[HN Gopher] Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant? ___________________________________________________________________ Why is the nuclear power industry stagnant? Author : spekcular Score : 31 points Date : 2022-05-21 21:47 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (austinvernon.site) (TXT) w3m dump (austinvernon.site) | missedthecue wrote: | Probably for the same reason we don't see massively expanding | horse carriage industry. Nuclear is on the way out despite | enormous government subsidies. Just fundamentally too burdensome, | expensive, and outcompeted by modern tech. | sto_hristo wrote: | Actually that "modern tech" of yours is the subsidized one. | President Obama was basically trumpeting how many new and | awesome futuristic jobs those solar parks will create when the | government unleashes the cash flood. | | Nothing competes with nuclear. It's just pure physics - atom is | the biggest source of energy on this planet according to | current physics. Whoever can't agree with that reality fact | should see a psychiatrist. | | Despite all the obstacles, nuclear constantly develops and will | continue to do so, because market. | | Industries can't run on calculator batteries. Sorry. | missedthecue wrote: | Not sure what you mean by "nothing competes with them". There | are fewer nuclear power stations in the world than there were | five years ago, and there will be fewer in five years than | there are today. Hardly anyone wants to build them anymore. | They just don't make sense. | matthewdgreen wrote: | I think you would benefit from reading TFA. It looks at the | actual operating costs of current designs and the dropping | price of renewables and points out that the fundamental | economics of the nuclear industry are not great right now, | and points out that most of the high-priced daytime usage is | about to be scooped up by renewables. This may or may not be | fatal to the nuclear industry, but it points to the need for | substantial innovation or subsidies. | sto_hristo wrote: | Sorry. Largest power density is still in the atom. Can't | work your magic around this. The only reasonable and sane | strategy is to R&D around nuclear. Whoever gets it right | will rule, the others will be ruled. Not single bubble kept | its integrity; renewables will burst as well. | ncmncm wrote: | Wishing doesn't work. | ncmncm wrote: | Running only at night makes each kWh twice as costly, | because a nuke costs almost the same, producing or not. | | Same is true of renewables, but the cost is enormously | lower. | neonsunset wrote: | "Modern tech" is still vastly inferior to nuclear power. Think | of it as humanity scoring a roll of the dice to discover 22nd | century technology in the 20th. | missedthecue wrote: | Depends what you mean by "inferior". A horse-drawn carriage | has less carbon emissions than an automobile, doesn't it? | However, that's not the sole criteria. | PaulHoule wrote: | Energy crises are caused by cheap energy. When energy is cheap | people use a lot and stop investing in new sources. The resulting | crisis causes high energy prices which causes people to be more | efficient and to invest in new energy sources. It takes 20 or 30 | years for this to play out. (mid 1970s, early 2000s, current | 2022) | | Each cycle leaves behind a tranche of books that reprise the last | crisis, with the interesting effect that the literature often | looks like a stopped clock. | | One bit of stoppage is that people still compare nuclear to coal, | although coal has been uneconomical in North America since the | 1980s. One issue is that a coal burning plant (like a current | nuclear plant) has a huge steam turbine that's more than 10 times | the size of gas turbines used for aircraft engines and for | generating power from natural gas. | | It's no accident therefore that we stopped building coal and | nuclear plants _at the same time._ The Amory Lovins "soft energy | path" was not a transition to renewables but rather a transition | to methane. | | There's not just the capital cost of the steam turbine but also | the cost of the heat exchangers, if you look here | | https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html | | the image is roughly to scale and you see that there are multiple | "steam generators" that individually are as large as the reactor | vessel and are every bit as safety critical as the reactor vessel | because a breakage could lead to a loss of coolant accident. | | The cost of the heat handling parts is substantial enough that | even if the cost of the core was zero and the heat was free the | LWR would still struggle to compete. | | A reactor that runs at higher temperature using liquid metal, | liquid salt, or a gas coolant like helium, could drive a Brayton | cycle gas turbine powerset which would fit inside the employee | break room of the turbine house of an LWR. | | Of course it's tricky: we have quite a bit of experience with | liquid metal reactors, and a little bit with other types. The | closed-cycle gas turbine however is a work in progress | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-cycle_gas_turbine | ncmncm wrote: | This is why geothermal has not taken off. Anything that needs a | steam turbine needs very expensive periodic maintenance. | | All the other nuke expenses just add to that. | SemanticStrengh wrote: | Because it hasn't yet heard about Nitinol | version_five wrote: | I don't think it's stagnant. I continue to see stuff like small | modular reactors making progress. The obvious reason why it | doesn't get more play is because it doesn't serve anybody's | political goals. Renewables and carbon taxes or other measures to | try and reduce quality of life (or opposition to those) get | attention because they have good political value. Actually | spending money and generating sustainable power, not much you can | do with that, it doesn't match an ideology. Same with carbon | capture and storage. There are good technical motivations to | climate change, they just don't have a political champion. | PaulHoule wrote: | Carbon taxes are something separate from the technology. In | fact, carbon taxes would drive adoption of better technology. | | For instance it is completely practical to run the output of a | fossil fuel power plant through | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_gas_treating | | compress the CO2 to 1500 psi and inject it underground into a | saline aquifer. Hardly anybody does it because it's expensive | and nobody pays them to do it. | | If there was a carbon tax that made it uneconomical to not do | that, or if there was a subsidy for pumping carbon underground | then people would do it. | | It is all the same for nuclear power, extensions of renewables | and other technologies that aren't profitable on their own. | | It is a deal with the devil however to do so because it is a | withdrawl from the government's legitimacy bank account. It's | certain that any carbon trading system is going to lead to a | few carbon traders getting rich and them feeding back 1% of | their profits to politicians to keep their privileges. It's | less certain that the planet gets saved. | | It seems to be a more realistic plan to develop a technological | revolution that really is cheaper than the alternatives... | Because then you've saved the planet and the job is done | | https://www.moltexenergy.com/ | Retric wrote: | Small modular reactors don't actually solve any significant | issues for the nuclear industry. Construction costs are dwarfed | by operating costs and the idea that N small reactors with N | times as many parts will somehow require less maintenance is | wishful thinking. | | They very well could be slightly cheaper over the first 15 | years, but nuclear reactors are designed for ~50 year lifespans | and are really expensive to decommission. | | Look at say Palo Verde it's close to 4GW with a 82.80% lifetime | capacity factor, but needs 2,055 full-time employees and that's | the best case. | PaulHoule wrote: | That's totally wrong about operating vs construction costs. | | Nuclear plants are cheap to run once you have them built, but | they are expensive to build when everything goes right and | frequently they don't. | | There has been a lot of hand-wringing about the costs of the | nuclear fuel cycle and frankly it's a bit ridiculous. For | instance, they were expecting Yucca Mountain to cost $100 | billion to run back when they were planning to run it. | | People look at that and think "that's a lot of money" but a | nuclear reactor makes about $500 million worth of electricity | a year so that is 2 years worth of electricity from the 100 | reactors that operate in the US. | | (It's more absurd that we'd bury nuclear waste in Yucca | Mountain when 98% of the energy content of the fuel remains | in the waste! A reprocessing cycle would cost "more" but not | much compared to the capital cost of building the reactors.) | Retric wrote: | > cheap to run | | 2000 staff represents well over 10 billion dollars in just | salary over 50 years. Add in replaced equipment, fuel, | insurance, etc and it's a _long_ way from cheap. | | The assumption they are cheap to operate simply doesn't | hold up even the most basic investigation. | PaulHoule wrote: | 4 GW * 50 years is about $100 billion worth of | electricity. | TrispusAttucks wrote: | Nuclear is not popular because the fossil fuel industry co-opt | the environmentalist to fight on their behalf. We should have | better developed nuclear for the last few decades and we would be | in a much better energy posture. Especially for an EV future. | nimbius wrote: | investment cost and payoff. a gas turbine plant can deliver | returns in as little as six years and requires minimal oversight. | a nuclear plant may take as long as 30 years before it returns a | profit, and it lives under a government regulatory and security | magnifying glass. | | personal opinion but the modern american investor has no patience | for anything but instant profits. nuclear could be great but the | executives you have to convince are all well familiar with and | scarred by their 60 year old reactors. | mjfl wrote: | no one ever mentions nuclear proliferation risk associated with | the production of plutonium. | fsflover wrote: | https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | it does get mentioned, and you can have nuclear power without | producing plutonium. | SemanticStrengh wrote: | Russophobia aside, the next-gen russian nuclear model (first | exporter in the world, of nuclear plants) is built in 3.5 years, | which is state of the art. And at the same time has a high | throughput (1300MWe) (much higher than the billion dollar mini- | reactor fad) and state of the art longevity. It's very difficult | for me to find the actual prices, of the different nuclear plants | models competitors, but since most of the cost is construction | cost and 3.5 year is SOTA, I assume, if Russia price them | reasonably that this will shift the balance of nuclear energy | competitivity worldwide. (china nuclear is already price | competitive however they don't export (yet?)) | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER#VVER-TOI If anyone has | more info on those seemingly disruptive VVER-TOI, please share | likecarter wrote: | No EU or CANZAUKUS country would import a Russian design in the | current environment or foreseeable future, as the Russians will | be the ones to have the expertise to maintain it. | formerkrogemp wrote: | It's too expensive to build anything nuclear. Especially these | days. Also NIMBYism and fossil fuel interests and antinuclear | activists. | ncmncm wrote: | By the time anything could be finished, much cheaper renewables | will render any such plant redundant. Spending $billions on a | plant that will be cancelled partway is unappealing. None of | the money is ever given back. | acidburnNSA wrote: | Nuclear engineer here. If you want a deep dive into US reactor | development, I wrote this up on a vacation. | | https://whatisnuclear.com/reactor_history.html | | My take on the economics is here | | https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html | | And waste here https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html | SemanticStrengh wrote: | Do you have news on Westinghouse? Is had filled bankruptcy, did | they survive? how? Are they in maintenance mode or do they | pursue evoltution of their models? China has bought their | patent and is in the process of upscaling the original | Westinghouse design, is westinghouse still collaborating with | china? Have they abandoned their own models? It seems according | to their website they are joining the small reactor fad.. | sb057 wrote: | The fact that nuclear power regulators are routinely anti-nuclear | power probably isn't helping things. | | https://www.powermag.com/blog/former-nuclear-leaders-say-no-... | | >Dr. Greg Jaczko, former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory | Commission Prof. Wolfgang Renneberg, former Head of the Reactor | Safety, Radiation Protection and Nuclear Waste, Federal | Environment Ministry, Germany Dr. Bernard Laponche, former | Director General, French Agency for Energy Management, former | Advisor to French Minister of Environment, Energy and Nuclear | Safety | SemanticStrengh wrote: | It's a tragedy | ncmncm wrote: | I.e., the more you know about nukes, the less you like them. | evolve2k wrote: | Storing nuclear waste for 10,000+ years is also unpopular and no- | one wants it stored in their backyard and further does it add up | to put aside proper funds to steward waste for 10,000 years. | planetsprite wrote: | All nuclear waste ever produced in the US could be stored in an | area the size of a football field | ben_w wrote: | While true, this does not make it popular or lead to NIMBYs | changing their mind. How important this is varies by nation, | but it's not nothing in most places. | planetsprite wrote: | Nuclear power is unpopular because of media messaging. Coal | releases more radiation into the environment on average, | even accounting for Chernobyl and Fukushima. | 6581 wrote: | That's a rather meaningless assertion without stating how | high you'd need to stack it. | planetsprite wrote: | 30 feet | PaulHoule wrote: | Most of the waste is Uranium which can be put back into | reactors, the most dangerous long-lived element in the waste is | Plutonium which is also a good nuclear fuel. | | Remove those elements plus the higher actinides (Neptunium, | Americium, Curium, ...) and almost all of the radioactivity in | the fission products has decayed by 500 years... It's less | radioactive at that point than the Uranium ore was when it was | mined. | | Burying the fuel rods was a half-baked idea that was come up | with in a hurry in the 1970s because of racist fears that brown | people would learn to reprocess nuclear fuel and develop | nuclear weapons. Now we are facing the certain danger of get | fried by global warming as opposed to a hypothetical threat of | nuclear war. | civilized wrote: | Society has chosen not to meaningfully incentivize addressing | climate change. From that perspective, why not just continue | taking the free energy from the ground? (Or use solar and other | renewables, but only if cheaper.) Why bother with scary, | expensive nuclear? | jmyeet wrote: | This is a solid write-up. I particularly like this part: | | > Most fusion concepts are just a more complicated way to heat | water. | | It's kind of wild that our means of power production do | ultimately mostly boil down (pun intended) to turning a turbine | with steam and, as the article notes, this is an inherent cost | problem whereas solar is a direct form of energy. I hadn't really | thought about it in those terms but it's true. | | It's also kind of wild to consider that we want to heat up | hydrogen to a 100 million degrees... to boil water and turn a | turbine. | | I'll also highlight this: | | > As we've seen, traditional LWRs have a cost problem. That is | why the PR ignores costs or focuses only on operating costs. | | My own view: | | 1. There are several hundred nuclear power plants in the world. | Not one of them has been built without government assistance. | This goes to the capital cost issue; | | 2. Nuclear power plants take too long to plan, build and bring | online. IIRC it's at least 11 years; | | 3. We still don't have a good long-term plan for dealing with | processing waste at scale; | | 4. We still don't have a good long-term plan for dealing with | fuel waste at scale; and | | 5. I just don't trust humans, particularly within the corporate | structure, to build and operate nuclear power plants safely. The | temptation is simply too high to increase profits by cutting | costs. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-21 23:00 UTC)