4 ms·

Collective intention requires some amount of collective agreement. Many people are unfortunately scared of nuclear power and politicians know this.

pfdietz 2y ago
The idea that nuclear is struggling because people are "scared" is a form of denial from nuclear advocates. Nuclear is struggling because it's much too expensive, not because people are "scared".
- chii 2y ago
  It's expensive because people are scared, and to alleviate that fear, regulation is put in place. Some of those fears are founded, but some are not. But overall, the regulation required is what drives the cost up.
  - cycomanic 2y ago
    That is simply not true and repeating it all the time does not make it more true. There have been several analysis posted here on HN which showed that compliance with regulations is not a major cost factor for nuclear power. In fact nuclear power operators have often lobbied to be exempt from regulations that apply to other power generation schemes. Solar and wind often have significantly higher compliance costs as percentage of their budget than nuclear.
    - neglesaks 2y ago
      Could you post a link to one or two of the sumissions where these analyses have been presented please?
- rayiner 2y ago
  It’s expensive because environmentalists put in too many barriers to building nuclear power plants because they’re scared (in addition to being innumerate). If we had started building out nuclear power in the 1960s the same as the French, we would have much more runway today to address climate change.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    It's failing pretty much everywhere (even in China it's struggling, falling far short of plans). Your explanation presents environmentalists as so globally omnipotent it would be senseless to fight them. Unfortunately, environmentalists are not this powerful.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      It worked great in France, which had a majority renewable grid back in the early 1990s. If the rest of the developed world had invested in nuclear power during that same time frame we would have much more developed nuclear technology today. More importantly, we would’ve started emissions reductions decades ago instead of waiting for solar to become viable. We are still waiting for fundamental breakthroughs in grid-scale battery technology that will likely come too late to avoid 4C warming. I’m not presenting environmentalists as powerful. I’m presenting them as innumerate feelers. Unfortunately that’s contagious.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        Did it work great in France? The financing was so opaque it cannot be audited. What we do know is that France can no longer do what they once maybe did. Their recent attempts to build nuclear plants have been disastrous. They've also given up on fast reactors, which is a clear tell they do not expect the world to go nuclear anytime soon (if the world did, it would quickly need breeders). The "environmentalists did it" argument is not a good one. It falls apart when examined closely. If they were so powerful as to suppress nuclear worldwide, why can't they (for example) stop oil pipelines? Or coal combustion? The argument has all the signs of something cooked up to save a tenuous position, not because the evidence actually supports it.
        neglesaks 2y ago
        Because the big coal & big oil lobbies are massively more powerful than the very meagre lobbying efforts of the nuclear industry. And yes, the greens are of course going for choking off the nuclear opponent, instead of Big Oily, not forgetting that part of the green movement does receive money from the hydrocarbon industry; the Sierra Club in the US has been funded by Cheasapeake Energy from which it receives 25 million bucks between 2007 and 2010. For example, Greenpeace has recently successfully lobbied the Phillipne government to ban golden rice despite its obvious advantages: https://phys.org/news/2024-04-philippine-court-blocks-gmo-golden.html https://phys.org/news/2024-04-philippine-court-blocks-gmo-go... So please don't present the environmental lobby as being selectively powerless.
- smegger001 2y ago
  Only the massive onesare absurdly expensive, we build plenty of cheap small safe ones for the military to power aircraft carriers and submarines. why dont we build the same thing for power.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Naval reactors are so economical that it's cheaper to burn expensive liquid fuels instead. Most naval ships are not nuclear, you know. Yeah, that's a ringing endorsement. /s
    - smegger001 2y ago
      most navel vessels dont need a nuclear reactor it would be overkill.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        The observation isn't that ships don't need nuclear reactors, it's that it's usually cheaper to use liquid hydrocarbons instead. Or do you think the USN is deliberately wasting money by constructing all these ships with conventional power plants?
  - dalyons 2y ago
    What makes you think anything about military construction is cheap?
    - smegger001 2y ago
      their cheap compared to the cost of a civilian nuclear power plant. A whole aircraft carrier which has two reactors costs $4.5 billion of which about 1 billion goes to each reactor, a civilian nuclear power station cost on the other hand cost on the low end around 5.4 billion minimum. civilian reactors are cost over 5x as much.
- neglesaks 2y ago
  That's false. The manufactured nulear scare is a leftover from the Cold War where communists in the West did everything to equate nuclear energy with nuclear weapons and/or ticking time bombs that they advocated the abolition of (at the same time as most East-bloc nations had operating nuclear power plants). The cold war ended but the seeds of angst had been sown and to this day is the bedrock of the "green" anti-nuclear policies in pretty much every "green" movement on the planet, with a notable exception of the Finnish Greens. The Green parties, fx. In Germany have actively used hyper-regulation of the nuclear power sector as tripwires to make nuclear energy operation in the West extremely expensive to do.
- chickenbig 2y ago
  I'm not sure that nuclear is that expensive per unit of energy delivered, compared to rooftop solar for instance. In Europe (UK and Germany) one might get 1000 kWh/year from 1kW of panels. Last year I helped a family member install 6.4kW of solar for around £7000 (VAT free), so £1.2 per kWh/year = 1.4 USD/kWh/year. Vogtle 3 & 4 cost around 30bn USD but has a 90% capacity factor on 2 x 1117MW = 17612856000 kWh/year = 1.7 USD/kWh/year. I believe the AP1000 reactors have a 60 year design life. In addition the reactor design (lacking at the start of the project, and cause of many delays) plus underlying skill-base now exists to construct more. In addition nuclear power now attracts the Inflation Reduction Act Investment Tax Credits for up to a 50% rebate once a reactor comes online. Which puts nuclear at 0.85 USD/kWh/year before we account for reduced construction cost and time now that the AP1000 is Nth of a kind.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    You need to include interest rates, not just divide the cost over 60 years. One way to subsidize nuclear is to artificially reduce the interest rate on its financing, but market rates for nuclear financing would make a 60 year lifespan almost irrelevant. The NPV of the out year revenue would be very low. Put another way: for nuclear to pay out over 60 years, it also has to compete with the cheaper energy sources that will be discovered and improved over those generations. This obsolescence risk cannot be ignored, and gets reflected in interest rates charged. Now that wind/solar are becoming dominant, their inherent rapid evolution has pulled in the time horizons for all other energy sources. I sometimes think this has kept natural gas going longer than it otherwise might have, since the uncertainty adds incentive for sources with more operating cost and lower investment cost, as these have less obsolescence risk. Expecting AP1000 to show NOAK improvements is optimistic.
    - chickenbig 2y ago
      [dead]

pfdietz 2y ago

The idea that nuclear is struggling because people are "scared" is a form of denial from nuclear advocates. Nuclear is struggling because it's much too expensive, not because people are "scared".

chii 2y ago
It's expensive because people are scared, and to alleviate that fear, regulation is put in place. Some of those fears are founded, but some are not. But overall, the regulation required is what drives the cost up.
- cycomanic 2y ago
  That is simply not true and repeating it all the time does not make it more true. There have been several analysis posted here on HN which showed that compliance with regulations is not a major cost factor for nuclear power. In fact nuclear power operators have often lobbied to be exempt from regulations that apply to other power generation schemes. Solar and wind often have significantly higher compliance costs as percentage of their budget than nuclear.
  - neglesaks 2y ago
    Could you post a link to one or two of the sumissions where these analyses have been presented please?
rayiner 2y ago
It’s expensive because environmentalists put in too many barriers to building nuclear power plants because they’re scared (in addition to being innumerate). If we had started building out nuclear power in the 1960s the same as the French, we would have much more runway today to address climate change.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  It's failing pretty much everywhere (even in China it's struggling, falling far short of plans). Your explanation presents environmentalists as so globally omnipotent it would be senseless to fight them. Unfortunately, environmentalists are not this powerful.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    It worked great in France, which had a majority renewable grid back in the early 1990s. If the rest of the developed world had invested in nuclear power during that same time frame we would have much more developed nuclear technology today. More importantly, we would’ve started emissions reductions decades ago instead of waiting for solar to become viable. We are still waiting for fundamental breakthroughs in grid-scale battery technology that will likely come too late to avoid 4C warming. I’m not presenting environmentalists as powerful. I’m presenting them as innumerate feelers. Unfortunately that’s contagious.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Did it work great in France? The financing was so opaque it cannot be audited. What we do know is that France can no longer do what they once maybe did. Their recent attempts to build nuclear plants have been disastrous. They've also given up on fast reactors, which is a clear tell they do not expect the world to go nuclear anytime soon (if the world did, it would quickly need breeders). The "environmentalists did it" argument is not a good one. It falls apart when examined closely. If they were so powerful as to suppress nuclear worldwide, why can't they (for example) stop oil pipelines? Or coal combustion? The argument has all the signs of something cooked up to save a tenuous position, not because the evidence actually supports it.
      - neglesaks 2y ago
        Because the big coal & big oil lobbies are massively more powerful than the very meagre lobbying efforts of the nuclear industry. And yes, the greens are of course going for choking off the nuclear opponent, instead of Big Oily, not forgetting that part of the green movement does receive money from the hydrocarbon industry; the Sierra Club in the US has been funded by Cheasapeake Energy from which it receives 25 million bucks between 2007 and 2010. For example, Greenpeace has recently successfully lobbied the Phillipne government to ban golden rice despite its obvious advantages: https://phys.org/news/2024-04-philippine-court-blocks-gmo-golden.html https://phys.org/news/2024-04-philippine-court-blocks-gmo-go... So please don't present the environmental lobby as being selectively powerless.
smegger001 2y ago
Only the massive onesare absurdly expensive, we build plenty of cheap small safe ones for the military to power aircraft carriers and submarines. why dont we build the same thing for power.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Naval reactors are so economical that it's cheaper to burn expensive liquid fuels instead. Most naval ships are not nuclear, you know. Yeah, that's a ringing endorsement. /s
  - smegger001 2y ago
    most navel vessels dont need a nuclear reactor it would be overkill.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      The observation isn't that ships don't need nuclear reactors, it's that it's usually cheaper to use liquid hydrocarbons instead. Or do you think the USN is deliberately wasting money by constructing all these ships with conventional power plants?
- dalyons 2y ago
  What makes you think anything about military construction is cheap?
  - smegger001 2y ago
    their cheap compared to the cost of a civilian nuclear power plant. A whole aircraft carrier which has two reactors costs $4.5 billion of which about 1 billion goes to each reactor, a civilian nuclear power station cost on the other hand cost on the low end around 5.4 billion minimum. civilian reactors are cost over 5x as much.
neglesaks 2y ago
That's false. The manufactured nulear scare is a leftover from the Cold War where communists in the West did everything to equate nuclear energy with nuclear weapons and/or ticking time bombs that they advocated the abolition of (at the same time as most East-bloc nations had operating nuclear power plants). The cold war ended but the seeds of angst had been sown and to this day is the bedrock of the "green" anti-nuclear policies in pretty much every "green" movement on the planet, with a notable exception of the Finnish Greens. The Green parties, fx. In Germany have actively used hyper-regulation of the nuclear power sector as tripwires to make nuclear energy operation in the West extremely expensive to do.
chickenbig 2y ago
I'm not sure that nuclear is that expensive per unit of energy delivered, compared to rooftop solar for instance. In Europe (UK and Germany) one might get 1000 kWh/year from 1kW of panels. Last year I helped a family member install 6.4kW of solar for around £7000 (VAT free), so £1.2 per kWh/year = 1.4 USD/kWh/year. Vogtle 3 & 4 cost around 30bn USD but has a 90% capacity factor on 2 x 1117MW = 17612856000 kWh/year = 1.7 USD/kWh/year. I believe the AP1000 reactors have a 60 year design life. In addition the reactor design (lacking at the start of the project, and cause of many delays) plus underlying skill-base now exists to construct more. In addition nuclear power now attracts the Inflation Reduction Act Investment Tax Credits for up to a 50% rebate once a reactor comes online. Which puts nuclear at 0.85 USD/kWh/year before we account for reduced construction cost and time now that the AP1000 is Nth of a kind.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  You need to include interest rates, not just divide the cost over 60 years. One way to subsidize nuclear is to artificially reduce the interest rate on its financing, but market rates for nuclear financing would make a 60 year lifespan almost irrelevant. The NPV of the out year revenue would be very low. Put another way: for nuclear to pay out over 60 years, it also has to compete with the cheaper energy sources that will be discovered and improved over those generations. This obsolescence risk cannot be ignored, and gets reflected in interest rates charged. Now that wind/solar are becoming dominant, their inherent rapid evolution has pulled in the time horizons for all other energy sources. I sometimes think this has kept natural gas going longer than it otherwise might have, since the uncertainty adds incentive for sources with more operating cost and lower investment cost, as these have less obsolescence risk. Expecting AP1000 to show NOAK improvements is optimistic.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    [dead]