Comment by _n_b_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _n_b_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Nuclear has a useful role to play. But it is in decline.

In the US, absolute nuclear generation has been relatively stagnant over the last 10 years as plant shutdowns have been compensated by uprating other plants[1]. About 2.2 GW are coming online via the Vogtle 3 & 4 units, more updates are coming, and the Palisades unit may restart… so I think you’ll see that number creep up a bit. Existing nuclear is economical to run today and I expect basically every operating unit will try to get a further life extension to 80 years.

Worldwide, we’re in a nuclear boom as plants are being built in Europe, North Africa, S America, and Asia, and Japan is finally shifting back to a pro-nuclear stance and getting reactors back online. (I wish fewer of those new plants were VVERs, though.)

This is all before we see any major work starting on SMRs or advanced reactors—-some of those will certainly get built too.

[1] https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/us-nuclear-generati...

> Worldwide, we’re in a nuclear boom

This is not what a boom looks like: https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/18acef23-4f61-4e14-b66e-7...

and it won't be better if you have a closer look. Take Europe, for example. Nuclear plants over budget and overdue (France, UK), projects which are highly unlikely to be ever build (Poland), a rotting nuclear fleet (France) and a final exit in Germany.

Then there are all those plants in poor countries which depend on Russia.

And then there is China with their magically fast build reactors but also with massive coal and renewable construction.

Nuclear peaked years ago, and it's going to be a decline in the future since it is money in the end deciding the fate and nuclear isn't worth it.

Well according to the two graphgs for 2018 and 2019, nuclear declined a bit in the US. Not surprising because there were some plant closures and not a whole lot of plant openings. And nothing is on track to be added any time soon. Maybe one or two plants.

New nuclear is a bit like an oil tanker (pun intended, sorry): just very slow to ramp up new capacity. This boom you are talking about is so far not adding up to a lot of capacity being delivered. We're talking a few gw here and there. Solar and wind are being deployed by the tens of gw per year. Same with battery.

I believe we'll see some nuclear plants being approved for the next decade. And maybe these modular reactors start delivering on their promises. I still think they are expensive. But why not? Unless something happens on the cost front, that will remain a minority of useful output.

The pressure on the NRC to lighten up a bit is immense. I suspect we might see some significant acceleration, especially with the various electrification drives, coupled with the multitude of safe nuclear designs, and a general sense that “why is this so broken?” permeating everywhere that cares.

Congress is free to change the law that NRC must operate under. Until that happens, the NRC cannot "lighten up" (if they did so in violation of law, they'd be taken to court.)

They certainly can under executive privilege, and stuff is taken to court quite often. Waiting for congress to act is futile in this age sadly. In this age it’s a game of executive action with judicial review.

Solar capacity factor is typically between 10-25%, so "tens of GWs" doesn't go nearly as far.

I suppose we're going to see the nuclear debate play out as an A/B test with the US vs. the countries mentioned. Should be some interesting data eventually.

That's great news!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com