Hacker News Reader

> It costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular.

One of my primary concerns with nuclear power is that it's very much dependent on the actual order of things carrying on as usual, meaning stable Governments, skilled technicians available etc. What would have happened if Syria (a secular state until not that long ago) had had civilian nuclear plants? Answer: they would most probably have fallen under the hands of either ISIS or an Al-Qaida offshoot. We had the same issue after the Soviet Union collapsed. Had the political uncertainty and power vacuum continued for much longer into the '90s then nobody knows what could have happened to their civil nuclear plants.

How is this more concerning than the raw amount of weapons that a lying around everywhere? Giving them access to cheap power or a potential local weapon doesn't seem like that pressing of an issue.

> How is this more concerning than the raw amount of weapons that a lying around everywhere?

Is this a serious question? Conventional weapons are a lot less deadly if captured by the wrong people compared to nuclear-based installations.

If someone has the tech to convert nuclear fuel to weapons, they are a short step from converting raw ore to nuclear weapons.

You don't necessarily need to convert the nuclear fuel to weapons, you just need to blow the whole thing up, which ISIS is more than capable of doing, and then see how the winds carry the radio-active clouds 3,000 km away. For example see this map: http://i.imgur.com/zlRGSs3.jpg , more especially Austria.

They're not. The power of nuclear weapons is like 1% the fuel, 99% complex electronics you need to have them actually detonate with meaningful yield.

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at but the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima (the "gun" design, Little Boy) did not rely on complex electronics.

It also required quite a lot of fissile material and wasn't all that powerful. Dropped on lower Manhattan, it wouldn't even reach midtown Manhattan. See for yourself at http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/. I was actually quite surprised to realize that a "city" in 1940s was something much smaller than what we call a city today.

The point I'm aiming at is that nuclear weapons are (still) something expensive, hard to make, and useful only for nation states with large military budgets. Going for dirty bombs would be a better strategy for terrorists.

The second point I'm aiming at is that nuclear is not as scary as Hollywood seems to have made us believe.

I'd venture to guess that most people would regard the quarter of a million people dead and billions in property damage from an airburst over Manhattan (what that site indicates would happen with a Little Boy-style device) as quite significant. Losing the NYSE might just possibly have a small effect on the overall economy, as well.

> The point I'm aiming at is that nuclear weapons are (still) something expensive, hard to make, and useful only for nation states with large military budgets.

The fissile material is quite expensive, and requires a state-level actor's resources or cooperation to create or obtain. You're not going to take fuel directly out of a reactor and use it in a proper bomb. If that's the point you were trying to make, okay.

On the other hand, a simple bomb is not difficult to make given the necessary, weapons-grade material. I cannot even imagine why you think a terrorist organization would not find such a device useful.

Chernobyl killed 38 people directly, and led to a moderate increase in cancer rates. I'd say 1000 bullets could outkill it.

The concern for me is that a nuclear power plant and its associated spent fuel storage pools are a facility that requires an unwavering commitment to maintenance and upkeep by highly specialized personnel—not just for as long as you want power out of it, but for decades beyond.

Coal isn't like this. If you stop needing power, you stop feeding it coal, and the machinery can sit there idle, doing no further harm.

I'm not a coal-booster, but I absolutely see the concern about regime change and commitment to the safety of a nuclear installation. Between Trump and Brexit, how confident are we that even first world nations are capable of taking on the long term responsibility for such a project?

"Between Trump and Brexit, how confident are we that even first world nations are capable of taking on the long term responsibility for such a project?"

Extremely.

This post did nothing to advance the conversation. There's nothing thought invoking, no statistics, and no argument. Please provide substance to your posts in the future.

WKUK did a skit on this; well, more a commentary on the social/political contract, but still related and amusing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM

That was a fantastic video! Thanks for sharing it.

While the parent comment essentially reflects my view over the last few years, your points above are what I have come to understand more recently, so I am a bit conflicted about what the best way forward is.

In addition, I think that pragmatism requires us to acknowledge that nuclear has too much of an image problem for it to be a serious contender for new investment in many countries. That investment will come up against all sorts of political and social pushback. Such pushback could blow out the time to build a new plant yet again, compounding your point about renewables/storage progress that occurs in the meantime. Germany is shutting down its few nuclear plants in favour of new coal ones. If that doesn't demonstrate an image problem, I don't know what does. It sucks, but it's the reality of the situation.

I think those countries that have succeeded with nuclear power over the last few decades have done well, and should continue. Electricity prices in France are very cheap compared to Germany (I've lived in both places recently), and their emissions from power generation are tiny compared to their neighbours: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/el... . I wish my country, Australia, had jumped on board with nuclear decades ago. We have the uranium, we have the space, and we have a horrid attachment to coal that we need to be rid of.

But for countries like Australia without an existing nuclear apparatus, its difficult to justify the investment when there are much more politically acceptable places for that money to go, with much quicker results. Places which are rapidly decreasing in cost, and are part of an industry currently undergoing massive research and investment across the world, guaranteeing further improvements.

The flip side for me, though, is that even 50 years from now when renewables and storage are prevalent and fantastic, we will still need some form of base load power. We don't want it to be coal. But then, how many governments bother planning for the long term future these days? Mine sure as hell doesn't.

> pragmatism requires us to acknowledge that nuclear has too much of an image problem

That's a cop out or a serious mark against democracy. Energy is fundamental to civilization. Making the wrong move in this domain can put a society at a permanent disadvantage to others. If nuclear is indeed a better option, the pragmatic path is to pitch the evidence.

You make a good point. But one should add that:

A) Nuclear power is not available to all countries

B) No country operates in isolation. so e.g. if Australia decided to convert 100% to nuclear energy but other countries opposed it, they could impose sanctions (e.g.)

The NPT gives all countries the right to civilian nuclear power in exchange for an inspection regime.

Interesting point! I had not known that the NPT gave access to Nuclear energy to signatories.

Representative democracy is all about the acknowledgement of different views, so policies are often compromises or cop-outs. So not only is it both, it is an acknowledgement of recent history and current attitudes in various countries around the world.

More broadly, I can think of two notable examples from the past twelve months where strong democracies made insanely bad decisions despite strong evidence suggesting they shouldn't.

From an Australian perspective, we've had multiple long-term initiatives implemented by a government only to have the opposition rail against them (and eventually, repeal them) for no real reason beyond party differentiation. Long term projects often can't survive election cycles.

With renewables and storage we seem to have an active industry with broad support across the populace, and the only real political differentiation involved is at what pace to set. Having something we can actually do right now seems wiser than trying to get something off the ground which has a strong chance of going nowhere.

Yes, our democracies are quite broken. We need to try and make progress regardless, because we can't sit and wait around until they're working better.

Just a side thought: I wonder if the decommissioning of nuclear power plants might also partially be explained by an (at least perceived) increased risk of domestic terrorism? They're single points of failure, and they fail in spectacular fashion, making them excellent targets for someone wanting to cause havoc and terror.

They are also very well protected. The concrete reactor shields in Germany are designed to contain the core even if a figher jet flies into the reactor building at full speed (and have been designed that way for ages, way before 2001). The power plants and storage sites are more heavily guarded than just about any other areas in the country including military bases, so it's not possible to drive a truck with explosives up to the reactor building either.

It is way easier to commit attacks using chemical weapons or anthrax or conventional bombs, or to set off a dirty bomb with imported radioactive material than to breach a western European nuclear plant.

> It is way easier to commit attacks using chemical weapons or anthrax or conventional bombs, or to set off a dirty bomb with imported radioactive material than to breach a western European nuclear plant.

Unless you happen to be one of the recent terrorists who committed attacks in Europe, and be employed in a nuclear powerplant.

Then things can quickly go wrong.

I would imagine the vetting process is rather extensive.

Yet an IS terrorist worked at a nuclear powerplant. This wasn't hypothetical — this actually happened.

>You can't commission it in 100MW increments.

IANANS (..Not a Nuclear Scientist ) but this seems like a feature, not a bug.

While Solar and other renewables are pretty awesome and we should continue investing in them, I also think it makes a LOT of sense to invest in nuclear energy, get off dirty coal completely (e.g. France) and then transition from Nuclear to other sources as and when they become available. Because right now the biggest greenhouse gas emissions (AFAIK) are from coal power plants and vehicles; the latter we seem to have a promising solution (electric vehicles).

Coal is more or less already dead. US production dropped from near 60% in late 80's to under 40% now in part because it's too expensive vs Wind and not flexible. Paying even more per KWH for even less flexible generation is a nonstarter unless it can very quickly respond to shifting demand. Especially with how long these plants need to last.

At this point safety is a non issue with nuclear it just needs dramatically lower costs or somewhat lower costs and vastly increased flexibility. The problem is heat engines cool down when you stop producing power and they both have huge thermal loads vs natural gas.

And why is all that? Red tape and bureaucracy, while the world literally burns. If the same rules applied to coal or even gas burning generators the cost would exceed that.

Nuclear power stations are extremely modular, there are at least twenty of them circling australian waters as I type. I'm going to go out on a limb and venture that you will find less coal and solar powered submarines than that.

These issues are not technical, they are political, and rooted in irrational bullshit propagated by stupid and irresponsible people.

> And why is all that? Red tape and bureaucracy, while the world literally burns.

Can I ask what specific requirements surrounding the development and operation around nuclear plants constitutes red tape in your opinion? My understanding is that most of the regulations concerning operation are in place to ensure the possibility of a disaster is minimized to nil.

> These issues are not technical, they are political

As expressed in my above comment, I would argue that nuclear power's problems are neither technical nor political, but nearly totally economic in nature. It's on the losing side of current trends.

You can start by listing everything required from a nuclear blueprint, that is not required of a coal blueprint. A industry that kills hundreds of thousands of people a year operating within 'acceptable' constraints, as I said. "Minimising disaster to nill" is a absolute and ridiculous fallacy, require the same of coal and see what the costs tally to.

We are past the point where we can entertain fictions like "economics" and "trends" and treat them like they were carved from the gaze of Kek on the buttoks of the whore of Babylon, towering over the trembling spirit of powerless men. Seriously "trends" "economics" wtf does that even mean ?

A plane hitting a coal plant has a vastly different threat potential than a plane hitting a nuclear fission plant, just as one example where just because both structures are "power plants", it doesn't mean there aren't different safety requirements, even if you remove all the "red tape".

Does it? Who told you that, or is it simply something you believe because its "obvious".

Chernobyl's second reactor is happily churning away in the middle of a wildlife paradise. If that is what the world's worst nuclear disaster has come to then I think we can have a good hard look at why a nuclear plant costs tens of billions of dollars, the majority costs sunk into compliance. Compliance required and inspired by irrational fears.

How about you start to provide some sources that show that current security measures are indeed purely bureaucratic, irrational vestiges and not actually required. Also, your tone is not appreciated and unnecessary in a discussion like this

This [0] is an F-4 hitting a concrete wall and was used to inform the design of containment walls around reactors.

Would there be some shitty days for people and things outside the containment wall? You bet! But there wouldn't be any shitty nuclear days. In fact, I suspect radioactivity release would be worse with a coal plant crash as it would release the nasty stuff that we do manage to scrub out of the exhaust.

[0] https://youtu.be/RZjhxuhTmGk

> I'm going to go out on a limb and venture that you will find less coal and solar powered submarines than that.

To be fair, submarines are an entirely different use case compared to public energy grid generation. The former requires high power density with low weight. Coal and solar don't tend to deliver that underwater. Nuclear is indeed one of the top choices for a submarine. The economic point I'm making isn't applicable twenty thousand leagues under the sea.

But it is applicable for conventional energy grid generation, and it performs poorly compared to solar and battery storage, so much so that the world is currently building several large nuclear power plant's worth of capacity annually with solar alone.

"Nuclear power isn't agile. It has poor reactivity to future market changes. It costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular. You can't commission it in 100MW increments."

If you read the article you'll see that this company plans to produce modular reactors starting at only 5 MW.

Many of the innovative new nuclear startups, like ThorCon and Terrestrial Energy have similar plans. Also, since the plan is to mass produce standardized reactors a whole lot of the regulatory burden associated with the current approach of "one off" construction is avoided.

"A solar power plant requires a dozen handy men and a couple of electrical engineers to maintain, a nuclear power plant requires a few dozen nuclear engineers."

The next generation of modular nuclear reactors will require few or no specialists constantly on site. They also don't require water cooling, so siting options are much more flexible.

"Solar power doesn't have publicly socialized decommissioning or waste storage costs."

Solar power does have externalities having to do with mining, processing and manufacturing. Also, solar requires large tracts of land at utility scale, is intermittent, and unsuitable at higher latitudes. It is currently a good bit more expensive than nuclear will be once modular reactors are being produced.

Solar has significant downsides.

Marine nuclear reactors are pretty small, so you could commission nuclear power in small increments. I guess it's not typically done this way because the red tape overhead for a new nuclear plant is so huge that you want a big reactor to make the effort worthwhile.

No it's because marine reactors require highly enriched uranium to get the power density to weight ratio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Diff...

As you might guess, highly enriched uranium is trivial to make "dirty bombs" out of and a small step away from actual fission bombs. So it's avoided like plague in nuclear engineering unless it's absolutely performance critical and will be used in a highly secure place - like naval submarines & aircraft carriers.

Not only dirty bombs, but actual nuclear weapons. With the more than 90% highly enriched uranium found in submarines, you can make a Hiroshima-type gun assembly device without much technical sophistication.

I'm no nuclear engineer, but I assume that it's not too hard to make the reactors slightly bigger and refuel them more often for civilian purposes.

Wonder if you've read the famous Paper Reactors Real Reactors paper:

http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf

But this way of thinking has kept back nuclear Energy for the past 3 decades already. 3 decades have past with no investment in nuclear energy research because 'the next technology is right around the corner'

Can anyone argue the expected payoff of a 10b investment in nuclear energy vs a 10b investment in energy storage?

That is just the biggest amount of misinformation and SV bias I have seen in a long time! The hole point in nuclear is that it is cheap and fast to implement by GW/h, the first nuclear power plant (Shippingport) became online in 1958, by 1978 15% of all US energy on the grid was from nuclear plants. It is modular, can be made near the consumption center, it is baseload, high density, virtually zero CO2 equivalence and historically safer than building houses.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...

No, you are wrong. It takes longer than 10 years to permit/build a new nuclear plant and it costs over $1 billion. It is the exact opposite of cheap and fast.

This is about grid generation, so as I said: by GW/h. With solar and wind you have to store and over provision.. there are lots of studies on the cost of replacing nuclear power with solar and wind (just Google "nuclear vs solar price"), even with the current financing mechanisms that solar and wind have (against the over regulation and interest that nuclear has) nuclear is still a order of magnitude cheaper, that is why China is so heavily invested in nuclear as we speak.

Modular nuclear energy:

http://www.nuscalepower.com/