7 ms·

I really don't understand why government aren't considering nuclear energy. The main problem of energy is batteries. Solar, Wind all have issues that they can't

I really don't understand why government aren't considering nuclear energy. The main problem of energy is batteries. Solar, Wind all have issues that they can't give constant energy. For me I still think Nuclear and Hydro are the best green energy.

jasonvorhe 5y ago
Perhaps because of "been there, done that", a couple of catastrophes and the afaik still unsolved issue of storing the waste for a couple of thousand years.
- Etheryte 5y ago
  For all practical intents and purposes, nuclear waste is a solved problem. About 96% of spent nuclear fuel is recycled [0] and of the remainder, there's so little high level waste that so far most countries haven't found it cost effective to even build long-term storage facilities yet [1]: there's only one worldwide. There are ongoing projects to build more though, and the general approach is deep geological burial. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_w...
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    First thing: it's not being recycled. It's being reprocessed. A very expensive process which not everybody does. The US doesn't even have a plant for it and there isn't even a plan to do it because it makes no sense at all since you still need fresh fuel (which is cheaper) and can mix MOX to it and you end up with even more less radioactive waste you still have to store on site. So no not 96% of spend fuel is recycled. It's 96% of the reprocessed fuel is being reprocessed. And no, the main amount of the waste is still radioactive for generations and needs to be kept safe and watched over for a very long time. The reason almost all countries haven't been able to find a hole deep enough is nothing to be proud of. This stuff is and remains to be dangerous. It will fall to generations to keep it safe. No matter what and just think about it. Just a decade ago nobody would have taken you seriously if you'd say that Donald Trump would become the president of the USA. We don't know what will happen in the next decade or century. Meanwhile this dangerous dirt is out there. Most of the times on site. Those "ongoing projects" are a wide understatement. Germany has been looking for decades and the one they've found turned out to be not so good after all because water started leaking into it only a few decades later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine And that's just nature issues. Human issues didn't come into play....yet. Waste is far from being a "solved problem" and it will remain so as long as this lie is being kept alive by the radioactive Astro-Turf.
- 5etho 5y ago
  perhaps both of these are pretty non-issues I'm from Poland - Chernobyl was not as bad as it looked I dont know about Fukushima much storing the waste? lol it's so small amount and the planet is gigantic. Meanwhile coal, smog cancer, oil and wars behind it, saudi arabia killing people; yemeni genocide happening now - '2021 holocaust' as I could even call it all above is much better than small amount of radioactive trash
akamaka 5y ago
Cost. Have a look at the numbers and then it should make sense. Don’t get caught up in silly internet debates about safety and politics. It might soon be cheaper to install new wind and solar than to operate some existing nuclear plants. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
- saddlerustle 5y ago
  Cost is a non-answer. The cost of nuclear plants has gone up about 5x since the 70's due to regulation, which is entirely in the hands of the government.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    If your generator technology isn’t cost effective because of safety regulation, the problem is not regulation, it’s your generator technology. China recently had a reactor that nearly had a radiological release from damaged fuel rods. Even recently built reactors from newer designs have significant challenges. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/business/china-nuclear-reactor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/business/china-nuclear-re...
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      In what universe does this viewpoint square with regulatory capture where you saddle your competition with requirements under the guise of safety, environmentalism (or some other feel good thing it's easy to peddle to the useful idiots)? We can all imagine a case where some locale that has a big steam turbine manufacturer who has successfully lobbied to get extraneous safety requirements slapped on windmills. Or some locale where oil is big so they regulate solar excessively. Remember, energy and other commodities have razor thin margins and make it up at scale. A handicap of a percent that's masquerading as Safety(TM) can massively affect adoption.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Regulation isn't the only problem. The steam turbine of a nuclear plant by itself is more expensive than solar today. This is a similar turbine to that in a coal plant. So if coal plants are more expensive than solar, so is nuclear, even if there are no regulations. The problem isn't regulation, it's that any large infrastructure project in America is crazy expensive. Nuclear power plants are expensive because of regulation, but ev even more so for the same reason that bridges and subways are crazy expensive to build. Solar & wind are built in factories and so don't have this problem. People are trying to build nuclear plants in factories, which might be the solution.
webmobdev 5y ago
In India, nuclear power is part of the country's energy policy. A decade or two after independence, India was one of the few countries that focused on nuclear energy with the support of the US, and went on to build nuclear power plants. In fact, after the US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2005, and the subsequent NSG waiver to India in 2008, India also signed deals with many countries to build new, safeguarded nuclear power plants. Currently India has 22 nuclear reactors in 7 nuclear power plants - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India I guess the reason it is not popular is because once you master the technology to build a nuclear reactor, you are one more step closer to build a nuclear bomb. And the powers be do not want any more country to have nuclear bombs. And you are absolutely right - the weak point in home solar power generation is the battery. They are a huge recurring expense.
- vsskanth 5y ago
  I believe India recieved a lot of technology from Russia for it's nuclear plants. Agreements with US were mostly about "allowing" them to import nuclear fuel and not be subjected to sanctions, which India was subjected to after they tested nuclear bombs (in a race with Pakistan). Of late there has been a lot of local resistance to build nuclear plants and there's been accusations of protest organizers being US funded to prevent more contracts going out to Russia. Also heard similar accusations for why thorium reactors aren't being developed properly even through India has massive reserves - foreign interference. So yeah, the main reason nuclear isn't all that attractive is that it invites a lot of interference from powerful countries with interests in controlling the technology and fuel - military dominance is threatened. Solar, wind power and battery technology do not face these issues. You can see similar dynamics play out in aviation, especially jet engine tech.
  - webmobdev 5y ago
    Russia did help India a lot in developing its nuclear capabilities - both for peaceful purposes and for its military. From what I remember reading on the subject, the US actively helped us in the beginning, in the 60's, and even gave us some nuclear reactors. However, after we used and processed the Uranium from it for our nuclear weapons program, they were pissed and were in the forefront in imposing sanctions on us. They blocked access to a lot of science and tech to hamper our nuclear program, for decades. That is when the Russians increased collaboration on nuclear tech with us. They went even further than the US and even helped us develop nuclear tech for the military - for example, by leasing us a nuclear submarine to our navy (which helped us to build our own nuclear submarines). So yes, Russia has definitely contributed more to India than the US. (And they have done so in a lot of other fields too - India does owe a lot to Russia).
baybal2 5y ago
> The main problem of energy is batteries. The main problem of energy is cost, NREs, capex, and long term support. The Big Energy (gigawatt scale powerplants,) works well on big scales. But 9 out of 10 countries don't have that. Big economy, big population, big industry, big infrastructure — you need all 4, or it doesn't work. Solar is extremely efficient at small scales if you think of capital costs. A single panel atop of a tent in the desert is just few percents behind a gigawatt scale solar powerplant in efficiency. Now think of any 2 stroke generator you see in a 3rd world country. Costs many times more for the power if you look at ones capable of 24/7 operation. Heavy duty diesel ones are even more so.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
My understanding is that governments consider nuclear disasters as eventualities - reducible but not truly preventable, and in the event of a disaster you have to create a functionally permanent exclusion zone.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Not unlike a hydroelectric dam and reservoir.
qart 5y ago
In general, I would agree with you. However, I would prefer the developed countries to put this into action first. That's because I don't trust the Indian government. The government here has an odd combination of instilling too many regulatory hurdles, and very lax enforcement of safety policies. By that, I mean, the company pays a little bribe, and the government looks the other way. We have plenty of arid, otherwise unusable land within easy reach, and solar farms don't interfere with the environment in such places.
- sremani 5y ago
  But you trust Indian government with 100+ nuclear weapons. If I am not wrong, India has about 6 new nuclear reactors in works using a mix of Russian and American firms.
  - qart 5y ago
    Merely having nuclear weapons does not produce daily barrels of nuclear waste. The comparison is ridiculously silly. And I would like India to get its regulatory framework fixed before it allows more nuclear plants.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      How long do you think is the shelf life of a uranium core weapon? Of a plutonium core weapon?
      - qart 5y ago
        Feel free to look it up. You're in for a surprise.
        dotancohen 5y ago
        I know what it is. That was my point: old weapons need to be retired and replaced, thus generating waste.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fy20 5y ago
In the UK there is a nuclear power plant under construction [1], and two more plants with the same reactor type are planned to be built in France and Finland. The plant will cost around £23 billion to build, mostly financed by the owners, EDF (state owned by France) and CGN (state owned by China), with a little funding from the taxpayer. However they have negotiated a "strike price" of £92.50/MWh - how much they can sell the electricity for. In 2019, auctions for offshore wind were sold at a strike price of £39.65/MWh [2], so that's nearly 3x the price. Somebody is getting a good deal out of it, but definately not UK electricity consumers :D [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [2] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/prices-tumble-as-u-k-awards-5-5gw-of-offshore-wind https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/prices-tumble-a...
- sesuximo 5y ago
  Is it bad to pay more for more consistent energy? When you factor in cost of storage, I doubt the multiple is still 3.
  - manmal 5y ago
    It’s a bit weird to have fixed prices for some players while other players in the same market need to compete. If a new tech comes along in 10 years which offers basal power like nuclear plants do, then there won’t be any incentive to invest there because they are stuck with the much higher price.
- jsnell 5y ago
  Just to be clear, the plant in Finland isn't just "planned". They started construction in 2005, and it was supposed to be operational in 2009. They've just loaded the fuel for final verification tests, so it should finally go online next year. The delays and budget overruns for that project have been quite something.
  - euroderf 5y ago
    The overruns bankrupted the French prime contractor, so there's that. I suspected they underbid the job, never suspecting the Finnish regulatory authorities would as strict as they are.

jasonvorhe 5y ago

Perhaps because of "been there, done that", a couple of catastrophes and the afaik still unsolved issue of storing the waste for a couple of thousand years.

Etheryte 5y ago
For all practical intents and purposes, nuclear waste is a solved problem. About 96% of spent nuclear fuel is recycled [0] and of the remainder, there's so little high level waste that so far most countries haven't found it cost effective to even build long-term storage facilities yet [1]: there's only one worldwide. There are ongoing projects to build more though, and the general approach is deep geological burial. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_w...
- Krasnol 5y ago
  First thing: it's not being recycled. It's being reprocessed. A very expensive process which not everybody does. The US doesn't even have a plant for it and there isn't even a plan to do it because it makes no sense at all since you still need fresh fuel (which is cheaper) and can mix MOX to it and you end up with even more less radioactive waste you still have to store on site. So no not 96% of spend fuel is recycled. It's 96% of the reprocessed fuel is being reprocessed. And no, the main amount of the waste is still radioactive for generations and needs to be kept safe and watched over for a very long time. The reason almost all countries haven't been able to find a hole deep enough is nothing to be proud of. This stuff is and remains to be dangerous. It will fall to generations to keep it safe. No matter what and just think about it. Just a decade ago nobody would have taken you seriously if you'd say that Donald Trump would become the president of the USA. We don't know what will happen in the next decade or century. Meanwhile this dangerous dirt is out there. Most of the times on site. Those "ongoing projects" are a wide understatement. Germany has been looking for decades and the one they've found turned out to be not so good after all because water started leaking into it only a few decades later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine And that's just nature issues. Human issues didn't come into play....yet. Waste is far from being a "solved problem" and it will remain so as long as this lie is being kept alive by the radioactive Astro-Turf.
5etho 5y ago
perhaps both of these are pretty non-issues I'm from Poland - Chernobyl was not as bad as it looked I dont know about Fukushima much storing the waste? lol it's so small amount and the planet is gigantic. Meanwhile coal, smog cancer, oil and wars behind it, saudi arabia killing people; yemeni genocide happening now - '2021 holocaust' as I could even call it all above is much better than small amount of radioactive trash

akamaka 5y ago

Cost. Have a look at the numbers and then it should make sense. Don’t get caught up in silly internet debates about safety and politics. It might soon be cheaper to install new wind and solar than to operate some existing nuclear plants. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020

saddlerustle 5y ago
Cost is a non-answer. The cost of nuclear plants has gone up about 5x since the 70's due to regulation, which is entirely in the hands of the government.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  If your generator technology isn’t cost effective because of safety regulation, the problem is not regulation, it’s your generator technology. China recently had a reactor that nearly had a radiological release from damaged fuel rods. Even recently built reactors from newer designs have significant challenges. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/business/china-nuclear-reactor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/business/china-nuclear-re...
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    In what universe does this viewpoint square with regulatory capture where you saddle your competition with requirements under the guise of safety, environmentalism (or some other feel good thing it's easy to peddle to the useful idiots)? We can all imagine a case where some locale that has a big steam turbine manufacturer who has successfully lobbied to get extraneous safety requirements slapped on windmills. Or some locale where oil is big so they regulate solar excessively. Remember, energy and other commodities have razor thin margins and make it up at scale. A handicap of a percent that's masquerading as Safety(TM) can massively affect adoption.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Regulation isn't the only problem. The steam turbine of a nuclear plant by itself is more expensive than solar today. This is a similar turbine to that in a coal plant. So if coal plants are more expensive than solar, so is nuclear, even if there are no regulations. The problem isn't regulation, it's that any large infrastructure project in America is crazy expensive. Nuclear power plants are expensive because of regulation, but ev even more so for the same reason that bridges and subways are crazy expensive to build. Solar & wind are built in factories and so don't have this problem. People are trying to build nuclear plants in factories, which might be the solution.

webmobdev 5y ago

In India, nuclear power is part of the country's energy policy. A decade or two after independence, India was one of the few countries that focused on nuclear energy with the support of the US, and went on to build nuclear power plants. In fact, after the US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2005, and the subsequent NSG waiver to India in 2008, India also signed deals with many countries to build new, safeguarded nuclear power plants. Currently India has 22 nuclear reactors in 7 nuclear power plants - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India I guess the reason it is not popular is because once you master the technology to build a nuclear reactor, you are one more step closer to build a nuclear bomb. And the powers be do not want any more country to have nuclear bombs. And you are absolutely right - the weak point in home solar power generation is the battery. They are a huge recurring expense.

vsskanth 5y ago
I believe India recieved a lot of technology from Russia for it's nuclear plants. Agreements with US were mostly about "allowing" them to import nuclear fuel and not be subjected to sanctions, which India was subjected to after they tested nuclear bombs (in a race with Pakistan). Of late there has been a lot of local resistance to build nuclear plants and there's been accusations of protest organizers being US funded to prevent more contracts going out to Russia. Also heard similar accusations for why thorium reactors aren't being developed properly even through India has massive reserves - foreign interference. So yeah, the main reason nuclear isn't all that attractive is that it invites a lot of interference from powerful countries with interests in controlling the technology and fuel - military dominance is threatened. Solar, wind power and battery technology do not face these issues. You can see similar dynamics play out in aviation, especially jet engine tech.
- webmobdev 5y ago
  Russia did help India a lot in developing its nuclear capabilities - both for peaceful purposes and for its military. From what I remember reading on the subject, the US actively helped us in the beginning, in the 60's, and even gave us some nuclear reactors. However, after we used and processed the Uranium from it for our nuclear weapons program, they were pissed and were in the forefront in imposing sanctions on us. They blocked access to a lot of science and tech to hamper our nuclear program, for decades. That is when the Russians increased collaboration on nuclear tech with us. They went even further than the US and even helped us develop nuclear tech for the military - for example, by leasing us a nuclear submarine to our navy (which helped us to build our own nuclear submarines). So yes, Russia has definitely contributed more to India than the US. (And they have done so in a lot of other fields too - India does owe a lot to Russia).

baybal2 5y ago

> The main problem of energy is batteries. The main problem of energy is cost, NREs, capex, and long term support. The Big Energy (gigawatt scale powerplants,) works well on big scales. But 9 out of 10 countries don't have that. Big economy, big population, big industry, big infrastructure — you need all 4, or it doesn't work. Solar is extremely efficient at small scales if you think of capital costs. A single panel atop of a tent in the desert is just few percents behind a gigawatt scale solar powerplant in efficiency. Now think of any 2 stroke generator you see in a 3rd world country. Costs many times more for the power if you look at ones capable of 24/7 operation. Heavy duty diesel ones are even more so.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

My understanding is that governments consider nuclear disasters as eventualities - reducible but not truly preventable, and in the event of a disaster you have to create a functionally permanent exclusion zone.

dotancohen 5y ago
Not unlike a hydroelectric dam and reservoir.

qart 5y ago

In general, I would agree with you. However, I would prefer the developed countries to put this into action first. That's because I don't trust the Indian government. The government here has an odd combination of instilling too many regulatory hurdles, and very lax enforcement of safety policies. By that, I mean, the company pays a little bribe, and the government looks the other way. We have plenty of arid, otherwise unusable land within easy reach, and solar farms don't interfere with the environment in such places.

sremani 5y ago
But you trust Indian government with 100+ nuclear weapons. If I am not wrong, India has about 6 new nuclear reactors in works using a mix of Russian and American firms.
- qart 5y ago
  Merely having nuclear weapons does not produce daily barrels of nuclear waste. The comparison is ridiculously silly. And I would like India to get its regulatory framework fixed before it allows more nuclear plants.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    How long do you think is the shelf life of a uranium core weapon? Of a plutonium core weapon?
    - qart 5y ago
      Feel free to look it up. You're in for a surprise.
      - dotancohen 5y ago
        I know what it is. That was my point: old weapons need to be retired and replaced, thus generating waste.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fy20 5y ago

In the UK there is a nuclear power plant under construction [1], and two more plants with the same reactor type are planned to be built in France and Finland. The plant will cost around £23 billion to build, mostly financed by the owners, EDF (state owned by France) and CGN (state owned by China), with a little funding from the taxpayer. However they have negotiated a "strike price" of £92.50/MWh - how much they can sell the electricity for. In 2019, auctions for offshore wind were sold at a strike price of £39.65/MWh [2], so that's nearly 3x the price. Somebody is getting a good deal out of it, but definately not UK electricity consumers :D [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [2] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/prices-tumble-as-u-k-awards-5-5gw-of-offshore-wind https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/prices-tumble-a...

sesuximo 5y ago
Is it bad to pay more for more consistent energy? When you factor in cost of storage, I doubt the multiple is still 3.
- manmal 5y ago
  It’s a bit weird to have fixed prices for some players while other players in the same market need to compete. If a new tech comes along in 10 years which offers basal power like nuclear plants do, then there won’t be any incentive to invest there because they are stuck with the much higher price.
jsnell 5y ago
Just to be clear, the plant in Finland isn't just "planned". They started construction in 2005, and it was supposed to be operational in 2009. They've just loaded the fuel for final verification tests, so it should finally go online next year. The delays and budget overruns for that project have been quite something.
- euroderf 5y ago
  The overruns bankrupted the French prime contractor, so there's that. I suspected they underbid the job, never suspecting the Finnish regulatory authorities would as strict as they are.