←back to thread

129 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
DarkNova6 ◴[] No.46247903[source]
So you want to create a completely new industry. From the ground. With all existing experts having retired. Demanding high quality, no-fault tolerance production. Dependent on resources not found in Europe.

Look, I love nuclear technology. But time has moved on. The costs to rebuild this industry is astronomical and means we lose out on key-future technology like batteries.

Edit: But then there are bombs. And especially French love their nukes due national security. This is the only reason to keep pushing for nuclear, since Russia, the US and China are not gonna change direction on this either. But the very least we could do is be honest about it.

Edit 2: Changed from "World has moved on" to "time has moved on", since evidently China has invested for a good 2 decades to build their own fully functional nuclear-industry. Proving my point that it takes dedicated investment, network effects and scale to rebuild this industry. After all, they too want to mass produce nukes.

replies(9): >>46247968 #>>46248061 #>>46248083 #>>46248299 #>>46248343 #>>46248710 #>>46249288 #>>46250139 #>>46253448 #
nixass ◴[] No.46247968[source]
> Look, I love nuclear technology. But the world has moved on.

Come again?

replies(3): >>46248065 #>>46248457 #>>46249052 #
iknowstuff ◴[] No.46248065[source]
We deploy 10x the capacity in renewables and batteries than we do in nuclear and its only accelerating. We are trending towards 1/10th the cost of nuclear per GW. There is no going back just due to the sheer scale of mass manufacturing renewables.

We are below $1B/GW for solar. China just opened a $100/kWh ($100M/GWh) battery storage plant. All deployable within a year.

Contrast this to $16B/GW for recent nuclear plants, and you don’t benefit from starting a build for another 20 years

replies(7): >>46248071 #>>46248107 #>>46248327 #>>46248605 #>>46248641 #>>46248755 #>>46249261 #
jandrewrogers ◴[] No.46248641[source]
That cost is a property of the regulatory environment, it isn't intrinsic.

You can buy a floating nuclear power plant in the form of an aircraft carrier for a lot less than $16B. The US Navy builds these things as a matter of course in a few years using standard designs they crank out by the dozens.

replies(1): >>46249012 #
1. hvb2 ◴[] No.46249012{3}[source]
Those carriers have 700MW thermal output reactors. The new generation EPRs built now are about 6x that.

And yes, carriers have a lot less rules because it those have issues we're already in big trouble. You'll need strict rules given the big impact a failure has. No one has an aircraft carrier or sub in their backyard (not constantly that is)

Standardizing a design and building N of them would help though