Hacker News Reader

Comment by llsf | Hacker News Reader

As everyone mentioned there is no much prospection, and we are only scratching the surface.

And this is only counting with the old nuclear power plant designs. The current Gen3 and coming Gen4 do not need nearly as much as the previous generations. They squeeze more juice out. (source: https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/academy/pdfs/nucl...)

We might unfortunately (because of the chaos that it will create) ran out of oil before uranium.

Fossil fuel crunch will eventually happen, and it would not be pretty, unless we electrify most of our economies (source: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/U...) and replace all the fossil fuel based production... This is the national security issue that every country should put as a priority.

View on HN

The need to electrify the economy is why nuclear is so bad, it simply can't compete on cost even.

This article is about a power plant that cost £46Billion and nameplate of 3260 MW

Assuming 100% load factor for the plant (looks like 70-80% is more common but I'll be generous) that's 28,557,600MWh per year. Or a cost of £1610 per MWh per year.

Taking just one of the latest wind farm in UK South Kyle Wind Farm, Cost £38Million with a nameplate of 240MW.

Assuming 10% load factor (30% is common but I'll be pessimistic for this case).

That's 210,240MWh per year,(2400.1 24 * 365) that's £180 per MWh per year, (Life span differences of wind(30 year expected) vs nuclear(40-60) could increase the cost of the wind by up to double if you took the worst case but I've already given a 3x disadvantage on load factor) Even with the deck stacked in nuclear's favour it's 10x more expensive than wind, you will simply never migrate a factory using thermal gas with the cost of electricity made by nuclear.

Edit: also Flamanville 3 in france costs are better but still so much worse than wind, 13billion Euro(~11Billion GBP) for 1600MW nameplate, comes out for 713gbp per MWh per year, still 3x worse than wind.

There is some premium to be paid to choose when you get the electricity and when you decide it is a convenient time to shut down for maintenance.

If the alternative is having no lights and no industry operating the extra cost of dispatchable power pales in comparison to the losses due to blackouts.

The need to electrify the economy has more to do with peak fossil fuel or level of CO2 in atmosphere, than nuclear.

Comparing nuclear and wind is a bit apples and oranges. One is intermetent and one is not. The lifespans are different too, as nuclear usually last 60 to 80 years, when wind farm is 30 years. As mentioned in the article the cost of nuclear is artificially inflated, like for redundant safety measures, and specifically in UK by the financing used (most of the cost come from interest).

We need to build cheaper and more nuclear power plants, and more wind farms too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com