Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2600 | Hacker News Reader

It's part of the current administration's energy agenda, President Trump signed executive orders a couple of months ago, to increase nuclear energy capacity by 400% in the next 25 years, revising regulations, and expediting review and approval of reactor projects, which seems like the most effective strategy for expanding clean energy production.

View on HN

A certain group of people keep saying that. But that particular idea of "clean" nuclear does not price in the 10.000 years of safe storage of nuclear waste materials (for the most dangerous HLW materials this number can go up to 100.000 years). Do you and your 3500 generations of ancestors volunteer to do this? Then it is cheap and clean. Otherwise it is yet another instance of "privatize the gains and socialize the externalities".

(And let's ignore the fact that humanity barely managed to organize anything that held even a mere 1000 years)

My understanding is that every other form of energy production has similar or worse concerns, including renewables due to the materials used to build and operate and decommission solar panels and windmills.

The argument you're making about waste has even led to the decommissioning of nuclear in Germany to be replaced with coal... burning coal also produces radioactive fly ash. Everything has tradeoffs!

I guess we could just give up on electricity entirely! That might save the planet

Renewables outside of solar farms where solar is installed at ground level, also have a significantly higher death and serious injury rate than nuclear does per GWH produced even after including the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing in the numbers to make nuclear look worse.

>My understanding is that every other form of energy production has similar or worse concerns

You are suffering from a misunderstanding then. Maybe several, since Germany has cut their coal use by more than half since Fukushima. (262 TWh from coal in 2011, 108 in 2024).

Nuclear waste and the efforts it requires to manage is really orders of magnitude worse than other kinds of waste produced in energy production. Even if it can be argued that coal is second, it's a distant second, and nobody replaces nuclear with coal.

That is purely psychological perception. Noone seriously calculated that nuclear waste would be orders of magnitude worse than coal per TWh. Neither safety, expense to manage nor other externalities.

>Noone seriously calculated that nuclear waste would be orders of magnitude worse than coal per TWh

Not sure what you mean here but I agree that nobody was able to predict what the cost of nuclear would actually end up being when they first started with it in the 50s.

EDF was bailed out for 50 bn despite having neglected maintenance so badly that half their plants were offline in 2022, and the first thing France did when they took over was to double the purchase price. If that's enough remains to be seen.

If you mean that you disagree that nuclear is an order of magnitude worse per TWh, then perhaps you don't know how much more energy we get from coal, or how much money, time and effort is spent on nuclear?

Just as an illustration, during the 40 years it was active, Fukushima generated as much electricity in total as the world gets from coal in one week.

I don't understand what are you trying to say, coal plants always have proper maintenance and never caused price hikes, outages and fatal accidents?

>I don't understand what are you trying to say, coal plants always have proper maintenance and never caused price hikes, outages and fatal accidents?

No no - I'm saying nobody pays 8 billion per year 14 years after a coal plant accident, no matter what coal plant accident it was. But Japan pays that for Fukushima.

Because nobody (at least in the US and China) takes heavy metals in groundwater as a serious problem. If they did, that would cost much more than Fukushima. It eventually will.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04032019/coal-ash-groundw...

No it isn't. All current nuclear waste models purely rely on geology and perfect engineering and assume that 100 to 300 years in the future those sites need zero staff, zero maintenance and zero monitoring.

Which is of course a "cool" assumption to make if you're profiting from this being the conclusion today. Critics of these models (like me) are sceptical of that overly opportunistic conclusion, especially since the timeframes involved are so long and the storage still needs to be maintained long after the profits stopped for one reason or another. I am not saying that this can't be done, I say the current models are insufficient and rely on future generations "dealing with it" somehow.

If you can convince me my worry is unfounded, I'd be happy to hear why I am worrying too much or why we can be certain that this works out as we wish it would.

So what if it's not perfect? Worst case of nuclear waste mishandling would still have milder repercussions compared to doubled, or tripled or worse CO2 levels we are subjecting future generations to. That will persist too long after profits from fossils stop.

Hard to discuss or persuade when you are comparing everything to some ideal, and one-sidedly moreover. Can we talk about real world alternatives. Hypothetically even doubling natural radioactivity background (and that would require total recklessness) would be better option if we could have avoided large part of CO2 output. Now nuclear is becoming moot as we have cheap renewables and batteries anyway.

Nuclear waste is a complete non-issue. It's trivial to just let it sit around in a corner of the power plant's property for a century or two until somebody nuts up and dumps it down a bore shaft or into the ocean where it belongs.

There's no technical or economic problem here. The problem is completely one of PR, with ignoramuses thinking it's a big deal being the entire problem.

And just to be clear, it would be "a bore shaft", not "many bore shafts". The amount of nuclear waste generated per person per lifetime is so small you could pick it up and carry it. So a single well positioned mine with good geology could literally store all of it the US could generate for centuries.

Well price it in then. Storage cost per anum times the time it is needed + the bureaucratic cost to ensure it is there till the end of its lifetime.

I know that Germany is seeking a nuclear waste storage site (unsucessfully) for two decades now. So simple.

So you volunteer to take that material into your garage then? Give me your contacts.

There's no room in my garage, but I'd have no qualms about it being put in my backyard. Of course the power plant property is better, it doesn't need to get moved far and is easier to keep track of. When enough has piled up to compel somebody to do something about it, it can be dumped into the ocean.

I am 100% serious

Reply on news.ycombinator.com