Hacker News Reader

Comment by athms | Hacker News Reader

>Let's pretend that this is unequivocally true.

I don't have to pretend, it is true. Not a single nuclear plant in the United States has opened on time and on budget. Not a single one. In the 1950s, nuclear power was heralded as the cheapest electricity possible, so cheap that it would be almost free. Electricity generated from nuclear is about four times more expensive than solar and wind.

>Does your 'money pit' statement account for the benefits of reduced mortality and greenhouse emissions, or are you only thinking about the electric bill?

I don't live in fantasy land, somebody has to pay for it. I am already on the hook for PG&E's misdeeds.

Having tens of nuclear graveyards, especially close to population centers is not a good idea when California is covered with active faults. Nuclear needs water and lots of it. Perhaps you are not familiar with California.

View on HN

> I don't live in fantasy land, somebody has to pay for it.

Well, I hear that the air force has so much extra money sitting around that they are working on yet another fighter jet. Maybe we could dig in the military industrial couch cushions a bit. "Somebody has to pay for it" is not the same as "we can't afford it". We absolutely could afford it.

> Having tens of nuclear graveyards, especially close to population centers is not a good idea when California is covered with active faults.

Given that California currently gets a third of its power from entirely outside of the state, clearly it's possible to build them not directly on top of the fault lines.

> Nuclear needs water and lots of it. Perhaps you are not familiar with California.

Looking at a map, it seems California is right beside a fairly large body of water, the Pacific Ocean. Maybe you could place your thermal power plants by the coast rather than smack in the middle of Death Valley? Perhaps not coincidentally, both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants are sited right beside the ocean, and use(d) ocean water for cooling.

You concede you know nothing about California geography, climate, or politics.

Perhaps you should look at a fault map of California. Diablo, the only nuclear plant still operating, sits on an active fault that wasn't discovered until 2008. Not surprising, many new faults have been discovered recently. The Hollywood Fault was mapped in 2014 and many buildings in Los Angeles sit on it. Zoning was changed because of that discovery.

The coast of California is eroding through a combination of rising seas and sediment reduction. In 2010, an entire city block in Pacifica was red tagged because it was close to falling into the ocean. Many asked, why were these buildings allowed that close to the cliff? Well, in 1962 they were about fifty feet away.

Perhaps you should do some reading on the California Coastal Commission. The consensus is we need to retreat from the coast.

Let us imagine we can build magic nuclear plants. Where are we going to build them? Not Southern California. Well, maybe Camp Pendleton or Vandenberg, but that is federal land and they would be operated by the military. Maybe we can sneak one in the top of the northern coast near Oregon.

> You concede you know nothing about California geography, climate, or politics.

Says the person who was not aware California is right beside the biggest body of water on the planet.

> Perhaps you should look at a fault map of California. Diablo, the only nuclear plant still operating, sits on an active fault that wasn't discovered until 2008. Not surprising, many new faults have been discovered recently. The Hollywood Fault was mapped in 2014 and many buildings in Los Angeles sit on it. Zoning was changed because of that discovery.

Great. So when/if California builds a new nuclear plant, they can use the new information and not place it on top of a fault line. And earthquake-proof it as well, just to be sure.

> The coast of California is eroding through a combination of rising seas and sediment reduction. In 2010, an entire city block in Pacifica was red tagged because it was close to falling into the ocean. Many asked, why were these buildings allowed that close to the cliff? Well, in 1962 they were about fifty feet away.

How is that relevant wrt to siting a nuclear plant? Fifty feet in 50 years. So build the plant 500 feet away and make a tunnel for the cooling water.

> Perhaps you should do some reading on the California Coastal Commission. The consensus is we need to retreat from the coast.

If so, the incremental cost to build thermal power plants with dry cooling is not even a rounding error compared to the cost of moving cities with millions of inhabitants.

what could possibly go wrong?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

Can you cite any sources for this? And, the fact that a project didn't complete on time and within budget does not mean that is unprofitable for the rest of its lifetime.

> Electricity generated from nuclear is about four times more expensive than solar and wind

Does that cost comparison include the storage required to use the solar and wind at night, during dark winter days, etc?

Don’t blame nuclear for corrupt and incapable politicians in the US.

Nuclear plants are highly economic, at least outside the US. Every plant in Germany so far has already financed itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com