Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

It doesn't matter. Nuclear power generation is going nowhere because it's not economical and likely never will be.

Modular reactors make no sense because larger reactors are more efficient. Nuclera plants ultimately just boil water and turn a turbine to generate power, just like any coal palnt. Coal plants burn coal to generate heat. A nuclear plant simply has a nuclear pile that generates heat.

The failure modes are prohibitive. Just one incident (Fukushima) has a likely clean up cost of roughly $1 trillion [1] and will take decades, if not more than a century. Nearly 40 years later the absolutely exclusion zone for Chernobyl is still 1000 square miles.

Chernobyl is hand waved away as "poor Soviet construction and management". Fukushima is hand waved away too. Massive failures are hand waved away by talking in terms of deaths.

And, of course, fusion is a pipe dream.

[1]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku...

View on HN

Has worked out just fine for France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

The real cost (including public money) of it is mind-boggling, and a serious accident cannot be ruled out. If uranium becomes difficult to import France will badly suffer. Then problems induced by real decommission costs and waste long-term management will hit.

And yet, electricity prices in France are lower than other large European countries:

https://www.energycouncil.com.au/news/international-electric...

It has 58 nuclear power plants without any serious accidents in the past 50+ years. That's a pretty good record.

People always bring up Fukushima, but what killed ~20,000 people was the tsunami, not the reactor meltdown. The 2004 tsunami killed > 200,000 people. It hasn't stopped people worldwide from living near the coast.

> electricity prices in France are lower than other large European countries

Allow me to repeat: the taxpayer (France is the worldwide champ when it comes to taxes) pays a hefty part of it. See the Cour des comptes report published in 2012

At Fukushima the evacuation triggered by the nuclear major accident officially killed more than 2,200 persons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... ), moreover the cost of the cleanup is huge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup ). One hardly sees how any renewable-based plant, even exposed to a tsunami, would have triggered such evacuation or cleanup.

> the taxpayer (France is the worldwide champ when it comes to taxes) pays a hefty part of it.

I agree French taxes are high, but Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and that's just on the supply side. There are subsidies on the demand side as well for power and heating bills.

Also, if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question. Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant[0]

[0] https://selectra.info/energie/electricite/prix/europe

Frances energy costs are about as ideal as they could possibly get right now.

They have significant maintenance and decommissioning costs ahead of them. Right now it feels like they’re basically building up a form of debt, where they’re just hoping the nuclear power plants won’t experience unforeseen issues due to their age.

This has become problematic. They recently had to import energy from Germany for an extended period due to nuclear power plants being shut down. They’ve also had to temporarily shut some down due to heat.

Thermal power plants, especially old ones, are increasingly disadvantaged in a warming climate.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4a8

They also contribute directly to global warming (thermal forcing). Not a huge amount, but surprisingly significant. Shouldn’t shut them down as long as we’re using fossil fuels. But once those are cut the planet may be too warm for us to afford having thermal power plants. Every little bit counts when the climate is on the edge of total disaster

> Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry

We agree: this is inept. However we probably also agree on the goal (get rid of fossil fuels), therefore the question is about the approach: which proportion of nuclear and of renewable energy?

100% nuclear is impossible: not enough uranium, too expensive as it implies over-provisioning reactors which are financially potentially realistic only with a high load factor.

100% renewable is in balance: some think it can be done, other disagree.

Nearly all experts (see IEA, IPCC, McKinsey, Bloomberg...) predict that renewable will, once fossil fuels will be nearly dealt with, produce approximately 70% of our electricity (gridpower). This has a heavy implication for nuclear as it will reduce its load factor => its TCO will skyrocket.

> if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question.

This is IMHO certain, see the Cour des comptes' report. EDF history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc... ) provides many hints: jumpstarted by nationalisations (gifts!), immediately obtaining a monopoly (gift!), benefiting from military and fundamental research budgets (gifts!), very favorable loans from the gov, gov acting as a guarantor for market-provided loans, gov periodically injecting money and often not even obtaining its dividends (or obtaining as stock, that is to say at null value as most of the assets are nuclear plants which cannot be sold, along with huge debts...), speaking of debts: abyssal debts (approx 55 billions €, mid-2024)... not really a resounding success.

Moreover recent nuclear-reactor building projects are expensive failure (Finland, France, China, U.K.). In France the reactor was scheduled to be delivered in 2012 for approx 3,3 billions € and we are waiting for it in 2024 after dissipating around 20 billions €.

> Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant

This is only about electricity (not "energy": in France fossil fuel are very expensive) and its end-user price is only 22% less than the UE average («prix de l'électricité en moyenne inférieurs de 22 % à ceux pratiqués dans l'UE»).

About the Messmer Plan ("French nuclearization"): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...

All good points, and I'm not arguing that we should go full nuclear. But I'm still of the opinion that 100% renewable is an almost impossible target to meet (at least with current technologies) and that if we want to meet climate change targets, nuclear needs to be part of the mix. Not saying it'll be cheap, but the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels will be much more expensive.

> the evacuation triggered by the nuclear major accident officially killed more than 2,200 persons

that's not what the article you linked to says

Please search and find in its main framed concise exposé: "Deaths 1 confirmed from radiation (lung cancer, 4 years later), and 2,202 from evacuation."

Attributing deaths to nuclear power due to political choices makes no sense. These fatalities were completely unjustified and driven by baseless fears.

Besides, what is the point of counting deaths? In Germany, an estimated 1,100 deaths per year result from the use of fossil fuels to replace the shutdown of nuclear power plants.

https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/20/3/1311/6520438

Fatalities are strongly correlated with pollution, and deaths caused by hydroelectric power are significantly higher. Unfortunately, decarbonization is crucial. Otherwise, in the coming decades, we won't be discussing a few thousand deaths but several million.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Nuclear power often faces harsh criticism, being labeled the worst of all energy sources. However, this perception changes when it's compared in context with other sources. We are in a critical period and cannot afford to exclude any energy sources simply because we like them less than others.

> Attributing deaths to nuclear power due to political choices makes no sense. > These fatalities were completely unjustified

At Fukushima part of the nuclear was judged necessary due to the nuclear accident.plant There is nothing 'political' here (appart for the mere decision of building such a plant). Prime Minister Naoto Kan testified that, during the nuclear accident, experts calculated that the worst case would imply to evacuate up to Tokyo. You probably aren't an expert and weren't there at the time. They were.

If, instead of this plant, the field was occupied by wind-turbine or photovoltaic panels this part of the evacuation wouldn't be triggered. And this part of the evacuation officially caused 2200+ deaths.

Please note that N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy. On March 10, 2011, he felt assured that "nuclear power was safe and vital for Japan." After Fukushima he became hostile to nuclear power.

Like it or not, those a solid facts.

> Besides, what is the point of counting deaths?

It is one way to assess real risk, which in turn is one parameter when it comes to decide which set of types of energy source is the more adequate.

> In Germany, an estimated 1,100 deaths per year result from the use of fossil fuels to replace the shutdown of nuclear power plants.

Germany's quick nuclear phaseout is indeed debatable upon this perspective. The best way is IMHO to avoid fossil fuels and nuclear altogether.

> Fatalities are strongly correlated with pollution

Indeed. Nobody here advocates any fossil fuel.

> deaths caused by hydroelectric power are significantly higher > https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090

> We are in a critical period

Indeed.

> and cannot afford to exclude any energy sources

The challenge (climate...) is huge and our time and resources are scarce, therefore we have to prefer to most efficient ways. Nuclear isn't arbitrarily excluded, there are arguments against it (risk tied to accidents/waste/proliferation, dependency towards uranium, total cost...), alleviated by renewable sources.

> "In contrast to this, the subsequent decisions on 10km and 20km radii evacuation zones were not made on the basis of such knowledge. The 10km radius evacuation zone was decided solely for the reason that if venting was not implemented, and the pressure continued to build unchecked in the containment vessel, then it was not clear whether an evacuation zone with a radius of 3km would be adequate. A 10km radius zone was chosen simply because it was the maximum area for an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) as set out in the Disaster Prevention Plan; it was not decided on the basis of any kind of concrete calculations or rational grounds. As for the 20km-radius evacuation zone, due to the progression of the situation, including the hydrogen explosion in Unit 1, a radius of 20km was decided upon simply because of some people’s subjective opinions. This can hardly be called a rational decision."

As you can see, the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis. Refer to Page 63, Point 3 ("Baseless decisions on evacuation zones") of this report:

https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp...

I suggest you read the full report as it details not only these decisions but also issues with communication, hierarchy, and more. The report highlights human fallibility and the impact of illogical fear, while saying very little about nuclear power itself.

> Please note that N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy. On March 10, 2011, he felt assured that "nuclear power was safe and vital for Japan." After Fukushima he became hostile to nuclear power.

In what way personal opinions should be relevant, besides we are talking about the same person who made the disaster, it seems human to me to point the finger at nuclear power and not himself. He is trying to defend himself.

> This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090

Your arguments are self-contradictory. You explain how the Fukushima problem is due to nuclear power, yet argue that dam-related fatalities are not the fault of dams. Either I misunderstand your argument, or you are confused. The dam directly caused those fatalities, whereas at Fukushima, the poor decisions of individuals led to unnecessary deaths. Even without an evacuation plan, the fatalities would have been fewer.

Regardless, even when adding Fukushima’s evacuation deaths to the count, nuclear remains safer than dams. So, why should dams be acceptable and nuclear not? The numbers show that nuclear is inherently safe, making the "safety of nuclear" discussion irrelevant.

> most efficient ways

Diversification has always been the most efficient way to lower costs and improve competitiveness. Nuclear industries exist and will continue to exist. Not investing in them because of ideological reasons is shortsighted; you could make the same argument about any technology, including solar and storage.

I understand that nuclear power is expensive and long to build, but most of the costs come from overregulation and low investment. Nuclear is expensive for these reasons, not because it is intrensically costly.

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...

Nuclear power is expensive and takes a long time to build, but much of the cost comes from overregulation and underinvestment. It's not intrinsically costly. Pretending to not invest in nuclear, doing nothing about it, and complaining on forums adds nothing to progress. The same could be said about storage, which is currently expensive and requires further investment to become affordable.

Moreover, 90% of the solar and battery supply chain is in China. Any conflict could disrupt the renewable transition plans for 2050. Given the current geopolitical climate, this is not an unrealistic concern.

Finally, I fully understand your ideology against nuclear power. No matter the arguments and data presented, your stance will likely remain unchanged. My response is for the benefit of other readers who might be more open to different perspectives.

> the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis.

This is not what experts say: at the time of the nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, and they estimated that the worst potential accident would have major effects up to Tokyo and require evacuation in a huge zone. "In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and has said that at one point Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone including Tokyo and would have to evacuate" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima... ). Also: "Kan commissioned a report for the worst-case scenario from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which confirmed his worst fears: a potential evacuation area reaching as far as 250 kilometers from the stricken power plant—a zone of exclusion that would have reached all the way to Tokyo and affected roughly 50 million people" (source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... )

This major disaster did not happen thanks to sheer luck (one of the parameters was wind, which blew most radionuclides towards the ocean).

> issues with communication, hierarchy, and more

The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident canot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may causes huge damage.

> The report highlights human fallibility

This is the cause of each and every industrial accident.

> and the impact of illogical fear

It seems "illogical" after the fact.

Armchair-experts always "win" every war.. but are nowhere to find when things go awry.

>> N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy

> In what way personal opinions should be relevant

This is pertinent because it shows that the Japanese Prime Minister did not use the Fukushima nuclear accident as a mean to fight against nuclear power.

> we are talking about the same person who made the disaster

According to you the Prime Minister was the culprit. Source?

>> This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090

> Your arguments are self-contradictory. You explain how the Fukushima problem is due to nuclear power, yet argue that dam-related fatalities are not the fault of dams.

Nope. I argue that a dam is way more robust and also that it gives numerous early signs announcing a failure while a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context.

> nuclear remains safer than dams

This is highly disputed, even in Fukushima's case. http://csrp.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2013-UNSCEAR-Repor... https://apjjf.org/thierry-ribault/4761/article

> The numbers show that nuclear is inherently safe, making the "safety of nuclear" discussion irrelevant.

Past nuclear accidents (their effects are disputed) don't reveal the max potential damage caused by a nuclear major accident.

>> most efficient ways

> Diversification has always been the most efficient way to lower costs and improve competitiveness.

True, however renewable sources may be sufficiently diverse.

> because of ideological reasons

No. Risk (accident, proliferation, waste...), dependancy towards uranium, cost... are not 'ideological' biases but facts. The 'ideology' hinting at neglecting them suffers from an event such as Fukushima's accident.

> costs come from overregulation

Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained thanks to accidents useless?

> low investment

Many nuclear projects (R&D, new reactors, refurbishing...) are running.

> It's not intrinsically costly.

The evolution of the production cost of various types of source is clear: https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri...

> storage, which is currently expensive and requires further investment to become affordable.

https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline

> Moreover, 90% of the solar and battery supply chain is in China

This is not intrinsic, many nations (even in Western Europe) did built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so.

In most nuclearized Western nations there is no uranium to mine, and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market.

> I fully understand your ideology

When there is no more argument you may indeed rant.

> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster and mentioned that Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone, including Tokyo, and would have to evacuate.

Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value?

The scientific report I linked to comes from the independent committee in charge of the investigation. If you want to assert something, you should start there.

I understand you may not have a completely scientific background, but what people say does not necessarily represent reality or have intrinsic worth. Talking about science is not the same as conducting science.

Regarding your comment, the article you mentioned seems inaccurate.

The original sources of the interviews are these:

- https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81G08L/

- https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-consider...

There is no mention of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. Rather, it seems that idea came from Yukio Edano: "The report quotes the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that such a 'demonic chain reaction' of plant meltdowns could result in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south."

In contrast, the report I shared (page 58) discusses the worst-case scenario commissioned by Kan from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission: "The conclusion was that there was time to spare before a worst-case scenario would be reached, and that for the time being there was no need to reevaluate the current evacuation zones."

This completely contradicts what you stated, proving that interviews or people's words should not be taken as truth without evidence.

Apart from this way of clinging to quotes based on nothing. Evacuation remains a political issue, and not a nuclear one.

> The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in the vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident cannot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may cause huge damage.

A 60-year-old power plant withstood the most powerful earthquake in Japan and failed only due to a tsunami, causing one death.

If that's not a demonstration of nuclear power safety, what is?

> Nope. I argue that a dam is more robust and gives numerous early signs of failure, whereas a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context.

Below I have posted a risk analysis below that highlights how dams are statistically not as safe compared to other structures.

> Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained from accidents useless?

It's not useless, but often exaggerated and unscientific. The public and politicians fail to rationally assess radiological risks and do not understand risk aversion.

The fear-to-real-danger ratio is much more exaggerated for nuclear technology than for any other modern technology. This inability to relate to other technologies has led to this misunderstanding.

Page 171 Chapter 3.5:

- https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC1...

- https://www.iapsam.org/psam12/proceedings/paper/paper_546_1....

As the figure shows, fatalities per GWh are extremely low for current generation reactors compared to other energy sources. This is simply statistics and the reality of the facts.

"An accident at a Generation III nuclear power plant with the consequences shown in Figure 3.5-1 is a highly improbable event. The calculated frequency of such consequences corresponds to about 10^(-10) per reactor year, or once in ten billion years of operation per reactor. However, such a number of fatalities, even if based on very pessimistic assumptions, impacts public perception due to disaster (or risk) aversion."

- https://world-nuclear.org/images/articles/recalibrating-risk...

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/

> The evolution of the production cost of various types of sources is clear: [https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri...

No, it's not clear at all.

1. This graph shows that hype and investment cause prices to collapse, ignoring incentives (100+ billion per year for renewables).

2. LCOE completely ignores the capacity factor and reliability of various technologies, where renewables fail miserably.

3. It ignores grid costs, overproduction costs, and backup costs, all necessary for renewable energy.

4. Lazard's LCOE calculations take the cost of nuclear power from the most expensive U.S. reactor, which is intellectually dishonest.

Page 9 note 1:

- https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

- https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/Syst...

- https://usaee.org/aws/USAEE/asset_manager/get_file/526535?ve...

> This is not intrinsic; many nations (even in Western Europe) have built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so.

Having the equipment means nothing without the entire production chain, investments, know-how, and affordable labor.

In fact, in the Chip industry, where this problem is much more real, and where Europeans build the equipment, however, in the event of a TMSC shutdown due to an invasion, it would be a disaster either way, with repercussions for decades.

If China raises prices, imposes tariffs, or halts exports, decarbonizing by 2050 would be impossible. How does this show diversification?

China controls the rare earths, cheap labor, and production chain. Changing these factors would exponentially increase costs, making solar panels safe but uneconomic. Not to mention the time it takes to make the transition.

I support adoption, research, and development, but producing panels economically to decarbonize by 2050 is impossible in that scenario.

- https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China

- https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/...

- https://prospect.org/downloads/15986/download/MA21%20Fitzger...

> In most nuclearized Western nations, there is no uranium to mine and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market.

False.

"Australia is estimated to have the largest reserves, followed by Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...

Besides, nuclear fuel is not limited to uranium:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium_mining&us...

The availability and quantity of uranium are not valid arguments.

>> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was >> there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone

> Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value?

It is not about his opinions but about the maximal potential effect of the nuclear accident, as described to him by TEPCO (Japan's nuclear operator) staff.

> The scientific report

Was established AFTER the accident, using complete and stable data. The Prime Minister had to decide DURING the accident, with partial and sometimes obsolete/volatile available data. Given the extent of the potential max evacuation (reaching up to Tokyo) the (way smaller) evacuation zone defined seem pretty conservative to me.

> you may not have a completely scientific background

Here you are again. Who will, in your opinion, be convinced by this sort of 'argument'?

> the report I shared (page 58) discusses the worst-case scenario commissioned by Kan from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission: "The conclusion was that there was time to spare before a worst-case scenario would be reached, and that for the time being there was no need to reevaluate the current evacuation zones."

This is utterly absurd. This conclusion was reached way too late, the report states (same page) that in order to produce this conclusion the experts "finished their work in three days". In your opinion during a major nuclear accident everyone around the plant will quietly sit and wait 3 days? Is it a joke?

I already answered: the worst was avoided thanks to sheer luck (some reactors were shut down, some emergency cooling was against all odds possible, winds favorably blew a fair part of the dangerous stuff away...).

> A 60-year-old power plant withstood the most powerful earthquake in Japan and failed only due to a tsunami, causing one death.

Officially much more deaths (2200+), as already proved, and long-term effects are disputed. Plus huge damage.

> If that's not a demonstration of nuclear power safety, what is?

This is relative. How many victims would some renewable equipment (a field of wind turbines or solar panels) destroyed by a natural disaster cause?

> I have posted a risk analysis below that highlights how dams are statistically not as safe compared to other structures.

I answered: this is only valid if retaining the Banqiao dam case while considering that a nuclear reactor exposed to the same challenges wouldn't have caused more damage.

> fail to rationally assess radiological risks and do not understand risk aversion.

The scientific debate about all this (linear no-threshold, hormesis, bioaccumulation...) rages.

> fatalities per GWh are extremely low for current generation reactors compared to other energy sources

The real amount of damage on health and biotopes is disputed, moreover a single major accident may bump the figures up (Russian-roulette style).

> hype and investment cause prices to collapse, ignoring incentives (100+ billion per year for renewables).

> 2. LCOE completely ignores the capacity factor and reliability of various technologies

This is less and less a challenge, the way lower LCOE of renewables manages budget to compensate it, and many ways to do so (mainly V2G) use equipment (batteries) which is required whatever the type of energy source (even with an impossible "100% nuclear gridpower" scenario: we need batteries for transportation).

> overproduction costs

One of the trick is to use the continental grid which is needed even with the "100% nuclear" scenario in order to optimize, reduce the probability of failure, quickly restart after a local failure... Another is to produce green hydrogen for the backup. Result: less and less overproduction.

> backup costs

Nuclear also needs backup, this is about the amount and nature of it. Amount: storage (batteries) and continental-scale interconnections will reduce it. Nature: it emit less and less unwanted stuff, mainly thanks to green hydrogen.

> Lazard's LCOE calculations take the cost of nuclear power from the most expensive U.S. reactor, which is intellectually dishonest.

It would be dishonest if other recent or ongoing project in the US was more successful. Which one is?

> If China raises prices, imposes tariffs, or halts exports, decarbonizing by 2050 would be impossible. How does this show diversification?

This is not intrinsic to renewables, we can decide to enhance our autonomy, then do so.

Uranium dependancy is totally different as no one can 'decide' to create local uranium reserves.

>> In most nuclearized Western nations, there is no uranium to mine and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market.

> False. > "Australia is estimated to have the largest reserves, followed by Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia."

This reinsures the US (anglosphere) and Russia, but doesn't do anything for "most nuclearized Western nations". If uranium becomes scarce most nuclearized Western nations (France, Hungary, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, Finland, Romania, Czech Rep., Sweden, Belgium, Spain...) will have to pray and obey to superpowers.

On the other hand even superpowers cannot bar a nation from obtaining energy from the wind or the sun.

> nuclear fuel is not limited to uranium:

Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none.

> Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none.

There are certainly options in the wind, as you likely know given the overly precise wording used.

The Chinese TMSR-LF1 ( 2MW ) uses uranium fluoride but doesn't require it, thorium suffices to heat the salts.

That's now out of pilot testing and is running (since July 2023) with a ten year licence while a second much larger version ( 10 MW ) is currently being built.

It has been stated that should the 10 MW 2026 early trials go as planned that a full industrial GW scale version will break ground ~ 2028 ( but that's admittedly intended policy speak and not concrete in ground yet ).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMSR-LF1

>> Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none.

> There are certainly options in the wind

Those are mere hopes, not ready-to-deploy adequate reactors.

> The Chinese TMSR-LF1

Its complete name is "liquid fuel thorium-based molten salt *EXPERIMENTAL* reactor" (emphasis is mine).

> ( 2MW )

2MW thermal, that is to say a lab toy. Even if it works adequately and for a reasonable total cost to obtain the aggregated thermal power of existing civilian US nuclear reactors producing electricity we will need approximately 47000 of them. As the existing fleet accounts for 20% of the nation's total electric energy generation in order to 'clean' the gridpower approx 235000 of them are needed. Then we have to convert to electricity many thingies now burning fossil fuel, therefore we probable need at best approx 2x times more electricity...

> uses uranium fluoride but doesn't require it

... and yes, it now uses uranium. Maybe one day...

Let's be realistic. This is a mere hope, nothing more (yet). Remember that in the 1970's many planned to be able to deploy sodium-cooled fast breeders industrial reactors, which were then WAY more advanced than other Gen4 (thorium...) because lab reactors already worked quite well. Yet this industrial fleet didn't appear anymwhere, as albeit huge volume of resources poured at the challenge no nation was able to design a satisfying industrial reactor.

> a ten year licence while a second much larger version ( 10 MW ) is currently being built.

Its output, if it is successful: 10MW, therefore to replace the existing US fleet we will only need about 9400 of them.

> a full industrial GW scale version will break ground ~ 2028 ( but that's admittedly intended policy speak

OK, let's wait while deploying what works right now: renewables.

> This is utterly absurd. This conclusion was reached way too late, the report states (same page) that in order to produce this conclusion the experts "finished their work in three days". In your opinion during a major nuclear accident everyone around the plant will quietly sit and wait 3 days? Is it a joke?

Well, you were talking about the scientific report, this is the conclusion of the scientific report. Beside that, there is only politics and baseless decisions.

You were arguing about the fact that the evacuation is not opinion-based, and also that evacuate Tokyo was "reasonable".

I do not doubt that someone also theorized the explosion of the solar system at that time. But I don't see why that would be relevant to prove anything.

> I already answered: the worst was avoided thanks to sheer luck (some reactors were shut down, some emergency cooling was against all odds possible, winds favorably blew a fair part of the dangerous stuff away...).

Nuclear power plants are built to be intrensically safe, it's not luck.

> Officially much more deaths (2200+), as already proved, and long-term effects are disputed. Plus huge damage.

No you didn't prove anything lol, actually we are proving that you are saying things that are not true.

I pointed out how the evacuation was avoidable, and that it was based on people's fear, ideology, and inefficiency. You tried to disprove this, but with false claims.

> This is relative.

No its not relative, I linked beautiful charts before:

(page 171 Chapter 3.5) https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC1...

> I answered: this is only valid if retaining the Banqiao dam case while considering that a nuclear reactor exposed to the same challenges wouldn't have caused more damage.

False, again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure?useskin=vector

> How many victims would some renewable equipment (a field of wind turbines or solar panels) destroyed by a natural disaster cause?

By ChatGPT:

Risk aversion in the context of nuclear and renewable energy refers to the tendency of individuals and societies to prefer options that minimize potential risks, even if those risks are statistically low but have high potential consequences.

For nuclear energy, rare failures such as reactor meltdowns can result in high fatalities and severe environmental damage, which fosters public fear and resistance despite the low probability of such events. Conversely, renewable energy sources like wind and solar experience common but low-fatality failures, leading to greater public acceptance.

This discrepancy highlights a psychological phenomenon where people perceive nuclear energy as more dangerous than renewables, despite statistics showing nuclear energy has lower overall mortality rates compared to fossil fuels. Public perception often emphasizes catastrophic potential over statistical reality, leading to disproportionate fear and risk aversion.

> The real amount of damage on health and biotopes is disputed, moreover a single major accident may bump the figures up (Russian-roulette style).

The EU report also take in consideration everything and uses the upper bound, still is safer.

> One of the trick is to use the continental grid which is needed even with the "100% nuclear" scenario in order to optimize, reduce the probability of failure, quickly restart after a local failure... Another is to produce green hydrogen for the backup. Result: less and less overproduction.

Right here you show that you do not understand what "overproduction costs" mean and their impact. More specifically, when you state:

" Another is to produce green hydrogen for the backup. Result: less and less overproduction."

That's exactly where you're wrong, because a hydrogen plant of a few billion that you use only in peaks raises costs even further. A hydrogen power plant is designed and built to produce h24, not a few hours a day.

> It would be dishonest if other recent or ongoing project in the US was more successful. Which one is?

I linked in the previous comment to an article that explains everything. And I repeat:

If you want a comparison between the two techs, you should take into account in number of investments, subsidies, general hype, ongoing projects. Nuclear power's inefficiency is tied hand-in-hand with low investments. Building more reactors in parallel can only make production more efficient. In china they are doing excellently.

Rather than taking the data as tautologies true only to themselves, it's more honest to understand the causes.

> This is not intrinsic to renewables, we can decide to enhance our autonomy, then do so.

"Then do so" its not something that we can do in some decades.

If you really care about decarbonizing, accept the risk of that option, and the devastating consequences.

Honestly, I have no intention of taking that risk without diversifying.

> Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none.

Deforst already replied, but also...

All CANDU reactor (~31) can use Thorium as fuel.

Another false statement.

> You were arguing about the fact that the evacuation is not opinion-based, and also that evacuate Tokyo was "reasonable".

No. I was arguing about it being adequate. A decision is always opinion-based. Science explains how the universe works, it explains but does not deliver decisions. During the accident experts described its worst potentiel effects and therefore the potential largest zone to evacuate and the evacuated zone was far (FAR!) smaller.

> I do not doubt that someone also theorized the explosion of the solar system at that time. But I don't see why that would be relevant to prove anything.

You invoke 'science' and only use rhetorical 'hyperbole'. Your point could be strong if you could exhibit (source!) that the worse potential effects of the accident described by the experts while it was unfolding were strictly impossible. Good luck!

> Nuclear power plants are built to be intrensically safe, it's not luck.

Yes, they are, however nothing is perfect (they also are built to not trigger any major accident...).

> > Officially much more deaths (2200+), as already proved, and long-term effects are disputed. Plus huge damage.

> No you didn't prove anything lol, actually we are proving that you are saying things that are not true.

There is no argument here.

> False, again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure?useskin=vector

Only hydro-electric dams (better design and supervision) are pertinent. Considering all dams types is equivalent to pretending that victims of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 'victims of nuclear'.

> For nuclear energy, rare failures such as reactor meltdowns can result in high fatalities and severe environmental damage, which fosters public fear and resistance despite the low probability of such events.

Indeed, most of 'risk aversion' here lies in the 'low probability'. Nuclear reactors provide only about 2.2% of final energy, many think that their past mishaps don't really entice us into building many more reactors.

> The EU report also take in consideration everything

All hypothesis are highly debatable.

Another point is ethical: to which extent do those who prefer nuclear can coerce those who refuse the associated risk to accept it? Play with your stuff at will, but it should never be a threat for me.

> a hydrogen plant of a few billion that you use only in peaks raises costs even further.

The solution is know: use adequate membranes (PEM) tolerating intermittency, have only a few centralized plants and let the grid convey to them overproduction from the whole continent (reducing intermittency), have a battery buffer...

> Nuclear power's inefficiency is tied hand-in-hand with low investments.

This is only part of the problem. Interest rate sure bump the total cost up because nuclear project are nearly always (way) late, but the root cause are the reasons for them to lag on.

> Building more reactors in parallel can only make production more efficient.

If, and only if, the building process is sufficiently mastered. Check science: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

> In china they are doing excellently.

No. During the past 10 years they deployed on average 3.3 reactors/years, and nuclear now produces about 5% of their gridpower (renewables: 31%). Those are meek results. The best ones compared to the nuclear quagmire everywhere else, granted, nothing else. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/elec-mix-bar?country=~CHN

>> This is not intrinsic to renewables, we can decide to enhance our autonomy, then do so.

> "Then do so" its not something that we can do in some decades.

One may prefer an impossible task: creating uranium reserves.

> If you really care about decarbonizing

... I do, and have to prefer the best tools available: renewables.

> All CANDU reactor (~31) can use Thorium as fuel.

But a single one does so. Please name one.

India was a leader and ran projects in order to try to do so. It now massively invests in order to obtain a prototype on a different architecture (a sodium-cooled fast breeder): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor

Hopes and dreams don't produce gridpower, sorry.

> No. I was arguing about it being adequate. A decision is always opinion-based. Science explains how the universe works, it explains but does not deliver decisions. During the accident experts described its worst potentiel effects and therefore the potential largest zone to evacuate and the evacuated zone was far (FAR!) smaller.

Just to recap: 2) I quoted the report (took three days) from the most important institutes in Japan, which stated that no further evacuations were necessary. 3) Even the opinions of scientists or experts are not science. These are more informed opinions, yet they are still subject to bias, context, and emotions, especially considering such situation. 4) Can you at least provide evidence for the "experts' description" you mentioned? After several comments, you're still claiming there was a panel of experts who recommended evacuating Tokyo, but so far, you've only linked a fake article with no sources. 5) Since opinions are opinions, and as you say, opinions are human choices, not science, they are largely dependent on the person or group of people making the decision. This demonstrates that it's not the fault of technology but rather human fallibility.

I agree with your point that opinions are not science. However, we are still waiting for you to substantiate your claims.

> You invoke 'science' and only use rhetorical 'hyperbole'. Your point could be strong if you could exhibit (source!) that the worse potential effects of the accident described by the experts while it was unfolding were strictly impossible. Good luck!

I listed the source in the second comment: https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp...

> Yes, they are, however nothing is perfect (they also are built to not trigger any major accident...).

Nothing is perfect, but we have statistics, risk analysis, and other tools. These are sufficient to understand that nuclear is safe, based on science, not opinions.

> Indeed, most of 'risk aversion' here lies in the 'low probability'. Nuclear reactors provide only about 2.2% of final energy, many think that their past mishaps don't really entice us into building many more reactors.

Are you serious? Do you know that risk is calculated per GWh or years of operation? I'm sorry, but basic statistics and probability seem to be missing here.

> All hypothesis are highly debatable.

How? Prove it.

Before making a claim, you should provide evidence. Otherwise, it's a completely empty statement.

> The solution is know: use adequate membranes (PEM) tolerating intermittency, have only a few centralized plants and let the grid convey to them overproduction from the whole continent (reducing intermittency), have a battery buffer...

That's a good point. So the problem of overproduction costs doesn't exist because you can just install batteries, thereby raising the costs. Nice "solution".

Funny one.

> This is only part of the problem. Interest rate sure bump the total cost up because nuclear project are nearly always (way) late, but the root cause are the reasons for them to lag on.

But do you consider it before writing such comments?

I linked the article about it before.

The inefficiencies start from the lack of economy of scale, little investment, and excessive bureaucracy. A delay in a single piece (made uniquely, since open construction sites in the Western world are few) can halt the entire project. Besides, changing regulations can lead to redesigning certain parts, causing further delays. And delays increase costs because you have to pay salaries even if the work is stopped.

It's very simple, but you make it sound like arcane, obscure, unsolvable stuff. Please don't comment on things you don't understand. I linked the article in a past comment, so have the decency to read what I linked before lecturing me on things I've already covered.

> No. During the past 10 years they deployed on average 3.3 reactors/years, and nuclear now produces about 5% of their gridpower (renewables: 31%). Those are meek results. The best ones compared to the nuclear quagmire everywhere else, granted, nothing else. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/elec-mix-bar?country=~CHN

The fact that nuclear produces 5% and renewables 30% shows that they invested more money in renewables. What exactly are you trying to prove? It's their political choice.

> But a single one does so. Please name one.

You stated: "Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none."

I replied: "CANDU by design can run on thorium."

I don't understand. You first state false things and then change the question afterward?

Anyway. I do not intend to continue the discussion. Goodbye.

> 2) I quoted the report (took three days)

This is key. During a nuclear accident autorities cannot wait 3 days, then start to evacuate.

> 4) Can you at least provide evidence for the "experts' description" you mentioned? After several comments, you're still claiming there was a panel of experts who recommended evacuating Tokyo, but so far, you've only linked a fake article with no sources.

This isn't a "fake article with no source". Link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... Pertinent section: "Kan commissioned a report for the worst-case scenario from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which confirmed his worst fears: a potential evacuation area reaching as far as 250 kilometers from the stricken power plant—a zone of exclusion that would have reached all the way to Tokyo and affected roughly 50 million people."

Numerous other sources exist. PBS, in direct style: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/naoto-kan-japan-w... "I asked people to do a simulation of what could happen. The worst-case scenario was an evacuation of 120 to 190 miles around the plant. If that happened, Tokyo would grind to a halt. Japan would grind to a halt."

A local one: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/09/19/national/tokyo-...

Will you dare to write that, in your opinion, the Prime Minister lied? Or that the Japan Atomic Energy Commission erred while elaborating the worst case scenario, or lied to him about it?

> 5) Since opinions are opinions, and as you say, opinions are human choices, not science, they are largely dependent on the person or group of people making the decision. This demonstrates that it's not the fault of technology but rather human fallibility.

This is just another reason to prefer renewables: no mistake can lead them to trigger a major accident durably endangering remote areas.

>> Your point could be strong if you could exhibit (source!) that the worse potential effects of the accident described by the experts while it was unfolding were strictly impossible. Good luck!

>> I listed the source in the second comment: https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp...

Where (page number, sentence) does this document state that the Japan Atomic Energy Commission assesment of the worst case scenario effects were strictly impossible?

>> Yes, they are, however nothing is perfect (they also are built to not trigger any major accident...).

> Nothing is perfect, but we have statistics, risk analysis, and other tools. These are sufficient to understand that nuclear is safe, > based on science, not opinions.

This is an opinion, and it doesn't counterbalance the fact that renewables free us from such considerations.

> Are you serious? Do you know that risk is calculated per GWh or years of operation? I'm sorry, but basic statistics and probability seem to be missing here.

The risk is evaluated by 'reactor.year of operation'. In your opinion the risk tied to a worldwide fleet made of N reactors is equivalent to the risk induced by a fleet made of 2N reactors?

>> All hypothesis are highly debatable.

> How? Prove it.

Please state a pertinent hypothesis which is in your opinion non debatable.

((green hydrogen production, thanks to intermittent renewables)) >> The solution is know: use adequate membranes (PEM) tolerating intermittency, have only a few centralized plants and let the grid convey to them overproduction from the whole continent (reducing intermittency), have a battery buffer...

> So the problem of overproduction costs doesn't exist because you can just install batteries, thereby raising the costs. Nice "solution".

It is called 'engineering': add things which optimize the whole process.

> The inefficiencies start from the lack of economy of scale, little investment, and excessive bureaucracy.

This is a mere opinion.

'economy of scale' just cannot work when building the industrial prototype becomes way too painful. I already referenced a pertinent article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

> little investment

Where did nuclear suffer from this (please source)?. Surely not in the US nor in France or Russia.

> and excessive bureaucracy

'Excessive' here means that, in your opinion, experts of the field failed at recognizing the real value of experience gained from past nuclear incidents. This is laughable. Should they simply ignore them?

> A delay in a single piece (made uniquely, since open construction sites in the Western world are few) can halt the entire project.

The root cause ("open construction sites in the Western world are few") is the effect of many causes: too much failed (overbudget, over-delay) construction projects, competition from renewables, major blunder at Fukushima showing the "everything is under control" propaganda for what it is, growing concerns about nuclear waste (as industrial breeders failed)...

> changing regulations

Safety-related requirement changes after recognizing (sometimes after an incident, or worse) that existing ones are insufficient. Do you petition that this is inadequate, that they should be intangible?

> It's very simple > but you make it sound like arcane, obscure, unsolvable stuff

In your opinion. The whole nuclear industry, worldwide, is federated by a dedicated UN agency (IAEA) and tries hard to overcome those difficulties since the 1980's. You should help them.

((China))

> The fact that nuclear produces 5% and renewables 30% shows that they invested more money in renewables. What exactly are you trying to prove? It's their political choice.

You are the one who wrote in this thread: "Building more reactors in parallel can only make production more efficient. In china they are doing excellently.", and I was answering to this.

> You stated: "Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none."

> I replied: "CANDU by design can run on thorium."

I replied: WHERE does an industrial CANDU run without uranium? This is not abut theory, about what may be possible, but about industrial gridpower generation; about what is possible, not about dreams/hopes. Where? There is none. This is not industrial and therefore not a solution.

> I do not intend to continue the discussion

Runnin' an duckin'

Uranium exists almost in every country and is like 1% of the cost of nuclear power. It's availability is not a risk. There is enough of it to power Earth for millions of years.

Nope. "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium

Nuclear produces about 9% of electricity worldwide ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_mix#World ), which in turn is about 22% of the consumed (final)) energy. Nuclear produces less than 2% of our energy.

This is roughly linear: 130 years at 2%, therefore 65 years at 4% (and no one will nowadays invest in a reactor with no hope to exploit it for at the very least 60 years)

Exploiting uranium ore of a lesser grade is possible but quickly gets more expensive and adds to nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions ( see the study "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation" in "Journal of Industrial Ecology" (2012, Warner, Heath)): up to 110g eqCO2/KWh .

Those are _identified_ reserves. The same was said about peak oil until much larger deposits were found and/or new extraction methods discovered.

Not saying it's unlimited, but at current consumption rates we're much more likely to run out of petroleum than uranium[0]. But of course we've been saying we have "50 years left" of petroleum for decades, so who knows.

And that doesn't account for alternative fuel sources such as thorium[1]

[0] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=38&t=6

[1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/thoriums-long-term-pote...

> until much larger deposits were found

When it comes to uranium this is a mere wish (low and decaying probability), as exploration is very efficient because major investments were made during the 1950's, in order to obtain stuff needed for atomic weapons: we are pretty good at finding uranium (much more than for petroleum), and forecasting proved efficient at predicting such events.

The uranium bubble (around 2007), for example, triggered a massive investments raise, but subsequent campaigns had very insufficient results (identified reserves grow by ~15%) and campaigns winded down.

The most promising game-changing new uranium extraction method (from seawater) lags since the 1980's. Nothing industrial here.

Same for thorium (and all Gen4 reactors): there is not a single ready-to-deploy industrial reactor. It is about a "Long-Term Potential in Nuclear Energy" (title of the document you refer to), nobody takes it as a significant part of our incoming electrical system.

Yet nuclear still seems to be a front-runner candidate for net-zero-carbon solutions in the arena of "almost always online" base-load. AKA - what solutions are best at carrying the base-load in low-daylight or low-wind scenarios...?

And datacenters for LLM applications...? How much land will be required to build a power plant facility to power each new LLM datacenter...? What solution carries that base-load during the low-light or low-wind time-periods...?

If this is the status-quo in the US now regarding nuclear fission tech then don't look now but NASA and other nations R&D sectors are already making significant progress towards anti-matter solutions. Luddites beware - the risks with new high-energy tech doesn't get any less scary moving forward but they DO score better on net-zero-carbon metrics.

I cannot stress this enough: anti-matter is not a power source. It never will be, on account of "it doesn't exist in our universe naturally".

You cannot mine anti-matter, you cannot even efficiently make it and you certainly can't store it.

You can mine antimatter, in particle accelerators. One can think of energy as made up of matter and antimatter, it just needs to be separated.

And of course they do store it. Charged antimatter can be stored in magnetic fields, for example.

No, you can't. Particle accelerators make anti-matter. And they do so extremely inefficiently. This is not an energy source: it's at best, a conversion or storage system. Making anti-matter is an inefficient, energy losing process, it is not a fuel source.

And the storage sucks: the longest anti-matter confinement time is 405 days in a Penning trap and we've only done so for amounts measured in total count of atoms, in the thousands. Not even micrograms.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

We will probably mine antimatter near the sun, where energy is virtually free.

It's as much an energy source as anything. You would also spend more energy than you got out if you tried to mine coal in your backyard.

if your power demand is for neural networks in data centers, you can just turn the data center off when the sun goes down and reroute users' queries to a data center on the other side of the planet. as i understand it, though, things like aluminum smelters, cement kilns, and haber-bosch ammonia plants are not quite so forgiving of power intermittency

your comments about antimatter make it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about

as for baseload, the current frontrunner for dark nights with no wind seems to be batteries

Feel free to attempt to educate me on antimatter then ofc. Otherwise, I'll continue to consume the NASA public R&D slides while laughing off silly comments.

maybe consume an introductory physics textbook instead of slides

Reply on news.ycombinator.com