5 ms·

I know nuclear power comes up on HN quite often and is viewed quite positively. On the other side I've read the following articles[1][2], from people who know t

• nitrogen 5y ago
  whereas nuclear will not Why not? Why wasn't there a nuclear module (SMR) 20 years ago that can be installed in banks of multiple modules, just like a solar array made of multiple solar cells? Why should every single nuclear plant be semi-bespoke for that particular area? reducing our energy needs In some sense, human development can be measured in energy available per capita. We definitely want to make each activity we do as efficient as is reasonable (e.g. a washing machine that uses 0.5gal less water per cycle, but costs $3000 more is unreasonable), but the goal really ought to be to maximize energy used per capita, while minimizing energy used per activity.
  • p_l 5y ago
    Because for last ~25 years there was no funding to finish the SMRs that we did have good base design for, nor to expand necessary metal production for their coolant loops (or finalize the variants that didn't need those). It all boils down to will.
  • Gwypaas 5y ago
    Why not? Why wasn't there a nuclear module (SMR) 20 years ago that can be installed in banks of multiple modules, just like a solar array made of multiple solar cells? Why should every single nuclear plant be semi-bespoke for that particular area? Because the idea was instead a larger standardized reactor to rule them all. Spread the fixed costs per reactor core as thin as possible. This has evidently failed and thus the nuclear industries new thing is "SMR" because lets do opposite and hope we get another 20 years of funding.
  • ncmncm 5y ago
    We don't have modular nuke because it offers too little scope for official, wholly-legal corruption. Thus far photovoltaic solar and wind turbines have been proof against official corruption. It is just too quick and easy to field a competing system not subject to corruption tax.
• radu_floricica 5y ago
  Just a random paragraph that caught my eye. > And if we're talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today, but, above all, because it takes a long time to build reactors. In other words, every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options. You're literally investing that euro into climate protection... but it's not climate protection because you can't invest it in something else? If you start with this mindset of course you'll end up with nuclear energy being bad. You either postulated it's bad, or you wrote the specifications to make sure it ends up bad.
  • dv_dt 5y ago
    It is the comparison of investing euro into nuclear projects which won’t yield one gram of carbon reduction until ten to twenty years down the road vs a solar wind or storage project would could have a two to three year timeline from plan to operation. And not only that, but euro for euro will generate more energy then the equivalent nuclear plant.
    • radu_floricica 5y ago
      That's a ROI issue, not a climate issue. If a dollar is better invested in something else, it will be.
      • dv_dt 5y ago
        If the R is expressed in tons of carbon per dollar over 10-30 year spans it is a climate issue - especially because governments and businesses are already loathe to spend on climate action.
  • yholio 5y ago
    It's an euro invested today in climate protection that supplies zero energy for the next 10 years, while the same euro invested in solar/wind + batteries will also generate energy in the short run, helping retire carbon emitters now. It makes sense if present value of reduced carbon is high, the value of your future nuclear plant gets discounted by a large "carbon interest".
• throw0101a 5y ago
  > On the other side I've read the following articles[1][2], from people who know the industry inside out, which are less enthusiastic mainly because building new reactors takes too much time for our climate crisis and is too expensive compared to solar/wind + batteries I ran across the statement that the entire output of the world's battery factories wouldn't hold an hour's worth of electrical usage in the US. I have no idea if this is true. But I'd rather side on the side of caution and start building more reactors now just in case the Totally Renewable Plus Storage future does not scale. If the billions spent on nuclear turns out being a sunk cost because renewables+storage does work out I would not consider it "wasted". It's simply the cost of a backup plan to help ensure we humans don't cook ourselves to death. At the very least we should stop retiring current nuclear plants. Any added renewable capacity should be used to offset shutting down fossil fuel generator plants. Once those are taken care of we can then perhaps talk about nuclear. And talking about the problems of storing nuclear waste for 10,000 years is a moot point if civilization doesn't survive the next 100.
  • pfdietz 5y ago
    Why do you think it's not possible to build more battery factories?
    • nitrogen 5y ago
      Possible reason: batteries need more raw materials than reactors, and at the necessary scale the mining might not be practical.