←back to thread

129 points mpweiher | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
sailingparrot ◴[] No.46248343[source]
> So you want to create a completely new industry. From the ground. With all existing experts having retired.

This is an article about Europe. Do you really believe France alone is operating 57 nuclear reactors, and producing 70% of its energy via fission, without the industry, the knowledge, and with no experts left? Is chatgpt running everything?

replies(3): >>46248414 #>>46249290 #>>46249670 #
DarkNova6 ◴[] No.46248414[source]
If you are so smug about this, answer me:

1: How man reactors were built in the 1970s and are nearing end-of-life?

2: How many reactors has Europe built since 2005?

3: What's the overrun time of reactors in Europe, compared to China?

The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the industry has existed. It was world class, but the institutional knowledge to bring it back to this quality does not exist and would need to be rebuilt for the new generation of reactors. And we are not even talking Generation 4 here.

replies(7): >>46248658 #>>46248733 #>>46248805 #>>46248880 #>>46249298 #>>46249448 #>>46262849 #
pyrale ◴[] No.46248880[source]
> 1: How man reactors were built in the 1970s and are nearing end-of-life?

> The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the industry has existed. It was world class, but the institutional knowledge to bring it back to this quality does not exist and would need to be rebuilt for the new generation of reactors. And we are not even talking Generation 4 here.

The only reasonable conclusion from your logic is that it would have felt like an even worse idea to build nuclear reactors in the 1970's. Yet, using today's hindsight, it was a great idea.

Airbus would have been a terrible idea: no one had built commercial airliners before, and only the US had the know-how. Today, we know otherwise.

etc.

replies(4): >>46249103 #>>46249126 #>>46249210 #>>46252796 #
ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.46249103[source]
> The only reasonable conclusion from your logic is that it would have felt like an even worse idea to build nuclear reactors in the 1970's. Yet, using today's hindsight, it was a great idea.

If the competition was renewables and storage rather than plants running on imported oil during the oil crisis it would have been.

75% of all new capacity in TWh (I.e. adjusting for capacity factor.) globally are renewables and storage. There’s no need to swim against the river.

replies(1): >>46249508 #
mpweiher ◴[] No.46249508[source]
Intermittent renewables have capacity factors in the 10-20% range. So divide by 5.

34 nations have committed to tripling nuclear capacity, including the US, China, France, the UK and many others. And they are acting on this as well.

The tide is nuclear, no need to swim against it.

And no, countries also doing renewables in no way negates this.

replies(2): >>46253241 #>>46257808 #
1. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.46253241[source]
It is quite telling that you are spamming this entire submission with extremely strong opinions about how amazing nuclear power is, ignoring any contrary facts. Taking any mention of renewables close to a personal insult.

Then turning around and not understanding that ”TWh” is already adjusted for capacity factor.

In my eyes it is hard to take you seriously when you don’t comprehend even basic physical properties of our grid and energy systems. Let alone economics, timelines, opportunity cost etc.

replies(1): >>46254670 #
2. mpweiher ◴[] No.46254670[source]
Strangely enough, I happen to be one bringing facts, whereas you bring the strong opinions backed by...your strong opinions.
replies(2): >>46255046 #>>46265784 #
3. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.46255046[source]
You mean facts like that capacity factor is 10-20% of the produced TWh which is a physical measure already adjusted for capacity factor?
4. seec ◴[] No.46265784[source]
He just likes to argue to death as if his life depended on it. I picture him as an annoying, relentless mosquito.