←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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 #
Retric ◴[] No.45226646[source]
> Most of it are fake costs due to regulation.

It’s really not, nuclear inherently requires extreme costs to operate. Compare costs vs coal which isn’t cost competitive these days. Nuclear inherently need a lot more effort refining fuel as you can’t just dig a shovel full of ore and burn it. Even after refining you can’t just dump fuel in, you need fuel assemblies. Nuclear must have a more complicated boiler setup with an extra coolant loop. You need shielding and equipment to move spent fuel and a spent fuel cooling pond. Insurance isn’t cheap when mistakes can cost hundreds of billions. Decommissioning could be a little cheaper with laxer standards, but it’s never going to be cheap. Etc etc.

Worse, all those capital costs mean you’re selling most of your output 24/7 at generally low wholesale spot prices unlike hydro, natural gas, or battery backed solar which can benefit from peak pricing.

That’s not regulations that’s just inherent requirements for the underlying technology. People talk about small modular reactors, but small modular reactors are only making heat they don’t actually drive costs down meaningfully. Similarly the vast majority of regulations come from lessons learned so yea they spend a lot of effort avoiding foreign materials falling into the spent fuel pool, but failing to do so can mean months of downtime and tens of millions in costs so there isn’t some opportunity to save money by avoiding that regulation.

replies(16): >>45226708 #>>45226740 #>>45226760 #>>45226797 #>>45226947 #>>45227007 #>>45227449 #>>45227533 #>>45227890 #>>45228258 #>>45228507 #>>45228540 #>>45228556 #>>45229457 #>>45229741 #>>45230115 #
theptip ◴[] No.45226740[source]
It really is. Nuclear is 100-1000x safer than coal. By insisting on such an aggressive safety target, we force prices up and actually incur much higher levels of mortality - just delivered in the boring old ways of pollution and climate-driven harms.

See https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy for detailed stats.

I think we should target “risk parity with Gas” until climate change is under control.

replies(6): >>45226776 #>>45227056 #>>45227187 #>>45227271 #>>45227646 #>>45227963 #
phs318u ◴[] No.45227056[source]
When the nuclear industry feels confident enough to not need its own special law to protect it from liability in case of accidents, I’ll feel a little more confident in their safety rhetoric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

replies(4): >>45227920 #>>45227965 #>>45228302 #>>45230257 #
1. IMTDb ◴[] No.45227965[source]
This exists because of a cognitive bias: we tend to focus on direct, attributable harm while overlooking larger, diffuse, and indirect harm.

A nuclear plant could operate safely for 50 years, causing no harm, but if it explodes once and kills 10,000 people, there's gonna be a trial. A coal plant could run for the same 50 years without any dramatic accident, yet contribute to 2,000 premature deaths every single year through air pollution—adding up to 100,000 deaths. Nobody notices, nobody is sued, business as usual. It's legally safer today to be "1% responsible for 1000 death" than to be "100% responsible for a single one". Fix this and that law goes away.

replies(2): >>45230445 #>>45231199 #
2. LinXitoW ◴[] No.45230445[source]
Well, no, that's more down to nuclear fans constantly using the worst possible comparisons, and creating false dichotomies. The better comparison are renewables or natural gas, not an ancient technology literally everybody (outside of it's investors) agrees is bad and should go.
replies(1): >>45231211 #
3. oneshtein ◴[] No.45231199[source]
So, for safety, turn off coal first, then turn off nuclear.
replies(1): >>45233753 #
4. IMTDb ◴[] No.45231211[source]
Nuclear sits just between wind (slightly more dangerous) and solar (slightly less dangerous) per unit of electricity production, all of them being much safer than hydro; and ridiculously safer than gas, oil and coal. It's a really, really safe option.

Note that these number are a bit old and since then, installation of consumer solar has increased significantly. Installation of solar panels on consumer roofs is much more dangerous than installation of solar panels in solar plants, so death rate for solar are significantly underestimated. Meanwhile accident rates of plant construction (nuclear, solar or otherwise) keep dropping.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

5. DennisP ◴[] No.45233753[source]
For safety, the order to turn things off is coal, oil, biomass, natural gas, hydropower, wind, then nuclear.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy