Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

    (www.weplanet.org)
    1041 points mpweiher | 11 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. bryanlarsen ◴[12 Sep 25 19:57 UTC] No.45226055[source]▶
    A nuclear fission power plant is never going to be cheaper than a coal plant, and coal plants are very expensive. They're superficially similar types of plants: they heat water and then use a steam turbine to convert it to electricity. Coal plants use higher temperatures and pressures, so they can use smaller turbines. That turbine is a massive part of the cost.

    Yes, there's room to drive down the cost of nuclear. No, it's never going to be cost competitive with solar/wind/batteries, no matter how much you drive down the cost or eliminate regulations.

    replies(1): >>45226194 #
    2. beeflet ◴[12 Sep 25 20:09 UTC] No.45226194[source]▶
    It can be cheaper to run a nuclear plant than a conventional power plant, due to lower fuel costs. But what kills nuclear is the capital costs of building the plant. It takes a while to reap the reward
    replies(2): >>45226295 #>>45227110 #
    3. bryanlarsen ◴[12 Sep 25 20:19 UTC] No.45226295[source]▶
    I'm talking about capital costs, not operating costs. $3B/GW for a coal plant is about 5X as much as natgas.
    4. s1mplicissimus ◴[12 Sep 25 21:42 UTC] No.45227110[source]▶
    Does that calculation include the cost of storing the nuclear waste after use? I'd be curious to see a reference for your claim.
    replies(2): >>45227361 #>>45227383 #
    5. Llamamoe ◴[12 Sep 25 22:15 UTC] No.45227361{3}[source]▶
    You need to look up how much nuclear waste is actually produced. It's a minuscule amount relative to the energy produced, and it doesn't actually need more than to be transported and then encased in concrete.
    replies(1): >>45228180 #
    6. epistasis ◴[12 Sep 25 22:17 UTC] No.45227383{3}[source]▶
    Dry casting on site is fairly cheap.

    The true cost of nuclear is the massive construction cost. We don't know how to solve that.

    7. Jedd ◴[13 Sep 25 00:18 UTC] No.45228180{4}[source]▶
    It's not the volume of the waste that's the challenge - it's handling and storage that remain mostly unsolved.

    By unsolved I mean - not convincingly solved, and certainly not yet tested over the expected duration that material needs to be safely contained.

    replies(1): >>45230032 #
    8. Llamamoe ◴[13 Sep 25 07:19 UTC] No.45230032{5}[source]▶
    "mostly unsolved"? It's cheap, low-maintenance, and essentially risk-free barring potential terrorism.

    Even if the storage got somehow compromised(extremely unlikely), the disposal sites are distant enough from civilization and the amounts small enough that the environmental harms would still be far below tons of other manmade events.

    What more do you want?

    replies(2): >>45230504 #>>45231953 #
    9. Jedd ◴[13 Sep 25 08:54 UTC] No.45230504{6}[source]▶
    'Apart from terrorism ... or war, seismic activity, etc.'

    I'm not sure where you're getting cheap from, or low-maintenance.

    The above-ground stuff is locking future generations in for on-going maintenance for several centuries, perhaps longer. There's been think-tanks trying to work out how you just signpost such a place, given storage may exceed the expected lifetime of languages, and we'd want to be polite and at least contend with societal collapse.

    It is hubris to observe that the many locations chosen now will remain 'distant from civilisation' for many centuries.

    replies(1): >>45233725 #
    10. oneshtein ◴[13 Sep 25 13:30 UTC] No.45231953{6}[source]▶
    We have lot of nuclear waste. Can you take it?
    11. LtdJorge ◴[13 Sep 25 17:21 UTC] No.45233725{7}[source]▶
    The casts are made to withstand a collision with a locomotive.