6 ms·

Visiting the most expensive nuclear station

50 points by dukeyukey 2y ago

nullhole 2y ago
> more than four times more expensive on a pound-for-megawatt basis oh, the units people use today :)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Pounds sterling, Britain’s currency.
  - nullhole 2y ago
    I know, thus the smiley :)
- IntelMiner 2y ago
  How does the joke go? "Americans will measure with anything to avoid learning the metric system" (I know this is about a British power plant but the tongue in cheek remark still works)
  - aeonik 2y ago
    American units are actually pegged to metric standards, and quite a few people use SI units here and there. I don't see cm overtaking inches anytime soon though. Just the other day, I opened up my fancontrol-gui and saw my CPU temperatures all in the 200⁰F range, I almost vomited in disgust, then thought this is how Europeans must feel. Who uses Fahrenheit for CPU temperature monitoring (legitimate question)? Fahrenheit is still better for daily weather though.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Chances are the actual thermal mgmt chip is doing everything in Celsius, and your GUI layer is thoughtfully converting it to Fahrenheit to match your locale settings. You could probably override your local info and get it directly in Celsius if you wanted.
      - aeonik 2y ago
        You are correct of course, https://github.com/Maldela/fancontrol-gui/commit/1667dc46651cf6fee416e01917c8d28344600fab#diff-8415a19b0608492a2a8d7a7bfc23fbf097084c6f7de5b9ebb0770447e2bae807 https://github.com/Maldela/fancontrol-gui/commit/1667dc46651... However, I don't want my locale to reflect all units this way. I might try overriding the locale for this single process, however I it was just easier for me to compile a patched version of the code that was available on the Arch User Repository already. Though I have no idea why the git version defaults to Celsius.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
resolutebat 2y ago
> To produce as much electricity with solar as Hinkley Point C would use a plot of land almost fifty times bigger than Hyde Park. Hyde Park is about 1.4 km2, so that would be 70 km2, which even in a dense country like the UK is not that much. It seems like a no-brainer to go for solar instead.
- flgb 2y ago
  Even China, who nuclear advocates point to as “getting it right” look like they realize this now .. https://johnmenadue.com/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/ https://johnmenadue.com/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-s...
- Krssst 2y ago
  (need storage too though that's more a cost problem than a space problem)
pretendgeneer 2y ago
One thing I found out recently found out about nuclear that really shuts down home "great" it is as a fix for climate change is how limited fuel is for it. Some numbers Nuclear currently uses about 60,000 tonnes per year of uranium [1] Nuclear is about 10% of electricity, 4% of energy as a whole [2] There is about 8,000,000 tonnes of uranium reserves world wide [3] For a 100% of current electricity demand by nuclear that's 13 years of fuel, For 100% of energy (e.g. gas heaters replaced by electric powered by nuclear) that's 5 years of fuel. Doesn't look so great when you do the math. [1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-symposium-examines-uranium-production-cycle-for-sustainable-nuclear-power https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-symposium-examines... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...
- lazide 2y ago
  It’s BS. There are far greater uranium reserves, even with minimal exploration, and most fuel can actually continue being used if desired.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    The equipment for recycling used-up fuel rods is the same for creating nuclear weapon payloads. Governments struggle stomaching proliferation risk in the name of fuel efficiency.
    - lazide 2y ago
      If there was an actual shortage, that problem would be resolved, They have no need to do so, because actual uranium reserves are huge. We haven’t been attempting to find or open new ones for a long time.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      That's mostly just fear mongering because mitigating that risk with organization and a little bit of planning is trivial. Just put the reactors and the fuel reprocessing in different sites under control of different organizations. To produce plutonium usable for nuclear weapons you need to pull the fuel out of the reactor way ahead of schedule for power generation. The longer you keep the fuel in the reactor, the more Pu-240 you produce alongside the Pu-239 and you can't make nuclear weapons with that. Weapons grade plutonium requires very low concentrations of Pu-240 and that requires running the reactor specifically for this. If the reactor and fuel reprocessing are done by different organizations, then neither can make nuclear weapons without the cooperation of the other. Managing risk with organization structure is a technique well known to virtually all governments, from western democracies to the worst dictatorships, so this isn't breaking any new ground.
kristjank 2y ago
To an unskilled observer, it sure must appear that in most countries, doing literally anything on a scale greater than a moderately-sized industrial hall is bound to be shut down by an unspoken alliance of bureaucrats, tree-huggers, and various public-private partnership agencies that want to get in on the money.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jeffbee 2y ago
The article basically lists all of the problems with the common law system. I tend to agree that it would be cheaper to build a large civil project under another system of laws but unless you are planning a revolution you have to take the political and administrative conditions into account.
wisaacj 2y ago
I live in Portishead (mentioned in this article), we frequently see great barges sail by with massive blocks of concrete destined for HPC. Quite a spectacle to behold!
langsoul-com 2y ago
31k page environmental document. My God, why even bother with nuclear when you can slap out coal power plants instead of dealing with that regulation mess.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  Coal runs out?
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
> Nuclear, of course, is the safest form of power generation there is. It's odd that one person would make a claim, then link to data that shows it not to be true. Even odder, I've seen this done repeatedly with the same claim. Is it intentional? Some kind of collective mental blindspot?
- notTooFarGone 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Renewables are cheaper and can make up a large part of the grid when properly integrated. No need for new expensive and unpopular nuclear They’re also variable, including—as we’re now learning—over long-ish timescales [1]. Developing all options is smart. Other countries seem to be able to deploy APT1000s just fine; SMRs should also receive more funding. [1] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/us-wind-power-drop-2023 https://e360.yale.edu/digest/us-wind-power-drop-2023
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      Recent sodium battery developments might make renewable variability a moot point though. I want to support moonshots and “all options,” but cost management is also important (capital is finite if we’re not going to do MMT). How do you know when to stop throwing good money after bad? When does experimentation turn into pork? Hard to solve for imho, but I am curious what people smarter than me think. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40248627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40248627
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        Recent reactor developments can make nuclear accidents a moot point also. If new tech is allowed..

50 points by dukeyukey 2y ago

nullhole 2y ago

> more than four times more expensive on a pound-for-megawatt basis oh, the units people use today :)

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Pounds sterling, Britain’s currency.
- nullhole 2y ago
  I know, thus the smiley :)
IntelMiner 2y ago
How does the joke go? "Americans will measure with anything to avoid learning the metric system" (I know this is about a British power plant but the tongue in cheek remark still works)
- aeonik 2y ago
  American units are actually pegged to metric standards, and quite a few people use SI units here and there. I don't see cm overtaking inches anytime soon though. Just the other day, I opened up my fancontrol-gui and saw my CPU temperatures all in the 200⁰F range, I almost vomited in disgust, then thought this is how Europeans must feel. Who uses Fahrenheit for CPU temperature monitoring (legitimate question)? Fahrenheit is still better for daily weather though.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Chances are the actual thermal mgmt chip is doing everything in Celsius, and your GUI layer is thoughtfully converting it to Fahrenheit to match your locale settings. You could probably override your local info and get it directly in Celsius if you wanted.
    - aeonik 2y ago
      You are correct of course, https://github.com/Maldela/fancontrol-gui/commit/1667dc46651cf6fee416e01917c8d28344600fab#diff-8415a19b0608492a2a8d7a7bfc23fbf097084c6f7de5b9ebb0770447e2bae807 https://github.com/Maldela/fancontrol-gui/commit/1667dc46651... However, I don't want my locale to reflect all units this way. I might try overriding the locale for this single process, however I it was just easier for me to compile a patched version of the code that was available on the Arch User Repository already. Though I have no idea why the git version defaults to Celsius.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

resolutebat 2y ago

> To produce as much electricity with solar as Hinkley Point C would use a plot of land almost fifty times bigger than Hyde Park. Hyde Park is about 1.4 km2, so that would be 70 km2, which even in a dense country like the UK is not that much. It seems like a no-brainer to go for solar instead.

flgb 2y ago
Even China, who nuclear advocates point to as “getting it right” look like they realize this now .. https://johnmenadue.com/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/ https://johnmenadue.com/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-s...
Krssst 2y ago
(need storage too though that's more a cost problem than a space problem)

pretendgeneer 2y ago

One thing I found out recently found out about nuclear that really shuts down home "great" it is as a fix for climate change is how limited fuel is for it. Some numbers Nuclear currently uses about 60,000 tonnes per year of uranium [1] Nuclear is about 10% of electricity, 4% of energy as a whole [2] There is about 8,000,000 tonnes of uranium reserves world wide [3] For a 100% of current electricity demand by nuclear that's 13 years of fuel, For 100% of energy (e.g. gas heaters replaced by electric powered by nuclear) that's 5 years of fuel. Doesn't look so great when you do the math. [1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-symposium-examines-uranium-production-cycle-for-sustainable-nuclear-power https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-symposium-examines... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...

lazide 2y ago
It’s BS. There are far greater uranium reserves, even with minimal exploration, and most fuel can actually continue being used if desired.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  The equipment for recycling used-up fuel rods is the same for creating nuclear weapon payloads. Governments struggle stomaching proliferation risk in the name of fuel efficiency.
  - lazide 2y ago
    If there was an actual shortage, that problem would be resolved, They have no need to do so, because actual uranium reserves are huge. We haven’t been attempting to find or open new ones for a long time.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    That's mostly just fear mongering because mitigating that risk with organization and a little bit of planning is trivial. Just put the reactors and the fuel reprocessing in different sites under control of different organizations. To produce plutonium usable for nuclear weapons you need to pull the fuel out of the reactor way ahead of schedule for power generation. The longer you keep the fuel in the reactor, the more Pu-240 you produce alongside the Pu-239 and you can't make nuclear weapons with that. Weapons grade plutonium requires very low concentrations of Pu-240 and that requires running the reactor specifically for this. If the reactor and fuel reprocessing are done by different organizations, then neither can make nuclear weapons without the cooperation of the other. Managing risk with organization structure is a technique well known to virtually all governments, from western democracies to the worst dictatorships, so this isn't breaking any new ground.

kristjank 2y ago

To an unskilled observer, it sure must appear that in most countries, doing literally anything on a scale greater than a moderately-sized industrial hall is bound to be shut down by an unspoken alliance of bureaucrats, tree-huggers, and various public-private partnership agencies that want to get in on the money.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jeffbee 2y ago

The article basically lists all of the problems with the common law system. I tend to agree that it would be cheaper to build a large civil project under another system of laws but unless you are planning a revolution you have to take the political and administrative conditions into account.

wisaacj 2y ago

I live in Portishead (mentioned in this article), we frequently see great barges sail by with massive blocks of concrete destined for HPC. Quite a spectacle to behold!

langsoul-com 2y ago

31k page environmental document. My God, why even bother with nuclear when you can slap out coal power plants instead of dealing with that regulation mess.

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
Coal runs out?

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

> Nuclear, of course, is the safest form of power generation there is. It's odd that one person would make a claim, then link to data that shows it not to be true. Even odder, I've seen this done repeatedly with the same claim. Is it intentional? Some kind of collective mental blindspot?

notTooFarGone 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Renewables are cheaper and can make up a large part of the grid when properly integrated. No need for new expensive and unpopular nuclear They’re also variable, including—as we’re now learning—over long-ish timescales [1]. Developing all options is smart. Other countries seem to be able to deploy APT1000s just fine; SMRs should also receive more funding. [1] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/us-wind-power-drop-2023 https://e360.yale.edu/digest/us-wind-power-drop-2023
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Recent sodium battery developments might make renewable variability a moot point though. I want to support moonshots and “all options,” but cost management is also important (capital is finite if we’re not going to do MMT). How do you know when to stop throwing good money after bad? When does experimentation turn into pork? Hard to solve for imho, but I am curious what people smarter than me think. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40248627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40248627
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Recent reactor developments can make nuclear accidents a moot point also. If new tech is allowed..