Then there's a problem with nuclear fuel. The sources are mostly countries you don't want to depend on.
You are of course right with your assessment that nuclear is green, safe and eco-friendly. That's a hard one to swallow for a lot of eco activists.
Nuclear fuel storage is relatively straightforward, and volumes have potential to be reduced 30x through recycling.
In Ukraine, profits from all nuclear plants will cover damages, caused by Chornobyl, in 1000-5000 years IF nothing more will happen to Chornobyl or other an other nuclear power plant in those years, which is unlikely.
If we did the same with commercial air travel after the first disasters we’d still cross the oceans in boats. Car accidents kill 10-15 times more people every year worldwide than Chernobyl did but we don’t give up on cars either. Heck, smoking kills 7-8 times more people than cars every year (that’s 80-100 Chernobyls worth every year) and we still allow it.
The reasons are political not technically or financially insurmountable obstacles. We didn’t shut down nuclear in Europe for “green” reasons or because we can’t improve it, or because it kills too many people, but because enough Russian money went into politicians’ pockets to do this.
The worst case consequences of Chernobyl were stopped because people literally risked their lives to prevent it. The fire was put out, the steam explosion was prevented, and countless lives were saved as a result.
Even so, many countries spent billions, over several decades, to minimize the consequences. As far as 2000 miles away, animals are still to this day fed special foods and managed to avoid prolonged grazing in contaminated areas.
Think about it for a second - over 2000 miles away, almost 40 years later, this still requires active management. Despite best efforts to handle the situation when it happened.
Now consider that every reactor carries it's own copy of the risks, and they only generate around 10 TWh of electricity per year.
That's just way too little electricity for such a risk. It makes no sense.
Meanwhile solar and storage is deployed at a rate equivalent to a new reactor every month as we speak. Faster, cheaper, and comparatively risk-free.
Why not exaggerate to the "entire planet" if we are going this way..
Regardless, in hindsight humanity could have prevented (at least to a significant extent) climate change if we doubled down on nuclear 40-50 years ago instead of stopping most expansion. What will be the cost of that?
Nuclear power would provide 10% of the energy, which would be far from sufficient since it is necessary to electrify uses (in order to reduce the quantity of fossil fuel burned) and therefore produce more electricity, if we could multiply the power of the fleet by 5, therefore building around 1500 new reactors and keeping the existing fleet active. Hoping for this before 2100 would be absurd.
Instead if it kept doubling every decade it would be well over 10%.
Of course electrification of transportation etc. should have starter much earlier.
Obviously none of that was economical compared to coal/gas/oil back then.
Uranium deposits mined under the right conditions can supply the current stock for at best two centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium
To extend this beyond that, we must hope for a revolutionary production process (pursued in vain for decades: breeders...), the ability to exploit less promising uranium deposits, thus tolerating increased emissions and costs, or the discovery of a large deposit.
Hoping for such a discovery is risky because intensive prospecting began at the end of the Second World War (the quest for nuclear weapons), and the rapid and sharp rise in the price of uranium (a bubble) that occurred around 2007 triggered a massive investment in prospecting, the results of which (15%) are very inadequate.
Therefore, multiplying the stock by five would leave at best 40 years of uranium certainly available under current conditions, and would therefore be an inept investment (one needs to amortize the plant).
Moreover there are geostrategic considerations: many nations don't have any reserve not want to have to buy uranium (creating a dependency) or technical expertise.
But yes, I agree that fossil fuels also had a lot of very significant political, economical and technological advantages over both nuclear and renewables which is why coal/gas/oil won. For renewables it might be changing now it just might be a bit too late...
"Current reserves" is a moving target: once scarcity raises prices, prospecting makes sense again. Uranium is incredibly cheap. Prospecting is not worth it as there are enough reserves to exploit in the foreseeable future.
Seawater extraction is starting to be competitive with mining. With that, even natural Uranium becomes essentially unlimited.
In addition, we currently throw away >95% of the energy potential of the Uranium we use. Why? Recycling is not economically viable, because raw Uranium is far too cheap (see above). So facto 20 of what we've used so far is just sitting in Castors. And fortunately not in deep geological repositories, out of reach.
And then there's Thorium, which is significantly more abundant in the crust than raw Uranium. And of the Uranium, only a small percentage is currently usable.
Fuel is simply not going to be a problem.
A huge uranium bubble between 2004 and 2008, which triggered massive investments for prospection... and a ridiculous result (15%). The cause is known: the quest for atomic weapons triggered during the 1950's and 1960's massive prospection, and there is no decisive way to better prospect and few not yet prospected zones.
> Seawater extraction is starting to be competitive with mining
This is periodically announced since the 1970's, and no-one could industrialize. Bottomline: "pumping the seawater to extract this uranium would need more energy than what could be produced with the recuperated uranium" Source: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/jones-j2/docs/e...
> In addition, we currently throw away >95% of the energy potential of the Uranium > So facto 20 of what we've used so far is just sitting in Castors. And fortunately not in deep geological repositories, out of reach.
It would be sound if a ready-for-deployment model of industrial breeder reactor. There is none.
> And then there's Thorium
Indeed, but not industrial reactor. Next.
"... the amount of uranium in seawater is truly renewable as well as inexhaustible."
"New technological breakthroughs from DOE's Pacific Northwest (PNNL) and Oak Ridge (ORNL) national laboratories have made removing uranium from seawater economically possible."
https://www.ans.org/news/article-1882/nuclear-power-becomes-...
More recently:
Ultra-highly efficient enrichment of uranium from seawater via studtite nanodots growth-elution cycle
Nature, 2024.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50951-4
High-capacity uranium extraction from seawater through constructing synergistic multiple dynamic bonds
Nature, 2025
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44221-024-00346-y
If you prefer a popular overview:
Uranium Seawater Extraction Makes Nuclear Power Completely Renewable
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
A speculative bubble is not the same as serious serious demand, and the actual demand never materialized. The vast majority of the "prospecting" was just speculators, not serious mining companies. And for serious prospecting, the 4 year time-frame was way too short, you just barely get done with the early stages of
- land acquisition and permitting
- Geological surveys (airborne radiometrics, mapping, geochemistry)
- Target generation
- Initial drilling programs
- Preliminary resource estimates (if successful)
You don't have enough to get to actual serious exploration and feasibility studies:
- Infill drilling
- Metallurgical testing
- Environmental baseline studies
- Scoping and feasibility studies
- More permitting
- Community consultation
Breeder reactors exist, they face the same problem as recycling: mined uranium is still way too cheap to make investment in those technologies economically attractive.
Should Uranium get more scarce and thus more expensive, the economic incentives change very quickly and then we can pull those technologies off the shelf.
Same for Thorium reactors: currently not necessary, as we have plenty of Uranium for the existing Uranium based designs. Doesn't stop companies like Copenhagen Atomics from investing, as they see other advantages in addition to very readily available fuel.
Declaring "obsolete" is, at best, a weak counter-argument.
> "... the amount of uranium in seawater is truly renewable as well as inexhaustible."
Indeed. The problem isn't on this side but on our ability to industrially harness it with a realistic EROI.
> "New technological breakthroughs from DOE's Pacific Northwest (PNNL) and Oak Ridge (ORNL) national laboratories
That's exactly what I described "new tech breakthrouhs". Many of them. Periodically, since the 1970's... and nothing industrial yet.
The last one dates back one year ago: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2479709-new-way-to-pull...
Nothing industrial. Maybe one day. I'm grabbing my pop-corn while renewables gain momentum.
Breeder reactors had the very same trajectory: many huge new projects, for decades, delivered many (quite promising) lab reactors and even industrial prototypes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ), however not a single industrial model is ready to be deployed now and dwindling efforts are way less ambitious than they were during the 1970-1990 era ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants )
> A speculative bubble is not the same as serious serious demand
The last bubble lasted enough for the prospection to surge in global exploration expenditures and new projects, particularly from 2005 to 2009. See the referenced WP article ("Due to increased prospecting...").
> The vast majority of the "prospecting" was just speculators, not serious mining companies
Indeed, however those companies did buy serious prospection efforts. Do you doubt so (source)?
> And for serious prospecting, the 4 year time-frame was way too short
No, obtaining all green lights for a mine is indeed a 5 to 10 years-long project, however finding a new deposit and qualifying it is way quicker (1 to 4 years?).
> Breeder reactors exist
Then please name an industrial model of breeder reactor, ready to be deployed.
> they face the same problem as recycling: mined uranium is still way too cheap to make investment in those technologies economically attractive.
Nope. Officially, industrial breeding is no longer pursued in some nations (France being one) because uranium is cheap, which is a poor excuse because, if that were the case, why have they been searching at great expense for decades, and are they still doing so in various nations (in France, experts are calling for projects to be revived), when the price of uranium has never (apart from a brief bubble around 2007) been a threat?
Attempting to industrialize breeding is justified because achieving it would considerably reduce dependence on uranium and the burden caused by waste, to the point that even nations with uranium are becoming active: Russia is the most advanced, and it has large deposits via its vassal Kazakhstan.
Should Uranium get more scarce and thus more expensive, the economic incentives change very quickly and then we can pull such an industrial breeder reactor off the shelf.
> Same for Thorium reactors: currently not necessary, as we have plenty of Uranium for the existing Uranium based designs. Doesn't stop companies like Copenhagen Atomics from investing, as they see other advantages in addition to very readily available fuel.
Indeed! I'm not disputing that some invest, however past efforts towards breeders' industrialization were vastly more powerful, with no results.
Copenhagen Atomics does not sell nor announce any industrial nuclear reactor ( https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/products/ ).
This company recently obtained 3 million USD funding, and maybe 17 more later, for a potential 100MWt lab reactor ( https://interestingengineering.com/energy/danish-firm-molten... ). The sole French project aiming at obtaining an industrial breeder prototy (Superphenix) burnt 60 billion French francs during 1974-1997.
The real effort towards thorium reactors predates breeders ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center#Rea... ), and before the 1970's it was clear that breeders (esp. fast-neutron) were more promising. The result is known: nothing.
So you have a big nothing-burger.
Once again: there is no significant investment, because there is no Uranium shortage. Uranium is cheap and plentiful.
Applies to your entire reply, no need to go repeat it every time you bring this debunked argument.
Attempting to industrialize breeding is justified because achieving it would considerably reduce dependence on uranium and the burden caused by waste, to the point that even nations with uranium are becoming active: Russia is the most advanced, and it has large deposits via its vassal Kazakhstan.
Should Uranium get more scarce and thus more expensive, the economic incentives change very quickly and then we can pull such an industrial breeder reactor off the shelf.
Your arguments have been shot down all over this thread. Do you need a win so bad?
Avoiding car accident and not smoking is way, way easier than avoiding most effects of a major nuclear accident (fine dangerous and very durable dust disseminated on a vast geographical zone, thanks to wind and rain).
The total amount of victims of the Chernobyl accident is a matter of debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
We didn’t get to making the calculations of economics to improve the tech because of the corruption and lack of education I was mentioning before. What we have is calculations based on 60 years old tech and risk analysis based on a 40 year old accident.
As I said in the previous comment, if you’d do the same for commercial flight you might find steam ships are a better deal.
Betting on a technology that has a catastrophic likelihood of low probability but high impact at a time when your scientific and regulatory institutions are crumbling is a high risk strategy. Unless you're arguing that modern nuclear tech is literally childproof and not susceptible to catastrophe under idiocratic regimes.
I worked with Japanese and Germans in the field, so I guess you don't know what you're talking about and are projecting your biases. The owner of the company was a Jewish Moroccan expat who contributed greatly to the field. Please have a look inside yourself before confessing your issues.
Sorry, but no.
Chernobyl exclusion zone is less than a single area of the Agent Orange usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chernobyl_radiation_map_1...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial-herbicide-spray-mi...
So if the fire was not put out, it could have easily been 5x worse. There were 4 reactors total, so in the absolute worst case it could've been 10x worse.
Sure, these days its too expensive in relative terms but switching back to fossil fuels due to all the Chornobyl/Three Mile panic (but mainly likely because of the cost) might end up being one of the bigger mistakes in human history.
Where are your scientific alternative models?
The exemption being France and maybe China?
France did a programme of nuclear power stations rather than the 1 or 2 offs that seem to be the norm elsewhere and that seems to have worked pretty well.
I'd be surprised if HPC is competitive with solar + wind + BESS when it comes online but I could well be wrong
Fastest build times are Japan with under 4 years.
Germany built its Konvois in just shy of 6 years.
Just before we stopped building altogether.
France built 50+ reactors in 15 years.
We know how to build nuclear quickly, reliably and (relatively) cheaply. We also know how to do it slowly, eratically and expensively.
Fortunately the former comes almost but not entirely automatically with building lots of them.
The Konvois in Germany were extremely successful.
France built 50+ reactors in 15 years from a standing start.
Please describe any nuclear reactor which was successfully built in France or Germany during the past 25 years.
France: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
France built hardly any.
And that's the complete answer: we know how to build nuclear reactors quickly and cheaply.
Building only very few of different novel designs while slowly (or quickly) losing the industrial base to do so, for example by making it illegal to build more (or at all) is exactly how you don't do it.
Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies.
Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix.
A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!
But nuclear is fast to build, if we ignore all modern western examples!
As per recent French nuclear construction they are on a path of replacing it with renewables because it is horrifically expensive and they are unable to finance new construction.
Barakah (delivered March 2024) was late (by about 3 years?), undersold (KEPCO hadn't any other ongoing project and the Korean government at the time wanted a nuclear phase-out) and various tricks are now known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
Indeed, and it is so undeniable that it is the official conclusion. Source (French): https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme...
https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl...
Note: catastrophic nuclear is still better than best renewables.
In contrast nuclear power is backsliding, and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached.
Reality doesn't have to make sense to you.
> renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world
Nope. Countries are trying to phase out renewables subsidies. And failing. Recently, the UK, Denmark and Germany have had offshore-wind sales with exactly zero bids.
> fastest growing energy source in human history.
People love those delicious subsidies.
> In contrast nuclear power is backsliding
Nope.
> and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached.
Only in markets that have been thoroughly distorted by subsidies and other preferential treatment for intermittent renewables.
I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth.
Now you’re trying to paint the entire renewable industry, solar, storage, onshore wind etc. with the paint brush of off-shore wind.
The German and Danish auctions were negative bid auctions.
To explain what that means: companies were asked to pay for the privilege to build off shore wind at a set very low CFD. Those delicious subsidies right?!? Might even call them negative subsidies!
Given recent interest rate hikes and increased cost for construction materials off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability.
Other projects like this one in Germany moves forward without any subsidies.
https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2...
What you of course don’t mention is that the recent interest rate hikes and increases in construction costs impacts nuclear power far more than off-shore wind and other renewables.
So someone actually knowledgeable in the topic would not promote nuclear power as the alternative.
So again. Please stop lying and misrepresenting cherry picked stats. You know better.
The source is the report by the French Cour des Comptes. I am not your research assistant.
> I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth.
I find it interesting that you have no arguments left and have to resort to ad-hominem attacks.
And thank you for confirming my point:
>off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability.
Meaning the very best off-shore wind projects may or may not be profitable. We don't know yet.
Whereas the worst French nuclear project in recent history (FV3) is predicted by the Cour des Comptes to have "modest" profitability in the worst case scenarios.
So once again: worst nuclear >> best intermittent renewable.
QED.
For anyone even having a slight economic understanding the writers of that report are shouting from the top of their lungs that investing in nuclear power is pure lunacy.
But shrouded in a language allowing lobbyists and blindingly biased people to cite it.
Any understanding of economy and shilling for nuclear power seems to be a very disjoint set given what we are seeing in this thread.
And counterfactual, as nuclear is immensely profitable and the world is investing in nuclear.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45243337
The world also very much is not investing in nuclear power given how it is backsliding as a % of the global energy mix with a huge number of closures looming in the close future with no replacements in sight.
Given this answer I don’t know if you are either trolling or have serious problems with delusions.
I dislike drawing conclusions so I will end this conversion with a question:
If you are not trolling, have you tried seeking help from the mental healthcare system?
Nuclear had a record production year in 2024, despite the German exit.
2025 is predicted to be another record year.
There are currently 60+ reactors under construction, 90+ in preparation and 170+ announced/in planning.
The future is nuclear.
Or you are explicitly going on tangents attempting to muddy the water. Nuclear power having a record year in 2025 and me claiming:
> The world also very much is not investing in nuclear power given how it is backsliding as a % of the global energy mix with a huge number of closures looming in the close future with no replacements in sight.
Are both correct statements. I even acknowledge that we have a lot of existing infrastructure while commmenting on the trend line.
That 60+ reactors number also includes several abandoned projects. In 2024 the world managed to complete 6 reactors. So far the number in 2025 is a 1 reactor.
Of course ignoring that this is a debate focused on the west with western construction costs. In which the nuclear construction rate far under the replacement rate.
But you can't deal with reality. When it came to the future you went straight into hypotheticals not backed by firm deals hoping no one noticed.
This is not a sane behaviour, nor commenting in good faith.
Nuclear projects are easy to announce. Maybe we can ask these reactors how it went getting a final investment decision:
France:
EPR2 project, do I need to say more? Stuck in financial limbo due to the insanely large subsidies needed to get it off the ground with a government that just collapsed due to being underwater in debt while having a spending problem and being unable to reign it in.
UK:
- Sizewell C - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_nuclear_power_stati...)
- Wylfa-Newydd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_sta...
- Oldbury B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#...
- Bradwell B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_stati...
- Moorside - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station
US:
- Bellefonte - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellefonte_Nuclear_Plant#Units...
- Bell bend - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Bend_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- Callaway - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St...
- Calvert Cliffs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Nuclear_Power_P...
- Comance Peak - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
- Galena - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- Grand Gulf - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Gulf_Nuclear_Station#Uni...
- Levy County - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_County_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
- Nine Mile Point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Mile_Point_Nuclear_Genera...
- River Bend - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Bend_Nuclear_Generating_...
- Shearon Harris - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearon_Harris_Nuclear_Power_P...
- South Texas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas_Nuclear_Generating...
- Victoria County - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_County_Station
- Virgil C. Summer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener...
China:
Keeps announcing reactors without starting to build them. China also recently revamped the financing side removing the previous CFD are instead forcing the reactors to compete on market terms which is slowing down investment.
China averages ~4-5 construction starts per year which cumulatively leads to nuclear power shrinking as a part of the electricity mix.
> China: Keeps announcing reactors without starting to build them.
I asked ChatGPT:
Is it true that China keeps announcing nuclear reactors without building any? ChatGPT said: No, it's not true that China keeps announcing nuclear reactors without building any. In fact, China is one of the most active countries in the world in building nuclear power plants. Here's what the facts show (as of 2024–2025): China is actively building nuclear reactors As of 2024, over 20 reactors are under construction in China, making it the country with the largest number of reactors being built. Many more are in various stages of planning and permitting. China has over 50 reactors in operation already and continues to expand its fleet aggressively. China’s typical process China often announces long-term nuclear energy plans as part of its five-year plans or carbon neutrality goals (aiming for carbon neutrality by 2060). Not all announcements lead to immediate construction — some projects are proposed or approved but not yet started, due to: Regulatory approval processes Site selection Financing and technology partnerships Local opposition or environmental reviews Examples of real construction and completion The Hualong One (HPR-1000), a Chinese-designed Gen-III reactor, has been built and connected to the grid in multiple locations, including: Fuqing-5 and Fuqing-6 Karachi-2 and Karachi-3 in Pakistan (exported models) China is also investing in SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) and fast breeder reactors, including: The Shidao Bay HTGR (high-temperature gas-cooled reactor), which reached criticality. The CFR-600 fast reactor, under construction. Why might people think China is only announcing? Some reasons for the misunderstanding: Media headlines often report announcements, but follow-up coverage of construction or completion is rare unless it's a major milestone. Some proposed projects take years to move forward, so people may assume they’re stalled. There is general skepticism toward state announcements in some international media.
Conclusion:
China is not just announcing nuclear reactors — it is actively building and commissioning them at a faster rate than almost any other country. While not every announcement leads to immediate construction, a large percentage do eventually get built.
----
> That 60+ reactors number also includes several abandoned projects.
The PRIS database lists 63 reactor projects.
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstruction...
How many of those do you consider "abandoned"? Is it a significant number?
----
Financial Limbo. Once again, I asked ChatGPT:
"Is the EPR2 project stuck in financial limbo? Not exactly. While the EPR2 nuclear reactor project faces significant financial uncertainties, rising costs, and regulatory hurdles, it is not truly "stuck in financial limbo." The project is currently in a prolonged but fairly typical preparatory phase for large-scale infrastructure, where securing financing, approvals, and detailed planning takes time. These challenges are common in complex, capital-intensive projects—nuclear or otherwise—and reflect the cautious and deliberate approach needed before construction can begin. The French government and EDF remain engaged, with key decisions and financing strategies expected soon, indicating the project is still moving forward, albeit slowly and with some risks."
Arguing in good faith? Not for you! Hope to bury the person you are discussing in a wall of LLM text because you can't deal with reality, that is what you do!
> As of 2024, over 20 reactors are under construction in China, making it the country with the largest number of reactors being built.
And what did I say: China has 4-5 construction starts per year leading to a shrinking share of nuclear power in the electricity mix.
As per Chinese average construction times that leads to in the 20s reactors under construction.
Thanks for the confirmation!
> Why might people think China is only announcing? Some reasons for the misunderstanding: Media headlines often report announcements, but follow-up coverage of construction or completion is rare unless it's a major milestone.
I wonder why I was counting construction starts based on authoratative databases?! Thanks again for confirming that China is barely building any nuclear power!
> China is not just announcing nuclear reactors — it is actively building and commissioning them at a faster rate than almost any other country. While not every announcement leads to immediate construction, a large percentage do eventually get built.
Yes. Currently targeting ~2-3% of the electricity mix as per recent construction starts. Insignificiant.
> While the EPR2 nuclear reactor project faces significant financial uncertainties, rising costs, and regulatory hurdles, it is not truly "stuck in financial limbo."
"Not truly stuck", but stuck.
> The French government and EDF remain engaged, with key decisions and financing strategies expected soon, indicating the project is still moving forward, albeit slowly and with some risks."
You mean the government that just collapsed because they are underwater in debt with a spending problem they are unable to reign in?
They will get around creating insanely bonkers large handouts to the nuclear industry any day now! Lets force a downgrade of their credit rating by another notch or two!
Exactly what is needed!
> The PRIS database lists 63 reactor projects.
Including
- 2 reactors from Ukraine which hasn't moved an inch since the Soviet times.
- 2 reactors in Japan that will get finished any day now!
- 1 reactor on a slowly rolling recently halted project in Argentine. Did I mention that it is 25 MW? A tiny bit bigger than an off-shore wind turbine!
- 1 reactor in Brazil which has on and off been construction since 1984.
That was ~10% of the reactors on that list. Should I continue??????
Also love the dodge. Just ignore all abandoned American and UK reactors in the last 20 years and keep pretending that all announced reactors will magic themselves into existence! Any day now!
Anyway, there is no use discussing with you, as you just repeat the same lies over and over.
Just one example:
> Also love the dodge. Just ignore all abandoned American and UK reactors in the last 20 years
These were never in the list of 63 reactors. So there is no "dodge". You are just lying again.
Bye.
Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45243337
If you keep facing these problems maybe you are the issue?
I also find awesomely lovely that your ChatGPT nonsense confirmed exactly what I said.
> These were never in the list of 63 reactors. So there is no "dodge". You are just lying again.
Lets cite what you said:
> There are currently 60+ reactors under construction, 90+ in preparation and 170+ announced/in planning.
They are en example of what happens with the "90+ in preparation and 170+ announced/in planning" which you attempted to proclaim will just magic into existence any day now.
Just like how all those UK and US reactors magicked into non-existence.
I also do note that you of course ignored the 10% of the "60+ reactors under construction" I gathered some data on.
Just ignore everything that does not confirm your biases? Is that how you roll?
Doesn't sound very engineery.
The average build time is currently 6.5 years. The median is lower at 5.8. The variations across both time and space of those average are neither large nor particularly systematic.
There have always been outliers, so if you focus on those you can "prove" anything you like.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...
Instead taking the average of all modern western construction and we get close to 15 years.
With the recent insanely subsidies european projects being proposed even the initial timeline calls for a ~10 years build time. Assuming everything goes to plan.
But that’s OK, Theresa May signed a guarantee that they’d get paid an uncompetitive price by the taxpayer, regardless.
Once that became too obvious to deny, after the French government had renationalised EdF, they were begging the UK government to give them more money, possibly buried in the contract for the second plant build.
For that build they stopped using CFD, a financial instrument designed for nuclear but which has massively helped renewables, be ause it couldn't hide the nuclear cost overruns. They're now charging electricity users in advance for the nuclear they are going to build with no guarantee of eventual costs.
Opposed to that, battery recycling is mostly hard to deal with in terms of economics, and admittedly the chemistry involved is complex, but at least from a technical point of view, plenty of solutions are available - and the tech is coming in relatively quickly now that the demand is there (remember, first generation EVs are just now getting closer to EOL).
It's slightly amusing that recycling of a wind turbine is treated as if it was a big deal - yes the laminated rotor parts can't be part of circular economies, but the total material amount of this laughably small. All the metal components are very easily recycled.
In France, 95% of the mass of a wind turbine must be recycled (legal obligation), the concrete base is not spared and the law requires wind farm operators to lock (upfront) a financial guarantee (deposit).
Recyclable blades are appearing (RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN...) and even existing ones are being considered: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-che...
According to EDF (multinational electric utility company owned by the government of France, the giant in France, owning and operating all nuke plants) 94% of a solar panel is recyclable. In France most of it is already recycled.
Ibidem for the fuel: yes, you can depends on wild countries; You can also depends on Australia, Canada and India, which seems like not-so-bad countries (in my opinion);
When it comes to nuclear waste repositories real experts official publish: "Internationally, it is understood that there is no reliable scientific basis for predicting the process or likelihood of inadvertent human intrusion."
Source: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/201...
Like magma, sulfuric acid, mercurium, lead, basically thousands of stuff
You eat it, you die
As I said earlier, I do not understand the relation between the answer and its parent
Yes, toxic waste are toxic, this is not the issue (as far as I know)
The issue is the long life of nuclear waste, which is a solved problem due to fast breeder reactor (half life ~30ky, which is nothing compared to what light water reactors produce); Also, the quantity of waste is drastically reduces;
Why are not mass producing them: political issue;
For this we need an industrial model of breeder reactor. Please name it. There is none.
Many nations (US, France, Germany, Japan...) engulfed huge amounts of money on this quest, during decades.
TLDR: this works on lab reactors cajoled by scientists. It doesn't work industrially.
Russia has (by far) the most advanced potentially pertinent reactors ("BN"), and they work so well that this nation pauses on this architecture (sodium) and is back to the lab (300MWe) with another architecture (lead) named "BREST".
> the quantity of waste is drastically reduces
Therefore it would not solve the problem (we would have to put this waste somewhere then pray that nobody ever mingles with it).
Wikipedia disagrees
> we would have to put this waste somewhere then pray that nobody ever mingles with it).
Preventing people from killing themselves is not an issue per-se.
(yes, this is argumentum ad absurdum; Effort is made to prevent access to the nuclear waste, like all toxic materials)
? Please quote and source, or name a model of industrial breeder reactor ready-to-be-deployed.
((nuclear waste))
> Preventing people from killing themselves is not an issue per-se.
"Wikipedia disagrees": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
(there is still very low amount of waste that have a long half-life, really not a big deal)
Government involvement doesn’t negate viability, it enables it, just like with roads, ports, or any other infrastructure requiring long-term capital deployment.
0: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran...
So far the cleanest solution we've come up with is gas plants, but gas plants made Europe extremely dependent on Russia. The alternatives are oppressive regimes or the US, which has been starting trade wars seemingly out of boredom.
Nuclear fuel, on the other hand, is exported not only by Kazachstan, but also Canada and Australia. In terms of "countries you don't want to depend on", I'd rather have Canada than Qatar.
I'm not sure if the economics still work out if you factor in the ineffective, half-assed Russian sanctions that have Europe fund Russia's war economy. The only alternative is probably coal, but only if you don't hold coal to the same standards in terms of waste disposal and nuclear exposure of the public as nuclear plants.
Nuclear isn't cheap, in part because it's become a niche market only some countries still participate in, but the politics and large-scale economics aren't as bad as the anti-nuclear crowd make them seem. They'd probably be bad for America, because the mighty oil industry stands to lose money and they'd need to import their fuel, but for countries already importing their fuel the balance is completely different.
Infuriatingly, the crowd that wants to do something about global warming also seems to think every nuclear reactor is going full Chernobyl within the decade. All of the parties I even consider voting for are staunch anti-nuclear activists for no documented reason other than "we don't like it".
AFAICT this is not really nuclear. They excel at constant production, not switch ability to fill in around renewables.
If you have a nuclear reactor you want to run it 24/7 at max output for it to make any economic sense. Otherwise you have all your fixed costs which need to be offset by the few hours that the reactor is actually selling energy, making this energy even more expensive.
TLDR: it doesn't work this way.
Detailed version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41796580