5 ms·

Nuclear is a) way too expensive, b) takes decades to build in the current climate (see France and UK for current timelines) c) the Swiss population voted agains

Nuclear is a) way too expensive, b) takes decades to build in the current climate (see France and UK for current timelines) c) the Swiss population voted against new nuclear plants in 2017, so this topic is moot anyway. That fact alone that nuclear power is so much more expensive compared especially to renewables is it's last nail in the coffin. Edit: fixed idiom, thanks raverbashing

throwaway210222 6y ago
This misses the point. Europe and the N.America are 34% of the entire electricity consumption. Even If they miraculously reduced their carbon pollution to zero not only would 2/3 of the problem remain, but - and here is the kicker - the growth in consumption is coming from the poor and poorest countries with enormous populations. They are going to use the cheapest energy available: brown coal. Its not a simple simple cost argument: we have to find a scalable, safe, clean, base-load source of energy that is cheaper than coal. And then give it away. The only possibility is nuclear fission - preferably not one that boils water in a pressure cooker.
- bildung 6y ago
  Keep in mind my hint at costs was purely descriptive, not normative: As we talk about market economies, neither of which currently is interested in nuclear proliferation, the LCOE of each energy source is probably the most important decision factor. The same is true for your scenario, though: Why should the rich countries export one of the most expensive energy sources to the poor countries, when e.g. onshore wind is right now already on par with brown coal?[0] [0] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/EN2018_Fraunhofer-ISE_LCOE_Renewable_Energy_Technologies.pdf https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p... page 2
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    LCOE is useless when comparing nuclear and ex wind and solar.
    - bildung 6y ago
      And why would that be, pray tell?
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        Because with Nuclear you are providing true cost which includes everything from insurance to decomission. LCOE isn't a very thorough standard which you quickly realize once you dig into it. Furthermore renewables are unreliable and thus require backup energy from reliable sources such as coal, oil, gas or nuclear. Because renewables are forced into use when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, they basically make the reliable sources more expensive. I could go on with all sorts of ways this provides a completely skewed comparison structure. Comparing the cost of nuclear vs. and wind and solar is like comparing the cost of construction and upkeep of a Boing 747 and a Cessna based on their ability to fly.
        bildung 6y ago
        > Because with Nuclear you are providing true cost which includes everything from insurance to decomission. All of these, including decomission, are part of the LCOE formula, just as they are for renewables or coal or gas: https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0496e24a3fa045ca74e9f9b089946c96c2ef4f3 https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e049...
        freeflight 6y ago
        > Because renewables are forced into use when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, they basically make the reliable sources more expensive. That problem with renewables can easily be fixed with storage, which can be batteries, generating green hydrogen trough electrolysis or a number of many other ways. While on summer days where a lot of sun shines nuclear reactors have their very own problem: They produce too much heat and need to be throttled/shut down [0] [1] or else they would start heating up their cooling medium too much, which are usually nearby waterbodies/river systems. With global warming being a thing, we can expect this problem to occur much more frequently, and even more so if we decided to build even more reactors. [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-edf-europe-heat-wave-a8477776.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-nucle... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwave-idUSKCN1UK0HR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwa...
- ben_w 6y ago
  Coal is about 2.3 times the cost of PV. Costs have changed radically even in the last decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... Coal $112/MWh vs. utility solar $48/MWh.
- usrusr 6y ago
  Actually it will be much easier for most of them to find a path without coal as they won't have to battle an established domestic coal industry in the process. I wouldn't underestimate the appeal renewables have in terms of "we get free energy as long as we can keep the facility running" if you don't have much money. It's a rather "obvious" investment.
- ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
  Consider the USA’s position as nuclear police, then put yourself in the position of a third world nation on the receiving end of this “gift”. Here are some of the very valid questions a poor country would have to ask. “Do we really want America’s unreliable foreign policy to effectively control our ability to generate electricity? What if we piss off the wrong diplomat, hire the wrong leader, or if our people believe in the wrong god? What if they decide to destroy our economy via embargoes? Where will we get our fissionable materials? Will they pull a stuxnet on us ? Will they assassinate our top nuclear engineers?”
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    Just buy your nuclear plant from Russia or China. They don't have a habit of using dependency on their high-tech export to strangle other countries (hell, Russia even supplies its nuclear fuel to Ukraine, even though it could've been a really painful place to apply pressure). Unless you want to manufacture your own fuel from start to finish, you will have almost no issues with the IAEA.
    - ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
      Sure, but This doesn’t get around America destroying your economy via sanctions and embargoes. It also doesn’t prevent America and Israel from assassinating your nuclear physicists and engineers, or attacking your infrastructure with viruses like we did to Iran with Stuxnet.
- tda 6y ago
  Why solar not an option? The Sahara is really big, has plenty of sunshine. And population in a lot of upcoming economies are already used to supply limited energy grids. Maybe they can more easily adapt/grow into a power grid that meets demand 95% of the time, but sometimes not. Would be vastly cheaper than guaranteeing to meet demand 99.99995% of the time. Just like developing countries that never got around to landline POTS don't really miss it now. They just skipped it and went straight to mobile. Supposedly Mpesa makes it easier, cheaper, faster and safer to transfer money in Kenya than any system available in the US.
- tda 6y ago
  A strong argument against nuclear is that the costs and benefits are very spread out in time (random numbers follow) say: 10 years of construction, 50-70 years of operation, 10 years of decommissioning. Who is willing to make an investment in an unstable region that will pay itself back in 20 years? And then save money for another 20 years to pay for decommissioning? Unless of course a military coup happens and contracts are nullified, or riots, or conflict or etc.. And even worse, how can you ensure someone will be around willing to put in the effort to safely decommission something that has no more value? Even in the most developed and stable nations this is and will be a challenge. Who wants to put in the effort to clean up the previous generations mess.
- derriz 6y ago
  Right now coal is not cheap - China and India are the only ones building new coal stations and in the case of China, the new coal capacity is not being added for economic reasons but because of the local vs central government politics. The economics of electricity generation have been transformed in the last couple of years - for example, the LCOE from on-shore wind and solar has dropped 80-90% in less than 10 years. Prices for renewables and even grid-scale batteries are falling so fast that you cannot even trust financial analysis of electricity generation from a year ago. Burning coal is now 2 to 3 times as expensive as on-shore wind, for example. Nuclear is over times as expensive. Where governments aren't forcing the market to use coal, nobody is building new coal generators. This price shift has had a very visible effect on coal generation for example - you can see it in graphs of global electricity sources - after a long period of growth, coal generation (as a share of the total) has been dropping since 2013. The fact that wind and solar are not dispatchable unlike coal and nuclear turns out to not actually be a deal-breaking problem for expanding renewable generation considerably. Quite a few European countries which now generate nearly 50% of their electricity through renewables. None have grid-scale batteries and many don't have nuclear. As a whole Europe gets about a third of their electricity from renewables. And even the US is at about 20-25%? You can achieve these sort of percentages with a low-tech approach. You over-provision wind/solar generation and use derating in the case of wind to cut generation if demand is very low. This is feasible because of the cheapness of these power sources. In tandem with NG peaker plants and a small amount of storage (hydro and some batteries for stabilization) and/or interconnectors, we have seen countries achieved 40%+ renewable electricity without any effect on the reliability of domestic supply. This share is still rising, so the limits of this approach are not yet apparent.
raverbashing 6y ago
The expression is "the last nail in the coffin" There are projects of cheaper nuclear power plants, which I agree is the main issue. You have to put 10, 15 years into building this massive thing instead of doing modular, smaller projects.
fastball 6y ago
Nuclear is expensive because we haven't invested in it like we have with Solar. Obviously costs come down when you start mass producing things, which we've done with solar but have not even really tried to do with nuclear.
- bildung 6y ago
  Doubtful, as construction costs haven't gone down anywhere in the world after 1970, despite most plants being built after that date: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... It doesn't matter anyway: Only what is, not what could have been will have an impact on the decision makers.
  - fastball 6y ago
    I'm not sure you understood my point. For costs to go down on nuclear, you need to stop building giant one-off projects which are bespoke down to the rivets. It's like expecting a hand-made suit to ever be price-competitive with something you buy off the rack at Brooks Brothers. > It doesn't matter anyway Luckily, it's not what could have been because unlike the cynics on HN, some[1] people[2] are actually having a go at solving this problem. [1] https://usnc.com/ https://usnc.com/ [2] https://www.nuscalepower.com/ https://www.nuscalepower.com/
    - philipkglass 6y ago
      The EPR and AP1000 were supposed to be standardized designs for overcoming the "bespoke" problem you mention and ushering in a new era of predictable, affordable nuclear projects. The projects in the US and Europe ended up as scheduling and financial disasters; they are all still unfinished, years late, and billions of dollars/euros over budget. Maybe small modular reactors will do better. That would be great! But at this point I'll believe cost/schedule numbers only after a new reactor enters commercial operation. The numerous reactors that exist only in PowerPoint form belong in the same bin as the Battery Breakthrough of the Week.
fsflover 6y ago
> Nuclear is a) way too expensive If markets valued the low-CO2 nature of nuclear, they’d be doing better https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html > c) the Swiss population voted against new nuclear plants in 2017, so this topic is moot anyway. This topic is not moot. This is the only realistic way to save humanity from the climate catastrophe, even if there are many fear mongers.
- wedn3sday 6y ago
  I hate nuclear. Its stupidly expensive, potentially dangerous, and produces radioactive waste we have no way of dealing with. Its also the only currently available technology that can produce the amount of electricity we need if we want to mitigate the worse affects of climate change.
  - posix_me_less 6y ago
    > stupidly expensive that can change if big governments focus on that > potentially dangerous the safest energy production per kWh hands down > radioactive waste we have no way of dealing with not true, we deal with it since 40's and we are doing fine.
    - freeflight 6y ago
      Not too long ago there was a whole period dubbed "the nuclear age" where big governments all over the planet put major resources and focus into nuclear. Sure, a lot of that was based on its potential to weaponize, but funding and research into that has very strong synergies into the civilian sector. In that context, nuclear has very much seen way more focus and support than probably any other modern form of energy generation. So, why didn't that pan out and we apparently need another round of "big government focus"?
      - posix_me_less 6y ago
        It did pan out, we have hundreds of functional and useful nuclear reactors in the world that produce electric energy with close to zero CO2 emissions. The focus is needed to double down to get rid of all coal/gas plants.

throwaway210222 6y ago

This misses the point. Europe and the N.America are 34% of the entire electricity consumption. Even If they miraculously reduced their carbon pollution to zero not only would 2/3 of the problem remain, but - and here is the kicker - the growth in consumption is coming from the poor and poorest countries with enormous populations. They are going to use the cheapest energy available: brown coal. Its not a simple simple cost argument: we have to find a scalable, safe, clean, base-load source of energy that is cheaper than coal. And then give it away. The only possibility is nuclear fission - preferably not one that boils water in a pressure cooker.

bildung 6y ago
Keep in mind my hint at costs was purely descriptive, not normative: As we talk about market economies, neither of which currently is interested in nuclear proliferation, the LCOE of each energy source is probably the most important decision factor. The same is true for your scenario, though: Why should the rich countries export one of the most expensive energy sources to the poor countries, when e.g. onshore wind is right now already on par with brown coal?[0] [0] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/EN2018_Fraunhofer-ISE_LCOE_Renewable_Energy_Technologies.pdf https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p... page 2
- ThomPete 6y ago
  LCOE is useless when comparing nuclear and ex wind and solar.
  - bildung 6y ago
    And why would that be, pray tell?
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      Because with Nuclear you are providing true cost which includes everything from insurance to decomission. LCOE isn't a very thorough standard which you quickly realize once you dig into it. Furthermore renewables are unreliable and thus require backup energy from reliable sources such as coal, oil, gas or nuclear. Because renewables are forced into use when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, they basically make the reliable sources more expensive. I could go on with all sorts of ways this provides a completely skewed comparison structure. Comparing the cost of nuclear vs. and wind and solar is like comparing the cost of construction and upkeep of a Boing 747 and a Cessna based on their ability to fly.
      - bildung 6y ago
        > Because with Nuclear you are providing true cost which includes everything from insurance to decomission. All of these, including decomission, are part of the LCOE formula, just as they are for renewables or coal or gas: https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0496e24a3fa045ca74e9f9b089946c96c2ef4f3 https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e049...
      - freeflight 6y ago
        > Because renewables are forced into use when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, they basically make the reliable sources more expensive. That problem with renewables can easily be fixed with storage, which can be batteries, generating green hydrogen trough electrolysis or a number of many other ways. While on summer days where a lot of sun shines nuclear reactors have their very own problem: They produce too much heat and need to be throttled/shut down [0] [1] or else they would start heating up their cooling medium too much, which are usually nearby waterbodies/river systems. With global warming being a thing, we can expect this problem to occur much more frequently, and even more so if we decided to build even more reactors. [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-edf-europe-heat-wave-a8477776.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-nucle... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwave-idUSKCN1UK0HR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwa...
ben_w 6y ago
Coal is about 2.3 times the cost of PV. Costs have changed radically even in the last decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... Coal $112/MWh vs. utility solar $48/MWh.
usrusr 6y ago
Actually it will be much easier for most of them to find a path without coal as they won't have to battle an established domestic coal industry in the process. I wouldn't underestimate the appeal renewables have in terms of "we get free energy as long as we can keep the facility running" if you don't have much money. It's a rather "obvious" investment.
ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
Consider the USA’s position as nuclear police, then put yourself in the position of a third world nation on the receiving end of this “gift”. Here are some of the very valid questions a poor country would have to ask. “Do we really want America’s unreliable foreign policy to effectively control our ability to generate electricity? What if we piss off the wrong diplomat, hire the wrong leader, or if our people believe in the wrong god? What if they decide to destroy our economy via embargoes? Where will we get our fissionable materials? Will they pull a stuxnet on us ? Will they assassinate our top nuclear engineers?”
- fuoqi 6y ago
  Just buy your nuclear plant from Russia or China. They don't have a habit of using dependency on their high-tech export to strangle other countries (hell, Russia even supplies its nuclear fuel to Ukraine, even though it could've been a really painful place to apply pressure). Unless you want to manufacture your own fuel from start to finish, you will have almost no issues with the IAEA.
  - ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
    Sure, but This doesn’t get around America destroying your economy via sanctions and embargoes. It also doesn’t prevent America and Israel from assassinating your nuclear physicists and engineers, or attacking your infrastructure with viruses like we did to Iran with Stuxnet.
tda 6y ago
Why solar not an option? The Sahara is really big, has plenty of sunshine. And population in a lot of upcoming economies are already used to supply limited energy grids. Maybe they can more easily adapt/grow into a power grid that meets demand 95% of the time, but sometimes not. Would be vastly cheaper than guaranteeing to meet demand 99.99995% of the time. Just like developing countries that never got around to landline POTS don't really miss it now. They just skipped it and went straight to mobile. Supposedly Mpesa makes it easier, cheaper, faster and safer to transfer money in Kenya than any system available in the US.
tda 6y ago
A strong argument against nuclear is that the costs and benefits are very spread out in time (random numbers follow) say: 10 years of construction, 50-70 years of operation, 10 years of decommissioning. Who is willing to make an investment in an unstable region that will pay itself back in 20 years? And then save money for another 20 years to pay for decommissioning? Unless of course a military coup happens and contracts are nullified, or riots, or conflict or etc.. And even worse, how can you ensure someone will be around willing to put in the effort to safely decommission something that has no more value? Even in the most developed and stable nations this is and will be a challenge. Who wants to put in the effort to clean up the previous generations mess.
derriz 6y ago
Right now coal is not cheap - China and India are the only ones building new coal stations and in the case of China, the new coal capacity is not being added for economic reasons but because of the local vs central government politics. The economics of electricity generation have been transformed in the last couple of years - for example, the LCOE from on-shore wind and solar has dropped 80-90% in less than 10 years. Prices for renewables and even grid-scale batteries are falling so fast that you cannot even trust financial analysis of electricity generation from a year ago. Burning coal is now 2 to 3 times as expensive as on-shore wind, for example. Nuclear is over times as expensive. Where governments aren't forcing the market to use coal, nobody is building new coal generators. This price shift has had a very visible effect on coal generation for example - you can see it in graphs of global electricity sources - after a long period of growth, coal generation (as a share of the total) has been dropping since 2013. The fact that wind and solar are not dispatchable unlike coal and nuclear turns out to not actually be a deal-breaking problem for expanding renewable generation considerably. Quite a few European countries which now generate nearly 50% of their electricity through renewables. None have grid-scale batteries and many don't have nuclear. As a whole Europe gets about a third of their electricity from renewables. And even the US is at about 20-25%? You can achieve these sort of percentages with a low-tech approach. You over-provision wind/solar generation and use derating in the case of wind to cut generation if demand is very low. This is feasible because of the cheapness of these power sources. In tandem with NG peaker plants and a small amount of storage (hydro and some batteries for stabilization) and/or interconnectors, we have seen countries achieved 40%+ renewable electricity without any effect on the reliability of domestic supply. This share is still rising, so the limits of this approach are not yet apparent.

raverbashing 6y ago

The expression is "the last nail in the coffin" There are projects of cheaper nuclear power plants, which I agree is the main issue. You have to put 10, 15 years into building this massive thing instead of doing modular, smaller projects.

fastball 6y ago

Nuclear is expensive because we haven't invested in it like we have with Solar. Obviously costs come down when you start mass producing things, which we've done with solar but have not even really tried to do with nuclear.

bildung 6y ago
Doubtful, as construction costs haven't gone down anywhere in the world after 1970, despite most plants being built after that date: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... It doesn't matter anyway: Only what is, not what could have been will have an impact on the decision makers.
- fastball 6y ago
  I'm not sure you understood my point. For costs to go down on nuclear, you need to stop building giant one-off projects which are bespoke down to the rivets. It's like expecting a hand-made suit to ever be price-competitive with something you buy off the rack at Brooks Brothers. > It doesn't matter anyway Luckily, it's not what could have been because unlike the cynics on HN, some[1] people[2] are actually having a go at solving this problem. [1] https://usnc.com/ https://usnc.com/ [2] https://www.nuscalepower.com/ https://www.nuscalepower.com/
  - philipkglass 6y ago
    The EPR and AP1000 were supposed to be standardized designs for overcoming the "bespoke" problem you mention and ushering in a new era of predictable, affordable nuclear projects. The projects in the US and Europe ended up as scheduling and financial disasters; they are all still unfinished, years late, and billions of dollars/euros over budget. Maybe small modular reactors will do better. That would be great! But at this point I'll believe cost/schedule numbers only after a new reactor enters commercial operation. The numerous reactors that exist only in PowerPoint form belong in the same bin as the Battery Breakthrough of the Week.

fsflover 6y ago

> Nuclear is a) way too expensive If markets valued the low-CO2 nature of nuclear, they’d be doing better https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html > c) the Swiss population voted against new nuclear plants in 2017, so this topic is moot anyway. This topic is not moot. This is the only realistic way to save humanity from the climate catastrophe, even if there are many fear mongers.

wedn3sday 6y ago
I hate nuclear. Its stupidly expensive, potentially dangerous, and produces radioactive waste we have no way of dealing with. Its also the only currently available technology that can produce the amount of electricity we need if we want to mitigate the worse affects of climate change.
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  > stupidly expensive that can change if big governments focus on that > potentially dangerous the safest energy production per kWh hands down > radioactive waste we have no way of dealing with not true, we deal with it since 40's and we are doing fine.
  - freeflight 6y ago
    Not too long ago there was a whole period dubbed "the nuclear age" where big governments all over the planet put major resources and focus into nuclear. Sure, a lot of that was based on its potential to weaponize, but funding and research into that has very strong synergies into the civilian sector. In that context, nuclear has very much seen way more focus and support than probably any other modern form of energy generation. So, why didn't that pan out and we apparently need another round of "big government focus"?
    - posix_me_less 6y ago
      It did pan out, we have hundreds of functional and useful nuclear reactors in the world that produce electric energy with close to zero CO2 emissions. The focus is needed to double down to get rid of all coal/gas plants.