, sure, we are lucky that the waste from nuclear reactors is primarily solid heavy metals rather than fly ash or anything else, so we can just plunk them into pools and forget about them for a while. But eventually it makes sense to do something with all that waste.
        Retric 6y ago
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
What is "quite costly", compared to wha? The statement is so vague its not informative - how much is it actually? It's cheaper than millions of tons of coal needed to produce an equivalent amount of energy, or any other fossil fuel. Only renewables have lower running costs. Nuclear is not expensive in Russia , France or China
- Retric 6y ago
  If Uranium fuel rods where the only cost, nuclear would be ~50% as expensive as direct Solar in the US. Unfortunately, it represents 10% of of nuclear’s overall costs per kWh in the US. So compared to the perception or competing energy sources, refueling is surprisingly expensive. With current US nuclear subsides it’s less expensive for power companies to use unsubsidized solar power and lithium batteries than build Nuclear. That’s not a question of which is more green, just basic economics. PS: Numbers from a very pro nuclear article: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...