←back to thread

425 points nixass | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.29s | source
Show context
pinacarlos90 ◴[] No.26674447[source]
There is a bad stigma associated with nuclear energy that I just don’t understand - Nuclear less impact to the environment when compared to other energy sources. What is is the problem with nuclear? Is it the cost of maintaining these power plants ?
replies(11): >>26674500 #>>26674513 #>>26674514 #>>26674523 #>>26674541 #>>26674577 #>>26675060 #>>26675306 #>>26675329 #>>26675491 #>>26676134 #
Tade0 ◴[] No.26675060[source]
I went back and forth a few times with my opinion on nuclear over the years and some points I've gathered, good and bad are:

-Nuclear is indeed a low-carbon energy source.

-It's also what you would want as baseload.

-The costs of storing waste properly have been underestimated - a few years ago nuclear operators reached a deal with the German government through which they paid 23bln Euros to make the waste the government's problem. The overall sentiment is that they were let off the hook easily and the total cost will be much higher.

-Both nuclear plants and waste storage facilities are easy targets for terrorism - fortunately that didn't happen yet, but things like Stuxnet proved that it's entirely in the realm of possibility. My pet conspiracy theory is that this, not Fukushima was the reason Germany eventually accelerated its plans to phase out nuclear.

-You can reprocess spent nuclear fuel which helps both with fuel accessibility and waste management.

-It's trivially easy to use the reprocessing infrastructure to create weapons-grade plutonium.

-Nuclear is generally safe.

-That being said its mode of failure makes a large area inhospitable essentially forever. Topsoil radiation measurements usually don't give the full picture of the problem.

-Every nuclear disaster resulted in increased safety by uncovering design flaws which were a result of cutting corners, so especially in the decade after Fukushima costs went up around 24% making nuclear the single low-carbon source to become more, not less expensive.

-As it stands even China cannot deploy nuclear fast enough to compete with renewables on delivered MWh. Since 2012 wind consistently delivered more energy in China than nuclear and the gap has been widening ever since. With the cost of storage plummeting we're heading towards a future where centralised power generation may become antiquated.

----

Overall nuclear has some advantages but there aren't enough of them to break the trend of using renewables + gas and storage, which on average replace coal faster and cheaper.

It's basically a textbook example of "worse is better".

replies(4): >>26675110 #>>26675495 #>>26675535 #>>26676450 #
1. seanmcdirmid ◴[] No.26675110[source]
China still has trouble transporting renewable energy from where it is generated (in the west) to where it is needed (in the east). They are trying to solve that problem with UHV transmission lines, but they aren't there yet.

Nuclear plants can be built close to where they are needed, it's an advantage over renewables.