Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Three serious problems with nuclear, globally:

- too slow. Break ground now and you'll be producing energy by 2030.

- political instability. Hands up who supports the switch of Iran and Saudi Arabia to nuclear? It would reduce a lot of carbon emissions. Let's not overlook Ukraine either: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurenuclear-plants-i...

- budget instability: Wylfa has stopped https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hitachi-job... and Hinckley Point C is hanging on by an expensive thread. It is also at risk of inconvenience from Brexit, given that the UK is leaving Euratom and is likely to experience "no deal" chaos for personnell and equipment from EDF.

Is the US really able to build nuclear plants with the occasional total budget shutdown for 3 months?

View on HN

? In light of Ukraine there are way bigger concerns than distance from conflict zone to nearest Nuclear power station. Ukraine voluntarily gave up one of the worlds largest nuclear arsenals in exchange for what now everyone can see worthless security promises from the remaining nuclear powers. This will be last time any country gives up Nuclear weapons and I bet it will result in way more countries getting into the game eventually.

Senior US advisors 'rarely if ever admit this' lesson, but it was also demonstrated when Libya gave up its nukes: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nu...

Libya never had nukes to give up.

Quote from the article:

>The lessons that we learned out of Libya giving up its nukes … is, unfortunately: If you had nukes, never give them up. If you don’t have them, get them.”

This quotr misled me. What I found from another source is that they had a nuclear weapons program according to another source 'likely to develop a nuke in 3-7 years'

Yeah, there is a huge difference between nukes, which have a deterrent capacity, and a nuke program, which is pretty much an anti-deterrent, especially when it comes to US action.

That seems to be the opposite point which the article is making since Libya and Gadaffi were attacked an utter anyways.

There is a great problems with Zaporojye Nuclear. It on "planned" repairs for years. Some blocks work several days a week.

It was already pretty clear after bombing of Lybia and the murder of Gaddafi.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wii/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_des...

> budget instability

California recently voted to shut down the last remaining nuclear power facility in California, Diablo Canyon: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-diablo-canyon-nuclear...

but I don't think it has anything to do with budgets and more to do with the public's perception of safety of fission and officials not wanting to have a meltdown event happen while they're in office.

Right next to my university! A bunch of the buildings were marked as rad shelters.

Budget instability isn't precisely what is stopping anyone from building a nuclear power reactor, it's that when all costs are accounted for it is simply not cost competitive anymore, and certainly not in 10 years when it's actually going live and there have been a bunch more iterations of solar and other alternative energy source growth.

This. The market has voted. Nuclear can't compete. Now fusion may someday be another matter (pun intended).

> too slow. Break ground now and you'll be producing energy by 2030

Rosatom will sell you a floating power station for $300 million [0], you can tow it into place and connect it up. The regulatory approval will probably take you longer than getting it here.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...

Along with "too slow," I wonder if there is also "doesn't pay for itself fast enough." It's hard enough to predict what electricity will cost in 2030, let alone over the life of a plant.

Mass-produced energy technology (solar and wind) would seem to have the edge?

>Is the US really able to build nuclear plants with the occasional total budget shutdown for 3 months?

When did the US Govt Shutdown for 3 months (90 days)? Source please.

It's unfortunate that this is being downvoted, when the core of the parent's point is that three month total budget shutdowns are occasionally happening (the fact is, that is entirely untrue).

Considering we just ended the longest one ever that lasted 3 weeks.. maybe they meant 3 weeks.

Fake news :)

I support Iran’s right to have nuclear power as well as nuclear isotopes for medical use.

Also mining for radioactive materials takes a huge toll on the environment. Also, how are they going to get rid of radioactive waste? There doesn't seem to be a good solution to this at all.

Ya, USA can’t m get a handle on its aging infrastructure how will it be 30 years down the line when the holding tanks and cleanup plans are given same treatment . Throw in a random government shutdown too

That US infrastructure is widely crumbling - such that the US somehow can't get a handle on it - is a myth. The US requires targeted infrastructure investment, it is not suffering a broad based problem.

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/infrastructure-US-crum...

Mining for rare earth elements also takes a huge toll on the environment and kills thousands of people.

There are many reasonable ways to deal with radioactive waste. And even if there weren't, so what? If we stay on the current trajectory regarding fossil fuels, we're all screwed within a generation or two, nuclear waste is the least of my worries.

> Is the US really able to build nuclear plants with the occasional total budget shutdown for 3 months?

When has there ever been a three month budget-based shutdown, much less occasional? You're inventing a premise that has never happened as a supporting argument and then furthering pretending it happens from time to time. That argument is entirely void.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com