←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
bryanlarsen ◴[] 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 #
beeflet ◴[] 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 #
s1mplicissimus ◴[] 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 #
Llamamoe ◴[] No.45227361[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 #
Jedd ◴[] No.45228180[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 #
Llamamoe ◴[] No.45230032[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 #
1. oneshtein ◴[] No.45231953[source]
We have lot of nuclear waste. Can you take it?