8 ms·

Nuclear power is an amazing energy source. It doesn’t look like we’ll ever get beyond the politics that would make small scale <10MW installations economically

• oaiey 5y ago
  It is amazing. But two major incidents within 30 years time range are not so amazing. When we continue in that rate we will have a serious problem. And with aging reactors and instability everywhere it does not look good.
  • jpxw 5y ago
    One incident caused by a natural disaster that would never happen in a European country like Germany, the other caused by mismanagement and frankly jaw droppingly pigheaded incompetence which would also never happen in a country like Germany. Edit: in response to the large number of people bringing up BER and other infrastructure failures in Germany: yes, BER and others may have been bad, but a completely different kind (and magnitude) of incompetence than that which led to the Chernobyl meltdown. They really aren’t comparable.
    • smarx007 5y ago
      Yes, although never say never...
      • jpxw 5y ago
        Well nothing is risk-free. But in my opinion in any case the risk of allowing climate change to rampantly continue vastly outweighs the infinitesimal risks of nuclear.
        • donio 5y ago
          "infinitesimal risk" would be something that is unlikely to happen once in a million years or even the lifetime of the planet which is clearly not the case. It's "acceptable risk" or "justifiable risk" at best.
    • la_fayette 5y ago
      This summer a large part of germany was completely flooded. This was a natural disaster, which might happen at higher frequencies nowadays. The alarming systems in place competely failed and around 200 people drowned in Germany. There are so many things which could happen and countries like Germany are not prepared for.
      • junon 5y ago
        Which is exactly why geologists do surveying before they build a nuclear power plant...
        • la_fayette 5y ago
          This is ridiculous! The house owners were convinced that there couldn't take place a flooding in that area! Most of them had no insuranced for flooding either. No specialist of any kind has predicted such a scenario...
          • junon 5y ago
            Those houses aren't nuclear reactors. The safety measures were exponentially less stringent.
      • luckylion 5y ago
        > This was a natural disaster, which might happen at higher frequencies nowadays. You don't build nuclear power plants in narrow valleys with known flood events though. I mean, you also don't build wind turbines in swamps and hope they don't fall over, or put solar panels on your roof and don't fasten them.
        • WalterBright 5y ago
          Building a castle in a swamp can work, though.
          • gnabgib 5y ago
    • yardstick 5y ago
      Accidents will always happen, even in Germany [1]. And don’t forget their WW2 bomb detection isn’t perfect [2]. Nor are they free from corruptive practices [3]. 1. https://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-09/a-history-of-german-train-disasters https://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-09/a-history-of-german-trai... 2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59487910 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59487910 3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34324772 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34324772
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      Floodings are going to be much more frequent than they were in the past. If you want to take a look at where those nuclear reactors are located and explain how they were to be operated safely and cost effectively in the next decade or two I think the Germans would be all ear. Germany has this right: do it now, and deal with it, rather than to continue to kick the can down the road for later generations to solve the problems, a kind of temporeal externalization.
    • hyperman1 5y ago
      Jaw droppingly pigheaded incompetence is unfortunately quite common once economic pressure makes the correct way of running things untenable. Everybody starts cutting small corners everywhere, assuming it doesn't matter much as all the other people are still doing their job. One day, a corner too many gets cut, and the slack in the system is too small to catch what should be a minor problem. Don't trust the public facade and official reports, they have been filtered by PR departments and by people not wishing to report bad news to their managers and peers
    • IiydAbITMvJkqKf 5y ago
      > mismanagement and frankly jaw droppingly pigheaded incompetence which would also never happen in a country like Germany. Are we talking about the same Germany? Edit: I should probably give some examples: Suttgart 21 train station, BER airport
    • An0nymousC0ward 5y ago
    • wildmanxx 5y ago
      > jaw droppingly pigheaded incompetence which would also never happen in a country like Germany. Hahaha! Haha! Ha. #sad
    • neartheplain 5y ago
      >the other caused by mismanagement and frankly jaw droppingly pigheaded incompetence which would also never happen in a country like Germany. Are you sure? One example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48527308 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48527308 >BER has become for Germany not a new source of pride but a symbol of engineering catastrophe. It's what top global infrastructure expert Bent Flyvbjerg calls a "national trauma" and an ideal way "to learn how not to do things".
  • vlovich123 5y ago
    Mortality from existing fossil fuels is significantly worse (just from production and ignoring all the pollutants in the air and even ignoring that coal plants regularly emit more radiation into the air than have ever died from nuclear power generation). In fact, mortality from nuclear power generation is closer to solar and wind. Yes the incidents are scary and news grabbing but that’s it. The actual data is that it’s safe (look at mortality as a function of megawatt hours produced). Not to mention that in the 60-80 years since those plants were designed (Fukushima and Chernobyl are basically the same design if I recall correctly), we’ve gotten much better at designing plants that withstand natural disasters. This is also ignoring the fact that we can do a better job of locating power plants further away from disaster-prone areas due to advances in power distributions systems (eg HVDC). The problem with nuclear is that there’s a lot of fear still lingering around it from Cold War era propaganda. Any issues just play into and reinforce those fears. The real problem is that education is the only effective tool we know of to fight fear but it’s slow and not up to the challenge that nuclear fission faces. That’s because on top of the fears are actual opponents who will fight any real evidence-based education efforts by playing up the FUD (very old tactic). Fossil fuel companies don’t want it because nuclear presents an existential threat to their existence. US national security interests are worried about proliferation if we’re giving them the benefit of the doubt. It also presents a serious threat to US hegemony if countries are able to establish their own energy independence.
    • jhgb 5y ago
      > Mortality from existing fossil fuels is significantly worse That may very well be true but it's completely irrelevant for future choices. Not building more nuclear plants doesn't mean you'll be building more fossil fuel plants instead. EDIT: For all the downvoters, see the fourth chart (Gross power production in Germany 1990-2021, by source (non-stacked)) on https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... and explain to me how they're building more fossil fuel power plants over the years while building zero nuclear power plants.
      • Ekaros 5y ago
  • davidhariri 5y ago
    This is so wrong. If you look at the death rate from those incidents and compare them to the death rates of literally any other source of energy (including other renewables), they are much much lower. Nuclear is proven to be our most safe, clean and renewable source of energy. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
    • errantmind 5y ago
      It isn't about averages, it is about perceived tail risk.
    • wildmanxx 5y ago
      Maybe convince somebody then to have final storage for nuclear waste anywhere close to where they live. Once this crap is in your backyard, the armchair philosophers find excuses really fast. Similar with wind turbines, but at least those are so small scale that you can convince closeby towns fast by just letting them participate in the profits. Different story for leaking barrels stored underground. (And yes, that's how this crap ends up. Just google Asse II and then let's discuss German cleanliness again.)
      • WalterBright 5y ago
        Who likes the poisoning of areas around coal mines?
        • Ekaros 5y ago
          Or plants. Need to remember how many cities used to look... Not pretty with all the particulates...
  • WalterBright 5y ago
    Fortunately, we didn't abandon airline travel after a few terrible accidents.
  • kortex 5y ago
    We have never had a significant disaster of any gen >=3 reactor. TMI, Fukushima, Chernobyl were all gen 2, and gen 1 is all prototypes. Anything built after 1972 has not had anywhere near this level of incidents. Also Chernobyl had severe safety flaws due to its origin as an early model breeder reactor (and my head canon is that the test that caused the disaster was in some way related to surreptitious fuel changing to run breeding experiments. The RBMK reactors were designed for rapid fuel shuffling.... In other words, safety was compromised to keep the door open to the possibility of sneaky weapons grade material production). Also also, Chernobyl had some other bone-headed flaws, such as a positive void coefficient and positive scram coefficient (read: trying to rapid shutdown during an emergency made the reaction increase). Humanity has learned a ton since then.
    • Zigurd 5y ago
      80%+ of nuclear power comes from gen 2 reactors. There are still 8 RBMK reactors in operation, all capable of failing the same way Chernobyl failed, with the same widespread contamination. IF new generation reactors can prove to be safe and not create waste and decommissioning problems, and if they can be built economically, then they are worthy of consideration. But power is fungible. If the cheapest next watt-hour is solar or wind, then why spend on anything else?
      • garaetjjte 5y ago
        >all capable of failing the same way Chernobyl failed Not exactly, changes were made to RBMK design after the accident: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx#ECSArticleLink2 https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...
        • Zigurd 5y ago
          What they cannot change is the lack of a containment structure.
• cinntaile 5y ago
  I doubt that politics is the reason why extremely small installations like that are uneconomical. The capex per kWh would be higher and the same for the opex, maybe you can properly reduce the capex if you produce tons of them but how will you fix the opex? You'll need too many people per kWh to operate the plant and for security.
  • hasmanean 5y ago
    Current nuclear plants don’t scale down well. There will have to be a whole new generation of plants designed to be cost effective at that scale.
• chess_buster 5y ago
  It's insanely costly.
  • fivre 5y ago
    it's insanely costly _to build bring a plant online initially_ once you're up and running, it's cheap as dirt, just takes decades to pay off the initial investment
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      10MW is insanely costly, regardless. That's so small that it isn't enough to justify even the overhead of running a plant. 1GW or so is the smallest size where it starts to make sense to design a nuclear plant that has a hope of delivering electricity at a price that matches the market (and even then: usually only by subtracting decommissioning and construction costs from the equation).
      • _dain_ 5y ago
        for the plants that are being decomissioned, those costs had already been paid off! that's the whole point; the ongoing costs for these plants were low, so it is the height of derangement to shut them down at the very moment germany needs reliable low-carbon locally-sourced energy. decomissioning them is monumentally expensive and amounts to civilization-scale vandalism.
    • Schlaefer 5y ago
      It's dirt cheap because it's heavily subsidized by the public. For example no commercial entity in the world insures a nuclear power plant. These costs are completely hidden.
• SavantIdiot 5y ago
  It's not politics. It is a practical reality that it is dangerous. As dangerous as coal plants. But for some reason HN likes to turn a blind eye to un-disposable toxic waste and the potential for citywide devastation (Chernobyl).
  • pphysch 5y ago
    Devastation is a strong word. The restricted area around Chernobyl is incredibly wild and lush right now. It's just humans that don't want to live there for credible health concerns. Excessive resource extraction causes devastation.
    • yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      > It's just humans that don't want to live there for credible health concerns. A significant population of residents actually moved back there, despite the restrictions. I believe all of the former residents of Chernobyl (which is actually a tiny village) are now dead, the last old babushka passing in October/November 2016. I visited what was left of her house. There are still plenty of people living in and around the exclusion zone for various reasons (mostly military).
    • forgotmypw17 5y ago
      The area for hundreds of kilometers radius around Chernobyl, including Kiev, is still contaminated, with effects on people's health still being felt. It is common to downplay the effects of the accident, but it is huge. (I'm originally from that area.)
      • sam_lowry_ 5y ago
      • sam_lowry_ 5y ago
        I am surprised people do not know coal plants are a major source of radiation in Eastern Europe.
  • 5y ago
• pydry 5y ago
  It's not politics preventing nuclear power it's the eye watering cost. Unless you count getting taxpayers to shoulder the cost as politics.
  • inter_netuser 5y ago
    solar panels killed more people in their short history, than nuclear power plants in their much longer history. if you count roof installers dying/getting injured on the job. do they count or we can just discount them?
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Utility scale solar is built on the ground, no roof work required, very safe. The panels can be recycled almost entirely, similar to the utility scale battery storage that can back it. Tesla is scaling up utility storage manufacturing, Redwood Materials is scaling up recycling to close the loop and provide cheaper feedstock once there’s enough raw materials in the loop. Europe’s entire wind potential could power the world. New nuclear is a pipe dream (~10-15 years from breaking ground to first kWh produced), but old nuclear generators should be ran as long as safely possible. Big fail on Germany’s part here, although natural gas price spikes will force their hand on more renewables, transmission (including cross border interconnectors), and battery storage.
    • pydry 5y ago
      I have seen some dubious statistics that downplay the number of deaths from nuclear accidents caused by cancer and play up the number of deaths caused by installing solar panels (e.g. by counting the number of people dying on roofs and assuming that most of them were up there installing panels).
      • inter_netuser 5y ago
        Why not provide non-dubious statistics then? Looking forward to you providing us with hard numbers.
• dmead 5y ago
  I do not understand how 2 major incidents (in living memory) that could have ruined the biosphere don't discredit nuclear power for everyone.
  • yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    Because that didn’t happen. The idea that they “could have ruined the biosphere” is a completely sensationalist fabrication.
  • Ekaros 5y ago
    Apart from some localised hotspots, the actual worse case that is Chernobyl is doing amazingly from biosphere point of view. Not having humans around is actually great for biosphere. Fukushima on other hand is insignificant. Not really having much effect on anything.
    • Melting_Harps 5y ago
      > Fukushima on other hand is insignificant. Not really having much effect on anything. WTF?! Are you not aware of the constant amount of waste water being poured into the Pacific? [0] Or the absurdly high amount of Cesium being found in migrating Tuna? The amount of cancers and heart related issues is still unfolding to this day, particularly in the children from the surrounding areas. And the people who were forced to evacuate and then forced out of the shelters with nothing to go back to would have a huge issue with what you have said. I cant believe anyone not from TEPCO or the Nuclear Village would say such a blatantly stupid and calloused thing! 0: https://globalvoices.org/2021/12/30/despite-widespread-opposition-japan-plans-to-dump-water-from-fukushima-plant-into-the-pacific-ocean/ https://globalvoices.org/2021/12/30/despite-widespread-oppos... 1: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna47592012 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna47592012
      • garaetjjte 5y ago
        >And the people who were forced to evacuate and then forced out of the shelters with nothing to go back Perhaps evacuating unnecessarily large areas was the problem in the first place. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017300782 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201...
• jacquesm 5y ago
  Small plants, especially something on the order of 10MW, which is about 1% of a normal sized one would be extremely uneconomical. You need all of the security and process of a much larger plant for a piddly little bit of electricity. You're talking about the equivalent of a couple of windmills, that require a small fraction of the land, and will happily run unattended.
  • RandomTisk 5y ago
    Some of the plans I've seen has them buried deep underground encased in concrete, requiring little to no maintenance for decades.
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      TNGs?
• ren_engineer 5y ago
  more money to be made by politicians taking bribes from China who produces 90% of the worlds solar panels and windmills. I'm sure sending billions to China won't have any long term negative effects, definitely nothing negative about being dependent on a foreign country to create your energy supply
  • jacquesm 5y ago
    Windmills installed all over Germany are mostly German and some Danish and Swedish production. Afaik there are no gridscale windmill exports from China, though there are small ones (up to about 40KW). If you do have a pointer to a gridscale Chinese machine that has been installed in Europe I'd love to hear about it, especially if it has been operating for a while and maintenance records can be reviewed for comparison purposes.
• afterburner 5y ago
  If the options you're talking about ever get cheap, sure, they'll take over. Ever wondered why solar is exploding? Low price.
  • nerdponx 5y ago
    But it needed a huge amount of subsidies to keep the money flowing long enough until the technology caught up to bring the price down.