←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.018s | source | bottom
Show context
reenorap ◴[] 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 #
mixdup ◴[] 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 #
1. ciconia ◴[] 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 #
2. crooked-v ◴[] No.45226063[source]
I really don't want a SpaceX-like attitude to radioactive material.
replies(1): >>45227725 #
3. tencentshill ◴[] No.45226105[source]
We can't blow up nuclear reactors to learn how they failed like spaceX does with rockets.
replies(1): >>45226207 #
4. charcircuit ◴[] No.45226207[source]
Sure we can, just not out in the open with a bunch of spectators.
replies(1): >>45228489 #
5. jraph ◴[] 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 #
6. rogerrogerr ◴[] No.45226886[source]
Betcha their worker injuries per kg to LEO are lower than most companies.
7. elictronic ◴[] No.45226919[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.

8. lostlogin ◴[] No.45227725[source]
A nuclear Musk would be interesting.
9. kotaKat ◴[] No.45228489{3}[source]
... Sooooo... time to fire back up the old range at Bikini Atoll?