Hacker News Reader

Comment by LatteLazy | Hacker News Reader

Not if you could get the same economy out another much cheaper way. Which you can.

Everything has trade-offs, there is no simply "better" option on the table, every option sucks. Fossil fuels have co2 emissions, price fluctuations and energy security as issues (as seen with Russia today who weaponised their supply), renewables have consistency problems which is problematic until we solve our energy storage issues, nuclear has massive issues around waste and runtime danger and hydro is limited by geography.

You're not wrong, but that's not my point. If people want to spend money on X, that's up to them. But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. So as soon as people want to pretend it is an "investment" there very much is a simple better option: whatever costs less and generates more revenue. On that basis Nuclear is never the right answer.

> But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit.

If that is the bar you're going to use for "investment", then no power generation spending is ever an investment. Not coal, not batteries, not geothermal, not renewables, nothing...

Because none of the above make their cash back plus a profit; they're all subsidised by taxpayers.

This is pedantry, and incorrect at that. To invest in something simply means to spend some resources and expect a material result. Energy independence, carbon neutrality, scientific progress, etc. are all material results one could hope for while "investing".

If you think another form of energy production is better, that's a perfectly reasonable objection. Twisting the discussion into a debate over the precise definition of "investment" is silly.

You’re taking too narrow a definition.

Investment:

> Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit.

Invest:

> to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return

> to make use of for future benefits or advantages invested her time wisely

> to involve or engage especially emotionally were deeply invested in their children's lives

Clearly you can outlay capital now for a future benefit tomorrow that isn’t just your original capital back + the investment. Making sure you’re energy supply is stable so that your economy is working better and your national security is a bit more stable seems like a clear ROI even if you don’t make your capital back + profit directly (it does have potential indirect financial benefits too though).

Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale.

Things presumably look slightly different in Japan, but this is looking like political rather than an economic decision. Right this moment they have some cover to save the industry even if little is going to change any time soon.

Last numbers I looked at had nuclear much more profitable than solar, especially during winter, hence why China is currently installing 20 new reactors, with a goal for much more in the future.

China has been adding VASTLY more solar than nuclear. 20 new reactors is only something like 5GW/year because of how long it takes to build nuclear.

Sure, but why do you think they'd adding both? Solar for intermittent, and nuclear for base.

Finite manufacturing capacity is a factor.

5GW / year @ 90% capacity factor ~= 3 million 200W panels @ 30% capacity factor + 40-60GWh of batteries. It’s not completely equivalent, but they both need roughly the same amount of peaking power plants to make up the difference.

Plus Solar’s costs are front loaded, with China’s rapidly growing economy they can ignore decommissioning or even long term operating costs as largely irrelevant.

> Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale.

That's interesting. Two queries: Are they real world numbers or projections vs real numbers? And are they done in the sort of setup that we have in the UK, where renewable is soft-subsidised by always winning the bids for demand when it's available, and non-renewable gets what's left.

Those are LCOE marginal numbers that don't consider systems costs like overbuilding capacity to charge batteries, extra transmission, long-term backup capacity, etc.

LCOE is unrelated to systems costs.

> LCOE is unrelated to systems costs.

Yeah, imagine how great it will be when we can dimension the electricity grid for the average consumption rather than peak due to distributed generation and storage.

> nuclear has massive issues around waste

The waste issue has been solved.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/24/deep-bore...

I wouldn't consider the existence of a start-up proof that a problem has been solved, especially given the need of hyping one's own product (and possibly downplaying any remaining challenges) as a nascent organisation.

This isn't new stuff[0], just made more affordable by some technology from the fracking industry. It's Yucca Mountain without the mountain.

[0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-j...

[0-1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal

Sure but until it is actually utilised and proven to work on the scales required for existing nuclear deployments it still remains an estimate and not a precise cost.

Now do grid scale batteries. "Renewables" have the same issue and are looked at rather uncritically. We dig boreholes like this on a regular basis, all that's left is tossing the waste containers in.

I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. The real problem is the cost and complexity of construction, which could be solved with mini reactors where the technology is still not quite there for mass production. The licensing is also a problem at least in some countries, as getting a permit is very difficult it makes sense to only build massive power plants.

> I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated.

I don't. Current estimates for the dismantlement of Sellafield in the UK is £121 billion and that figure is likely somewhat lower than the final cost.

Given that most proposals are created in order to be accepted there is a high chance the total costs of the plant (including decommissioning) are understated.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantl...

Reading the article, you can see why it's not an honest example to back up your point. Sellafield was built partly without decommissioning in mind, it was originally used for something else (making plutonium for weapons) and still has 140 tonnes of that plutonium on site. It was built with world war 3 in mind. It's not a modern nuclear reactor.

Sellafield has more unknowns that most, but I doubt it's been underbid. I think nuclear proposals undergo a great deal of scrutiny and are some of the most cost-complete in existence. Hinkley Point C in the UK, its masterful government negotiation aside, has I believe a total lifetime cost of around £40bn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com