4 ms·

It only takes so long and costs so much because of the over regulation and red tape. Nuclear is a backup power for when renewables fail. The wind doesn't alway

It only takes so long and costs so much because of the over regulation and red tape. Nuclear is a backup power for when renewables fail. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine.

triceratops 5y ago
Please see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28774444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28774444 Tl;dr nuclear is safe. But if it goes wrong, the cleanup costs can wipe out decades of profits. That's why it's so expensive, and why private insurers refuse to touch it. Insuring it is the proverbial picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. Downvoters: feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd love to learn more. I have no axe to grind against nuclear.
- chucksta 5y ago
  It would be interesting to compare the cost of all nuclear cleanup, vs the cleanup costs of all the oil spills
  - triceratops 5y ago
    That's fair. But we're not talking about nuclear vs fossil fuels. Nuclear is obviously better than anything carbon. The debate is nuclear vs solar, wind, and hydro and how the case for nuclear is framed as "ack-chually, nuclear is better than renewables and would cost less if only those damned tree-hugging libs would get over their irrational fears"
    - chucksta 5y ago
      True. I guess I still see a constant power source as a requirement, so the comparison to green energy doesn't even matter at this point, but it's the goal. My comment was more curiosity than disagreement
- Jensson 5y ago
  If you average those clean-up costs for every nuclear plant in the world and how long they have been running then it isn't expensive at all.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    Are you sure? I couldn't find figures on global nuclear industry profits. Best I could do was revenue (about $2tn in 2021)[1]. If we assume nuclear has a gross profit margin of 10% like other utilities[2] then Fukushima's cleanup and compensation costs amounted to 1 year of all nuclear industry gross profits in 2021 (adjusting for the size of the industry in 2011, the various points in time when those costs were incurred, and inflation is too complex to go into here). That's clearly a fuckton of money. Insuring against it is expensive. Blaming "regulations and tree-hugging environmentalists" for nuclear energy being expensive seems dishonest to me. 1. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210721005453/en/Nuclear-Electricity-Global-Market-Report-2021-COVID-19-Impact-and-Recovery-to-2030-for-the-2762-Billion-industry---ResearchAndMarkets.com https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210721005453/en/Nuc... 2. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-average-profit-margin-utility-company.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-average...
    - Jensson 5y ago
      Yeah, so having such an accident to clean up every 30 years would make nuclear about 1% more expensive than now if you take it into account. So it is hardly a big factor in the cost of nuclear.
      - triceratops 5y ago
        That math works out only if all the nuclear power plants in the world pay into a single risk pool. Which they don't. Do you know how much companies actually pay for private insurance in the US? I haven't been able to find details. But I did learn that private insurance caps out at $450m and the industry as a whole agrees to cover costs above that (out of their own policies) up to $12b or so. Above that, it's up to Congress to come up with the money.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
thehappypm 5y ago
"Regulation and red tape" is a very hard problem to solve. I don't see a clear path to low-regulation nuclear power due to its political toxicity and the actual need for safety. Just look at the Seabrook Station power plant in New Hampshire. "Two reactors were planned at Seabrook but the first unit didn't begin full operation until 1990, a full 14 years after the construction permit was granted, and the second unit was never built due to construction delays caused by protests, cost overruns, and troubles obtaining financing. The difficulties led to the bankruptcy of Seabrook's utility owner, PSNH." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabrook_Station_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabrook_Station_Nuclear_Power...
- hunterb123 5y ago
  That's definitely an outlier when it comes to build times, avg. construction time is 7.5 years for the 441 reactors in use today. http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle...

It only takes so long and costs so much because of the over regulation and red tape. Nuclear is a backup power for when renewables fail. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine.

triceratops 5y ago

Please see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28774444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28774444 Tl;dr nuclear is safe. But if it goes wrong, the cleanup costs can wipe out decades of profits. That's why it's so expensive, and why private insurers refuse to touch it. Insuring it is the proverbial picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. Downvoters: feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd love to learn more. I have no axe to grind against nuclear.

chucksta 5y ago
It would be interesting to compare the cost of all nuclear cleanup, vs the cleanup costs of all the oil spills
- triceratops 5y ago
  That's fair. But we're not talking about nuclear vs fossil fuels. Nuclear is obviously better than anything carbon. The debate is nuclear vs solar, wind, and hydro and how the case for nuclear is framed as "ack-chually, nuclear is better than renewables and would cost less if only those damned tree-hugging libs would get over their irrational fears"
  - chucksta 5y ago
    True. I guess I still see a constant power source as a requirement, so the comparison to green energy doesn't even matter at this point, but it's the goal. My comment was more curiosity than disagreement
Jensson 5y ago
If you average those clean-up costs for every nuclear plant in the world and how long they have been running then it isn't expensive at all.
- triceratops 5y ago
  Are you sure? I couldn't find figures on global nuclear industry profits. Best I could do was revenue (about $2tn in 2021)[1]. If we assume nuclear has a gross profit margin of 10% like other utilities[2] then Fukushima's cleanup and compensation costs amounted to 1 year of all nuclear industry gross profits in 2021 (adjusting for the size of the industry in 2011, the various points in time when those costs were incurred, and inflation is too complex to go into here). That's clearly a fuckton of money. Insuring against it is expensive. Blaming "regulations and tree-hugging environmentalists" for nuclear energy being expensive seems dishonest to me. 1. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210721005453/en/Nuclear-Electricity-Global-Market-Report-2021-COVID-19-Impact-and-Recovery-to-2030-for-the-2762-Billion-industry---ResearchAndMarkets.com https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210721005453/en/Nuc... 2. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-average-profit-margin-utility-company.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-average...
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Yeah, so having such an accident to clean up every 30 years would make nuclear about 1% more expensive than now if you take it into account. So it is hardly a big factor in the cost of nuclear.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      That math works out only if all the nuclear power plants in the world pay into a single risk pool. Which they don't. Do you know how much companies actually pay for private insurance in the US? I haven't been able to find details. But I did learn that private insurance caps out at $450m and the industry as a whole agrees to cover costs above that (out of their own policies) up to $12b or so. Above that, it's up to Congress to come up with the money.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

thehappypm 5y ago

"Regulation and red tape" is a very hard problem to solve. I don't see a clear path to low-regulation nuclear power due to its political toxicity and the actual need for safety. Just look at the Seabrook Station power plant in New Hampshire. "Two reactors were planned at Seabrook but the first unit didn't begin full operation until 1990, a full 14 years after the construction permit was granted, and the second unit was never built due to construction delays caused by protests, cost overruns, and troubles obtaining financing. The difficulties led to the bankruptcy of Seabrook's utility owner, PSNH." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabrook_Station_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabrook_Station_Nuclear_Power...

hunterb123 5y ago
That's definitely an outlier when it comes to build times, avg. construction time is 7.5 years for the 441 reactors in use today. http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle...