Most active commenters
  • nicce(5)

←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 35 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
reenorap ◴[12 Sep 25 18:54 UTC] No.45225348[source]▶
We need to drive down the costs of implementing nuclear energy. Most of it are fake costs due to regulation. I understand that regulation is needed but we also need nuclear energy, we have to find a streamlined way to get more plants up and running as soon as possible. I think they should all be government projects so that private companies can't complain that they're losing money and keep have to ratchet up the prices, like PG&E in California. My rates have doubled in a few years to over $0.40/kWh and up over $0.50/kWh after I go up a tier depending on usage.
replies(39): >>45225431 #>>45225480 #>>45225524 #>>45225535 #>>45225565 #>>45225613 #>>45225619 #>>45225755 #>>45225860 #>>45225949 #>>45225961 #>>45226031 #>>45226055 #>>45226067 #>>45226154 #>>45226181 #>>45226458 #>>45226594 #>>45226646 #>>45226658 #>>45226803 #>>45226943 #>>45226958 #>>45227052 #>>45227098 #>>45227206 #>>45227241 #>>45227262 #>>45227391 #>>45227592 #>>45227750 #>>45228008 #>>45228029 #>>45228207 #>>45228266 #>>45228536 #>>45229440 #>>45229710 #>>45229877 #
1. mixdup ◴[12 Sep 25 19:40 UTC] No.45225860[source]▶
A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely

Every reactor and every plant is bespoke, even if they are based on a common "design" each instance is different enough that every project has to be managed from the ground up as a new thing, you get certified only on a single plant, operators can't move from plant to plant without recertification, etc

Part of that is because they are so big and massive, and take a long time to build. If we'd build smaller, modular reactors that are literally exactly the same every single time you would begin to get economies of scale, you'd be able to get by without having to build a complete replica for training every time, and by being smaller you'd get to value delivery much quicker reducing the finance costs, which would then let you plow the profits from Reactor A into Reactor B's construction

replies(6): >>45225899 #>>45225976 #>>45226082 #>>45226517 #>>45226671 #>>45227220 #
2. nicce ◴[12 Sep 25 19:43 UTC] No.45225899[source]▶
It isn't that rare in general - if the U.S. opens the secrets of nuclear submarines - we had had mini reactors for decades.
replies(6): >>45225941 #>>45226068 #>>45226353 #>>45226883 #>>45226912 #>>45227169 #
3. _aavaa_ ◴[12 Sep 25 19:46 UTC] No.45225941[source]▶
The problem is economics. Just because the Us built a fleet does not mean that they are economical once put in a non-military application.
replies(1): >>45226631 #
4. ciconia ◴[12 Sep 25 19:49 UTC] No.45225976[source]▶
Exactly. What is needed is a SpaceX-like enterprise, where the engineering effort is concentrated in building economies of scale. To me it's clear that nuclear energy's pros largely outweigh the cons, and that it is a perfect complement to solar and wind power generation.
replies(3): >>45226063 #>>45226105 #>>45226741 #
5. crooked-v ◴[12 Sep 25 19:59 UTC] No.45226063[source]▶
I really don't want a SpaceX-like attitude to radioactive material.
replies(1): >>45227725 #
6. tick_tock_tick ◴[12 Sep 25 19:59 UTC] No.45226068[source]▶
I'd be fine with us just having the USA navy operate them we build them for carriers and subs just double or triple the order and plug em into the grid.
7. ViewTrick1002 ◴[12 Sep 25 20:00 UTC] No.45226082[source]▶
We’ve been trying to build ”SMR”s since the 1950s and a bunch has been built throughout the decades.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small...

The problem is: who pays for the hundreds of prototypes before the ”process” has worked?

8. tencentshill ◴[12 Sep 25 20:03 UTC] No.45226105[source]▶
We can't blow up nuclear reactors to learn how they failed like spaceX does with rockets.
replies(1): >>45226207 #
9. charcircuit ◴[12 Sep 25 20:11 UTC] No.45226207{3}[source]▶
Sure we can, just not out in the open with a bunch of spectators.
replies(1): >>45228489 #
10. fmajid ◴[12 Sep 25 20:26 UTC] No.45226353[source]▶
And the technology is incredibly mature, submarine reactors were some of the first reactors, period.
replies(2): >>45226376 #>>45226406 #
11. quotemstr ◴[12 Sep 25 20:28 UTC] No.45226376{3}[source]▶
Submarine reactors run on super high enriched fuel instantly one could instantly repurpose into a bomb. Lots of gen 4 and 5 reactor designs that combine low cost, compact footprint, and running on less expensive and carefully controlled fuel.
replies(1): >>45226550 #
12. croes ◴[12 Sep 25 20:30 UTC] No.45226406{3}[source]▶
And they are heavily guarded.

In the current political climate I prefer energy sources that don’t cause severe damage if sabotaged.

Did you hear the worries in Ukraine that Russia could hit a wind turbine with a rocket?

replies(1): >>45226629 #
13. cpach ◴[12 Sep 25 20:41 UTC] No.45226517[source]▶
There are some companies that are trying to get SMRs up and running.

https://www.ans.org/news/2025-02-05/article-6744/new-swedish...

We’ll see how it goes.

14. nicce ◴[12 Sep 25 20:43 UTC] No.45226550{4}[source]▶
French have some LEU submarines. They seem to be pretty good on paper. Needs refueling every ten years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffren-class_submarine

replies(2): >>45226891 #>>45227143 #
15. rafaelmn ◴[12 Sep 25 20:52 UTC] No.45226629{4}[source]▶
What's the danger in hitting a micro nuclear reactor with a rocket ? A shitty dirty bomb detonated near the powerplant ?
replies(1): >>45231935 #
16. ◴[12 Sep 25 20:52 UTC] No.45226631{3}[source]▶
17. throw0101a ◴[12 Sep 25 20:56 UTC] No.45226671[source]▶
> A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely

Once you have your supply chain running, and PM/labour experience, things can run fairly quickly. In the 1980s and '90s Japan was starting a new nuclear plant every 1-2 years, and finishing them in 5:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

France built 40 in a decade:

* https://worksinprogress.co/issue/liberte-egalite-radioactivi...

More recently, Vogtle Unit 3 was expensive AF, but Unit 4 cost 30% less (though still not cheap).

replies(1): >>45230238 #
18. jraph ◴[12 Sep 25 21:03 UTC] No.45226741[source]▶
> What is needed is a SpaceX-like enterprise

I'm not sure. They have more injuries per worker than their competition [1]. Space should already not be "let's work too fast at safety's cost", nuclear really can't.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/18/spacex-worker-injury-rates...

replies(2): >>45226886 #>>45226919 #
19. mixdup ◴[12 Sep 25 21:18 UTC] No.45226883[source]▶
The DoD is not exactly known for great efficiency and getting the most value for money
20. rogerrogerr ◴[12 Sep 25 21:18 UTC] No.45226886{3}[source]▶
Betcha their worker injuries per kg to LEO are lower than most companies.
21. quotemstr ◴[12 Sep 25 21:19 UTC] No.45226891{5}[source]▶
Cool! Thanks
22. nradov ◴[12 Sep 25 21:22 UTC] No.45226912[source]▶
Secrecy isn't the obstacle here. Naval reactors are optimized for combat performance, costs be damned. They aren't economically efficient for commercial power generation.
replies(1): >>45227863 #
23. elictronic ◴[12 Sep 25 21:23 UTC] No.45226919{3}[source]▶
Injury rate is 6x other space vehicle manufacturers. If you were to slow them down by 6x they would pretty close to the 20 years it’s already taken to get SLS/constellation to do a test launch.

Super heavy is on year 4.

24. pyrale ◴[12 Sep 25 21:46 UTC] No.45227143{5}[source]▶
France also built full-sized commercial plants rather than batteries of small reactors. That's because scale matters for efficient production.
replies(1): >>45228122 #
25. jasonwatkinspdx ◴[12 Sep 25 21:49 UTC] No.45227169[source]▶
Total non starter.

Nuclear submarine power plants are not in any way a technology useful for utility scale power generation.

To start with they use fuel enriched to weapons grade.

They aren't cost effective vs the amount of power produced, and the designs don't scale up to utility scale power.

Submarine plants are not some sort of miracle SMR we can just roll out.

The Navy is willing to page cost premiums a utility company cannot, because for the Navy it's about having a necessary capability. There's no economic break even to consider.

replies(2): >>45227336 #>>45228135 #
26. preisschild ◴[12 Sep 25 21:55 UTC] No.45227220[source]▶
> If we'd build smaller, modular reactors that are literally exactly the same every single time you would begin to get economies of scale

You can also build standardized, modular LARGE nuclear power reactors. The French and the Japanese did it and managed to builds lots of large reactors with relatively short build times

27. ◴[12 Sep 25 22:11 UTC] No.45227336{3}[source]▶
28. lostlogin ◴[12 Sep 25 22:59 UTC] No.45227725{3}[source]▶
A nuclear Musk would be interesting.
29. nicce ◴[12 Sep 25 23:22 UTC] No.45227863{3}[source]▶
At least Russia is doing fine with SMRs, thought the fuel enrichment level is around 20%. They are building new reactors all the time and they seem pretty efficient. E.g. they have even floating nuclear plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov
30. nicce ◴[13 Sep 25 00:06 UTC] No.45228122{6}[source]▶
That is rapidly changing.

https://onu-vienne.delegfrance.org/Nuclear-power-and-SMR-are...

https://regulation-oversight.asnr.fr/oversight/small-modular...

31. bobmcnamara ◴[13 Sep 25 00:08 UTC] No.45228135{3}[source]▶
I thought I'd mention that ship supplied short power has been a thing for ages. USS Daniel Webster even trained for this for new years eve apocalypse nothingburger. And its almost always been used for only powering something critical. Today's subs are <10MW. Nothing for utility scale. I can't imagine the economics are ever good. More of a: we've already got this boat.

https://thenaptimeauthor.wordpress.com/2021/04/09/the-uss-le...

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/11/26/A-nuclear-submarine-...

There are some floating PWRs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_pow...

32. kotaKat ◴[13 Sep 25 01:19 UTC] No.45228489{4}[source]▶
... Sooooo... time to fire back up the old range at Bikini Atoll?
33. ZeroGravitas ◴[13 Sep 25 08:05 UTC] No.45230238[source]▶
Global rollout of wind and solar are accelerating past nuclear's records:

https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/solar-wind-nuclear...

34. oneshtein ◴[13 Sep 25 13:27 UTC] No.45231935{5}[source]▶
Nuclear meltdown, evacuation of nearby cities.
replies(1): >>45232063 #
35. nicce ◴[13 Sep 25 13:48 UTC] No.45232063{6}[source]▶
Don’t you need to create a specific kind of chemical reaction and just bomb is not enough for that?