3 ms·

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34459724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34459724

by moloch-hai 4y ago

robertlagrant 4y ago
I was hoping for there to have been more than an HN comment for you to have been persuaded.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Just pick a claim and examine it yourself. They're all lies and half truths. Claim: The price will come down with repeat builds Reality: All but one model of reactor in US went up with repeat builds, that went down very modestly. Every program except Japan had costs that increased with time, and Japan's costs only went down modestly during a period where money was extremely cheap and the prices of other projects decreased far more. Claim: It was TMI and chernobyl Reality: Prices went up 20% yoy from the time the first non turnkey reactor went online until 1979 Claim: If there had just been more funding Reality: Billions to tens of billions are spent on fission research every year. All reactors have substantial public support and most have government backed loans. Claim: It's soooo dense Reality: The majority of Uranium ore has similar energy density to fossil fuels. Uranium mines overlap in average area power density with solar farms. Claim: Reprocessing turns waste into energy Reality: It only uses the Pu239 and dregs of U235 which a boost of 15% from not reprocessing and works once. Separation dumps large quantities of fission products into the environment. It creates more Pu240and Pu241 which are the worst isotopes and just as much fission products as not using MOX. Claim: Breeeeders have a closed fuel cycle Reality: No closed fuel cycle has ever been demonstrated start to finish. On top of breeders generally having horrible reliability when run in breeding mode. Every program fails at the refuelling part because it's so dirty and expensive. Claim: Coal makes more radiation Reality: Coal is way worse in general, but this is a lie carefully crafted by comparing one specific reactor a long time away from refuelling to an ols coal plant. One reprocessing facility releases more radiation in a year than 90% of the coal ash that ever made it into the air. Dust from poorly remediated mines is also much worse. Claim: It's available 24/7/365 Reality: EAF averages under 77% and there are now wind farms that have higher capacity factor than the EAF of many UK and french reactors (except they don't pretend to be available all the time). Nameplate capacities are often lower than output or left when expensive upgrades are made to make load factor look artificially high. Claim: It's dispatchable Reality: Being able to pay a little more in maintenance to throw away energy you already paid for isn't dispatch.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Thanks. I understand your position now, which is interesting, but is there anything more verifiable than HN comments out there that is the source of your claims?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34459724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34459724

robertlagrant 4y ago

I was hoping for there to have been more than an HN comment for you to have been persuaded.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Just pick a claim and examine it yourself. They're all lies and half truths. Claim: The price will come down with repeat builds Reality: All but one model of reactor in US went up with repeat builds, that went down very modestly. Every program except Japan had costs that increased with time, and Japan's costs only went down modestly during a period where money was extremely cheap and the prices of other projects decreased far more. Claim: It was TMI and chernobyl Reality: Prices went up 20% yoy from the time the first non turnkey reactor went online until 1979 Claim: If there had just been more funding Reality: Billions to tens of billions are spent on fission research every year. All reactors have substantial public support and most have government backed loans. Claim: It's soooo dense Reality: The majority of Uranium ore has similar energy density to fossil fuels. Uranium mines overlap in average area power density with solar farms. Claim: Reprocessing turns waste into energy Reality: It only uses the Pu239 and dregs of U235 which a boost of 15% from not reprocessing and works once. Separation dumps large quantities of fission products into the environment. It creates more Pu240and Pu241 which are the worst isotopes and just as much fission products as not using MOX. Claim: Breeeeders have a closed fuel cycle Reality: No closed fuel cycle has ever been demonstrated start to finish. On top of breeders generally having horrible reliability when run in breeding mode. Every program fails at the refuelling part because it's so dirty and expensive. Claim: Coal makes more radiation Reality: Coal is way worse in general, but this is a lie carefully crafted by comparing one specific reactor a long time away from refuelling to an ols coal plant. One reprocessing facility releases more radiation in a year than 90% of the coal ash that ever made it into the air. Dust from poorly remediated mines is also much worse. Claim: It's available 24/7/365 Reality: EAF averages under 77% and there are now wind farms that have higher capacity factor than the EAF of many UK and french reactors (except they don't pretend to be available all the time). Nameplate capacities are often lower than output or left when expensive upgrades are made to make load factor look artificially high. Claim: It's dispatchable Reality: Being able to pay a little more in maintenance to throw away energy you already paid for isn't dispatch.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Thanks. I understand your position now, which is interesting, but is there anything more verifiable than HN comments out there that is the source of your claims?