Hacker News Reader

Comment by uecker | Hacker News Reader

Nuclear economics doesn't work. China just pulled out from Hinkley Point C. EDF made record losses and sits on an ancient fleet and is being renationalized. Westinghouse went bankrupt over two projects. NuScales project just got canceled because - surprise - cost was too high. Really, nuclear looks good on paper but simply is as a technology far too complex and costly.

View on HN

It is very hard, yes. A lot of things in the regulations probably have to change because the technology works in reality, as opposed to wind and solar, which only works intermittently. We see news like these when there's a lot of wind power, but nothing when we use coal, oil and gas in its stead. Why is that? Ask yourself that question.

Opting for even more wind implies the need for backup coal power. Also: a lot of wind economics is pure bs in the sense that they calculate lifetimes that are completely bogus as well as the fact that they, themselves, are not recyclable in the slightest. This is a bubbly/ boomy economy.

I do not have to ask myself the question: I follow energy policy closely and also look at actual data. Of course, we need a solution for time when there is no wind or solar. But this - very obviously - will not be nuclear. Nuclear is far too expensive and everybody who only blames this on regularization only is delusional. The solution will be demand shaping, storage, and gas peakers and this will be driven and optimized by market forces.

Also: What is bullshit are estimates for nuclear cost: Projects are started with clearly "optimistic" ideas about cost and end up being completely over budget and it never works without the tax or rate payer footing the bill. Wind, on the other hand is now a huge industry which would not have the growth rates it has even the economics wouldn't work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com