Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

> This seems like hand wringing over a nothing burger? Compare the dynamics with fossil fuels:

I'm not comparing to fossil fuels, so it's not really relevant.

> Or you know, just diversify renewable supply chains?

That's happening about as fast as seawater extraction. There's good reasons why, at least for wind the extraction and processing of rare earths is an environmental catastrophe and only China is willing to pay the environmental price.

Regardless fuel costs for nuclear plants are roughly zero, about $0.0015/kWh, and there is more than enough uranium on land. And of course reprocessing spent fuel is a totally viable solution; most of France's uranium is closed loop. The entirety of the cost is in building and financing, which can be solved with policy changes.

View on HN

> I'm not comparing to fossil fuels, so it's not really relevant.

If you're comparing solar + wind to not(solar + wind), then either you're mainly comparing to fossil fuels, or discussing a world that doesn't exist.

Sure, you like nuclear. You can say "oh, well, if we snap our fingers and magically have the world be different than it is, then nuclear would outperform solar".

Magic doesn't exist, and if you take two people in any country and task them with adding 5GW of reliable generation, one person with nuclear and the other with solar + battery, solar + battery will achieve that goal faster and cheaper every single time, in every country on earth.

[flagged]

> Nuclear power is irrelevant in our energy systems today.

I dunno, it's been producing 20% of US power for decades. Same as renewables. Seems relevant.

> For the nuclear supply chain we still have not been able to sanction the Russian industry.

12% come from Russia. [1]

> So now suddenly we are hand wringing about rare earth extraction consequences. You seem to change topics faster than I can follow.

I feel like environmental implications are relevant to discuss, and I think the topic is relevant.

> You do know that the uranium supply is also extremely nasty?

Sure, but you need very little of it due to energy density, and reprocessing is a viable alternative as demonstrated by France. They have a 96% recovery rate. [2]

> And now suddenly seawater extraction did not matter?

It didn't matter in my original post either which is why it's under "if we're being pedantic."

[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uraniu...

[2] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-t...

> I dunno, it's been producing 20% of US power for decades. Same as renewables. Seems relevant.

Which falls to 7.6% when counting the useful energy and not staring yourself blind on the electricity grid.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked...

Like I said, irrelevant compared to the fossil fuel supply chain supplying 80%.

> 12% come from Russia. [1]

Of course ignoring the intermediary steps in the supply chain which Russia controls ~50% of. But Kazakh uranium being processed in Russia is Kazakh!

And this of course ignores that my main point was that Russia is the largest player in the global nuclear technological sector.

Like I said. The evidence is that Europe despite over 3 years of war in Ukraine still has not been able to sanction any part of the Russian nuclear industry.

> Sure, but you need very little of it due to energy density, and reprocessing is a viable alternative as demonstrated by France. [2]

And now we again "solve" nuclear power by saying that reprocessing works. Despite reprocessing producing massive quantities of nasty byproducts and more expensive Uranium.

Just make nuclear power even more horrifically expensive! No problem!

> Which falls to 7.6% when counting the useful energy and not staring yourself blind on the electricity grid.

Wind and solar is less than 7% combined on that graph, so either wind and solar aren't relevant and nuclear isn't relevant, or they're both relevant.

> Like I said. The evidence is that Europe despite over 3 years of war in Ukraine still has not been able to sanction any part of the Russian nuclear industry.

France is practically closed loop, and France is 55% of Europe's nuclear generation.

> Despite reprocessing producing massive quantities of nasty byproducts and more expensive Uranium.

Are you able to quantify this are compared to renewables or are we just assuming? Remember in terms of costs, it's basically entirely construction -- fuel costs almost nothing. So even if reprocessing is relatively expensive, adding cost there won't really change nuclear energy prices.

> Wind and solar is less than 7% combined on that graph, so either wind and solar aren't relevant and nuclear isn't relevant, or they're both relevant.

Renewables are relevant given their trajectory and that they make up ~90% of new installations due to being the by far best option today.

Grid infrastructure has a lifespan of a couple decades. We are seeing a complete disruption of the grid, but it will take a couple of decades for everything to shake out as the existing fleet of fossil and nuclear plants ages out.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586

> France is practically closed loop, and France is 55% of Europe's nuclear generation.

Of course forgetting how France uses Russia for this reprocessing. But relying on Russia for your energy supply chain is fine as long as it is nuclear power?

> Renewables are relevant given their trajectory

How convenient.

> Of course forgetting how France uses Russia for this reprocessing.

They do the reprocessing at the Orano La Hague site on the Cotentin Peninsula in Normandy. They also historically reprocessed for Germany there and continue to reprocess for Japan. You can look these things up before you respond, you know. [1]

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

[flagged]

You broke the site guidelines badly in this thread. The other user did it as well, but I have the impression that your violations were somewhat worse.

Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points thoughtfully and avoid the flamewar style in the future? And especially please avoid personal attacks? We'd appreciate it.

You broke the site guidelines in this thread.

That person you are arguing with is not arguing with you in good faith. They are in the "base load" camp, despite knowing full well we need an "all of the above" approach. The subsidies that both nuclear and fossil fuel industries have received since the 50's is mind boggling, and they could not come up with a better idea if things go bad, I guess just bury the waste somewhere and and go live elsewhere.

> They are in the "base load" camp, despite knowing full well we need an "all of the above" approach.

I support renewables. I think it's important we understand the whole picture, and think we should construct them even if they're expensive and imperfect. However people seem to think that they're basically free and completely harmless to the environment while neither is true.

> The subsidies that both nuclear and fossil fuel industries have received since the 50's is mind boggling.

Nowhere in the world is nuclear subsidized per unit of production. The renewables industry has historically and also continues to receives significant subsidies. So does the fossil fuel industry.

> I guess just bury the waste somewhere and and go live elsewhere.

Nuclear waste is not now and has never been a real problem. Yes, you can put the spicy rocks back where they came from.

> Nowhere in the world is nuclear subsidized per unit of production.

That is why we are seeing massive 40 year PPA agreements, the state taking the entire financial- and project risk and similar steps to force the paltry few proposed nuclear projects over the final investment decision line?

Modern nuclear power is absolutely insanely subsidized.

> Nowhere in the world is nuclear subsidized per unit of production.

Not true. Basically every nuclear plant ever built has been, if not directly financed by government, backed a guarantee to purchase every MWh produced at a fixed (or index linked to inflation) price. Hinkley Point C - under construction in the UK - are guaranteed £92.50 per MWh produced (in 2012 prices index linked to inflation - so already this has risen to £133.81/MWh and the project is still years from operation). This guarantee lasts 35 years once the plant becomes operational. For comparison, current wholesale prices in the UK are roughly half this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_powe...

[flagged]

As a species collective we understand the big picture.

> Nuclear waste is not now and has never been a real problem.

Sure to you because you apparently never had that job.

It's trivial to see you are just reciting from memory and not experience. Waste is a problem in that it is generated and must be handled, transported, stored safely. Perhaps you mean it's not a long term problem once stored?

Good job making it clear you don't understand the problem. Thankfully others do. Please continue to rant online out of the way such that you stay out of the way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com