Hacker News Reader

Comment by phil21 | Hacker News Reader

The primary cost of nuclear is politically driven. I don't know if that matters in a world of actual energy scarcity, I guess we'll be finding out.

If you remove liability and the insanity of our current methods of waste storage the costs become outright cheap, especially in an imagined future where there is massive investment into new nuclear infrastructure.

By the metrics people use to judge nuclear, hydro would be the most expensive power source known to man if you were to build one today. Just the land costs would make the entire project nonsensical if viewed solely in that frame.

Those are just artificial constructs though. In a world where there is actual human suffering (in the west) due to physical energy shortages the politics (and thus cost models) may shift rapidly.

View on HN

When you say 'primary cost' do you mean construction cost? Again, utility managers will be looking at lifecycle costs, from the cradle (construction) through use (fueling, security, cooling water, maintenance) to the grave (decomissioning).

The reason costs are high is not political, it's that the systems involved need to be over-engineered relative to say, a coal-fired power plant, where a breakdown or fire will create a big mess, but not a 100-year exclusion zone. Water pumps for nuclear reactor cooling systems, for example, are the most robustly engineered (and expensive) pumps ever built, as far as I know.

For example, California's decision to close the San Onofre reactor was mostly related to maintenance costs, as their steam generator system was shaking itself to pieces and had to be shut down due to the radioactive loop leaking into the non-radioactive steam generation system. The rational conclusion is that long-term maintenance of nuclear reactors is an expensive proposition, due to catastrophic failure modes:

https://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/san-onof...

> Water pumps for nuclear reactor cooling systems, for example, are the most robustly engineered (and expensive) pumps ever built, as far as I know.

Which is not an issue with newer reactor designs, which are no less proven than grid storage.

New reactor designs, even with closely regulated designs, are very unproven. The next gen French EDF design recently had some units come online, but they had to figure out some unexpected buildup in some byproducts. You are also validating more than the design, you are validating a manufacturing materials control in a very long term feedback cycle - which is generally terribly difficult for making improvements.

In comparison to something like grid storage where one can site, build and operate, in less time than the make a minor nuclear design correction. Grid storage can correct mistakes at very low cost and on a very rapid cycle compared to nuclear.

Grid storage is proven through dozens of working installations earning decent money for their operators, pushing gas peaker plants out of the market.

Newer reactor designs are well simulated but have zero real world implementation.

Grid storage is as simple as E = mgh. We do that industrially, billions of times a day, worldwide, and have for centuries.

To cite uncertainty about storage is only to admit you have no argument.

A relevant piece of information that could be attached to the San Onofre reactor argument is that we are talking about a 1st generation reactor, from the late 60’s.

Proponents of new nuclear solutions would argue that reactor design, which is today at 4th generation, has greatly evolved and improved in too many ways to count since the late 60’s.

> The primary cost of nuclear is politically driven. I don't know if that matters in a world of actual energy scarcity, I guess we'll be finding out.

> If you remove liability and the insanity of our current methods of waste storage the costs become outright cheap, especially in an imagined future where there is massive investment into new nuclear infrastructure.

You are misinformed. Nuclear power operators do not have to covee liability costs (no insurance is willing to cover nuclear disaster, so this is a massive subsidy). Also the cost of long term storage is typically not included in cost calculations for nuclear power either. Despite of this nuclear is more expensive than renewables.

> By the metrics people use to judge nuclear, hydro would be the most expensive power source known to man if you were to build one today. Just the land costs would make the entire project nonsensical if viewed solely in that frame.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. In fact hydro projects have to typically compensate land owners when building a dam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com