5 ms·

Note: I do not know if this argument against nuclear energy is valid. I'm submitting it in the hope that HN comments will help evaluate it.

scythe 6y ago
His argument is highly contingent on a single premise: nuclear power is very expensive to build, making it uneconomical. However, it's extremely difficult to determine how much of this expense is necessary vs. due to over-regulation or lack of innovation. It's easy to say that some regulations on nuclear power are probably unnecessary (cf. widespread nuclear paranoia); it's much harder to say which. It's easy to say that new kinds of reactors might be cheaper; it's harder to say what kind or how much cheaper. ReBCO-stabilized fusion on the horizon throws another wrench in the prediction machine, as well. Who knows what that's worth? It was invented yesterday!
- mchusma 6y ago
  Agree that his premise is entirely an economic one. From first principles, nuclear energys's marginal cost is very inexpensive (similar to renewables). What's basically needed to bring the cost of nuclear down is scale, investing more in production. This is why new approaches to mass producing small scale reactors is so interesting. It should allow nuclear to get competitive with renewables, and having a diverse energy base is definitely a good thing. Also, fusion holds the most hope for massively decreasing the cost of energy. It's a game changer, and it's close. It's possible that fusion allows things like mass carbon capture, powering reforestation efforts, and more.
- pydry 6y ago
  >However, it's extremely difficult to determine how much of this expense is necessary vs. due to over-regulation or lack of innovation. The sheer capital intensity of nuclear is what hampers innovation, not safety regulations.
CarelessExpert 6y ago
Unfortunately you're more likely to just find confirmation bias here. The HN community (and the tech community in general) is predominantly pro-nuclear. Personally, I think this article raises great points. If we could rewrite history and have built a thriving nuclear power industry 20 years ago, we'd probably be in much better shape now, at least with respect to climate change But that's not what happened. Given the current state of the industry we can't afford to spend decades trying to right the technical and regulatory wrongs of the past now that renewables are becoming truly viable.
- wernercd 6y ago
  > Truly viable When you ignore the glaring problems with renewables? Sure... but why pay attention to rare earth minerals needed, massive problems creating massive amounts of PV panels, recycling issues, etc We can't afford to let the burgeoning "savior" of our world continue on it's destructive path because the Religion of Renewables won't admit to the fact that it's Priests are doing bad things with children... To many aspects and conversations turn into religious debates. PC? SJWs? Climate Change? Anti-Nuclear/Pro-Renewable? (or vice versa on all of them) all turn into religious debates with people who refuse to look at both sides of very complex issues.
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    You know, you have some valid points. Unfortunately, due to your demeaning and dismissive tone, I don't feel there's any point in engaging with you further.
    - mionhe 6y ago
      You know, you have a point. Unfortunately, due to your demeaning and dismissive tone, I don't feel there's any point in engaging with you further.
  - ruph123 6y ago
    > recycling issues You gotta love the whataboutism of the nuclear folks ranting about recycling issues of current renewable energy tech when nuclear leaves behind toxic material that has to be kept in a safe place for a long time surviving changes in government, potential revolutions, terrorist attacks, incompetence, greed, etc.

scythe 6y ago

His argument is highly contingent on a single premise: nuclear power is very expensive to build, making it uneconomical. However, it's extremely difficult to determine how much of this expense is necessary vs. due to over-regulation or lack of innovation. It's easy to say that some regulations on nuclear power are probably unnecessary (cf. widespread nuclear paranoia); it's much harder to say which. It's easy to say that new kinds of reactors might be cheaper; it's harder to say what kind or how much cheaper. ReBCO-stabilized fusion on the horizon throws another wrench in the prediction machine, as well. Who knows what that's worth? It was invented yesterday!

mchusma 6y ago
Agree that his premise is entirely an economic one. From first principles, nuclear energys's marginal cost is very inexpensive (similar to renewables). What's basically needed to bring the cost of nuclear down is scale, investing more in production. This is why new approaches to mass producing small scale reactors is so interesting. It should allow nuclear to get competitive with renewables, and having a diverse energy base is definitely a good thing. Also, fusion holds the most hope for massively decreasing the cost of energy. It's a game changer, and it's close. It's possible that fusion allows things like mass carbon capture, powering reforestation efforts, and more.
pydry 6y ago
>However, it's extremely difficult to determine how much of this expense is necessary vs. due to over-regulation or lack of innovation. The sheer capital intensity of nuclear is what hampers innovation, not safety regulations.

CarelessExpert 6y ago

Unfortunately you're more likely to just find confirmation bias here. The HN community (and the tech community in general) is predominantly pro-nuclear. Personally, I think this article raises great points. If we could rewrite history and have built a thriving nuclear power industry 20 years ago, we'd probably be in much better shape now, at least with respect to climate change But that's not what happened. Given the current state of the industry we can't afford to spend decades trying to right the technical and regulatory wrongs of the past now that renewables are becoming truly viable.

wernercd 6y ago
> Truly viable When you ignore the glaring problems with renewables? Sure... but why pay attention to rare earth minerals needed, massive problems creating massive amounts of PV panels, recycling issues, etc We can't afford to let the burgeoning "savior" of our world continue on it's destructive path because the Religion of Renewables won't admit to the fact that it's Priests are doing bad things with children... To many aspects and conversations turn into religious debates. PC? SJWs? Climate Change? Anti-Nuclear/Pro-Renewable? (or vice versa on all of them) all turn into religious debates with people who refuse to look at both sides of very complex issues.
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  You know, you have some valid points. Unfortunately, due to your demeaning and dismissive tone, I don't feel there's any point in engaging with you further.
  - mionhe 6y ago
    You know, you have a point. Unfortunately, due to your demeaning and dismissive tone, I don't feel there's any point in engaging with you further.
- ruph123 6y ago
  > recycling issues You gotta love the whataboutism of the nuclear folks ranting about recycling issues of current renewable energy tech when nuclear leaves behind toxic material that has to be kept in a safe place for a long time surviving changes in government, potential revolutions, terrorist attacks, incompetence, greed, etc.