🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:10:12 UTC No. 16457298
Why is nuclear energy more expensive?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:12:53 UTC No. 16457303
>>16457298
It needs a lot of extra safeties and its not just the plant you need to fund but also the facilities to process and store waste, or to recycle it if that were the case, and to produce the fuel. So its 3 separate industrial installations
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:44:45 UTC No. 16457323
>>16457298
and dont forget they are still making underestimations for the follow-up costs in favor of the operators.
there are always only advantages and disadvantages, there is no better.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:52:24 UTC No. 16457329
Mining uranus is hard
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:06:01 UTC No. 16457389
>>16457298
Is this graph saying because nuclear energy produces so much energy for so many people, it recieves the most money in payment?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:32:27 UTC No. 16457780
>>16457389
How stupid can you be?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:04:32 UTC No. 16457797
this is western-centric, most of the cost is in building reactors and most of the company's and people who built them went tits up after electricity demand growth stopped and all the boomers hated on it so nuclear power plants are a specialty order now. If they decided to massively expand nuclear power and made building them routine the price would be lower
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:02:35 UTC No. 16457824
>>16457797
this, big old classic power plants have been doomed in the west thanks to fear mongering
smr is the future
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:26:43 UTC No. 16457848
>>16457329
Perhaps you lack an adequate tool
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:18:52 UTC No. 16457878
>>16457298
damn ol’ gub’ment regulations
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 08:39:33 UTC No. 16457927
>>16457298
>Levelised cost
Disregarded
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 08:45:54 UTC No. 16457930
>>16457298
>Why is nuclear energy more expensive?
Regulations.
Not even in like a retarded "legalize nuclear arms - all regulation bad" take, but an actual: western nations have regulated nuclear power plants and energy into being prohibitively expensive. The parts, the fuel, the cost of labor, the cost of authentication, it's all grossly exaggerated. Which, I'm not completely unsympathetic to: the consequences for fucking up nuclear are obviously quite serious.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:59:04 UTC No. 16457958
>>16457298
Because average build time in Western countries is obscene. In Korea the average build time is only 5 years and the quality is higher.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 14:18:16 UTC No. 16458211
>>16457298
Well, cheap ones catch on fire. You don't want that. Energy is expensive
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:32:37 UTC No. 16458473
>>16457298
Lazard assumes that nuclear reactor construction cost is $8,765 – $14,400 per kilowatt, that the reactor lifetime is 40 years, and that the cost of capital is around 10%.
In actual reality, China builds reactors for less than $2,500 per kilowatt, the reactor lifetime is at least 60 years, and the cost of capital is 2.5% because it's a risk-free state-run program and 2.5% is the interest rate on Chinese 30 year bonds.
Lazard LCOE calculations for nuclear power are based on the worst run nuclear programs in the world, extreme outliers like Vogtle 3&4 and Hinkley Point C. They should not be considered representative of nuclear power in general.
Page 38
https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey
https://www.nengyuanjie.net/article
Furthermore, I will note that LCOE is a misleading metric because it doesn't take into account the cost of storage or transmission infrastructure. Even in the few cases where an LCOE calculation does take cost of storage into account, the cost of transmission infrastructure is usually still neglected.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:36:54 UTC No. 16458484
>>16458473
Now you've got to name two nuclear reactors that lasted 60years in China.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:41:30 UTC No. 16458502
>>16457824
SMRs will likely be even more expensive per watt. It's not without reason that, both historically and even today, every nuclear reactor industry ever anywhere always scaled up as they were able to. Nuclear reactors benefit enormously from economies of scale. Small reactors only make sense in the context of microgrids or cogeneration. The hype that SMRs will somehow be superior is just cope over the fact that the western nuclear reactor construction industry has essentially atrophied to the point where it's back to where it started in the 1950s and can't in practice deliver anything larger without the project turning into a total shitshow.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:50:59 UTC No. 16458529
>>16458484
60+ years is the design life. It's not just China. Essentially all modern reactor designs have a design life of 60+ years. The only reason to assume a modern reactor would have a design life of only 40 years is because in the US the initial NRC license is 40 years before you have to apply for an extension. Obviously, you would apply for an extension, and I don't see why it wouldn't be granted.
China's oldest domestic-design nuclear reactor is Qinshan unit 1, which came online in 1994. However, the reactors that China is mainy building right now are the CAP series, which are based on the American AP1000, and the HPR1000, which is a gradual evolution of the French CPY / American Westinghouse 3-loop.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:54:43 UTC No. 16458539
>>16458529
Do you think it'll last as long as intended? When it comes to China, I have mixed feelings. I've seen Chineese products either be far better than western, or totally worse.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:58:00 UTC No. 16458544
>>16457930
How can there be reliable cost data for the Turkish, Bangladeshi and Egyptian NPPs, when they haven't been finished yet?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:59:12 UTC No. 16458546
>>16458539
I think that today's China has understood the sunk costs fallacy. Unlike some people in Germany who want to reactivate the old, partially decommissioned power plants, the Chinese will level theirs once it's economically not feasible. Based chink autists don't care about feelings.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:04:03 UTC No. 16458557
>>16458539
Yes, I am 99.9% confident that the reactors will last at least as long as their design life. I am 99.9% confident that the Chinese at this point have managed to obtain enough knowledge of neutron embrittlement and other life-limiting factors to know what they need to do to make a reactor last a certain number of years.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:08:56 UTC No. 16458561
>>16458557
What about nature? Tectonic plates, floods, you seem to know your stuff so I'm asking you, I don't know where else would I obtain information like this.
Also tell me more about life limiting factors of NPPs.
I know some particle physics, but I didn't made it in college.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:12:52 UTC No. 16458571
>>16458546
Reactivating shut down reactors in places like Germany and Sweden would have been a great idea, if the Germans and Swedes hadn't immediately flushed their reactors with acid - in the name of decontamination, of course - to make sure that the question of reactivation would immediately be taken off the table
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:19:31 UTC No. 16458590
>>16458561
I'm also 99.9% confident that the Chinese know the seismic parameters of the regions they're building in and build the reactors accordingly.
The Chinese don't build reactors along rivers. They build them by the sea.
As far as I know, the main life limiting factor of a nuclear reactor is the reactor pressure vessel, because it would be too expensive to replace it. Other parts, such as steam generators, etc, can be replaced, and the concrete of the reactor building itself is so long lived that it doesn't matter. The main life limiting factor of the RPV is neutron embrittlement. It can be life-extended by annealing, which I know the Russians have done.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:37:50 UTC No. 16458630
>>16458571
Michigan is reactivating one of their mothballed nuclear plant. Boomers in the US who watch 'The China Syndrome' around the time of Three Mile Island are getting old and losing power over things, so nuclear might be an easier sell to the public. Still, the cost issues, like the insane run up in Georgia at units 3 and 4 of Vogtle, have to be addressed.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:38:59 UTC No. 16458634
>>16458473
I found this paper on the cost of Chinese nuclear reactors.
It says for Gen 3 the average cost has been 17,600 yuan per KW, which is about 2,480 dollars. On average the cost of capital is 16% of the total cost. The average construction duration of 76 months. Simplifying and assuming every case is a fully average case, it would imply a cost of capital of about 3%.
Gen 3 reactor models are relatively new in China. Hopefully, the cost will come down more in the future as they streamline the construction process. Also, the future superlarge reactors like the CAP1400 might reduce costs even more.
https://anthropoceneinstitute.com/w
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:41:34 UTC No. 16458643
>>16458630
So is Japan. Which is something you didn't pour acid into the primary circuit, and didn't start removing and cutting up critical parts.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:43:30 UTC No. 16458649
>>16458473
I found this paper on the cost of Chinese nuclear reactors.
It says for Gen 3 the average cost has been 17,600 yuan per kilowatt, which is about 2,480 dollars. On average the cost of capital is 16% of the total cost. So the overnight cost of construction is actually more like 2,080 dollars per kilowatt.
The average construction duration of 76 months. Simplifying and assuming every case is a fully average case, it would imply a cost of capital of about 3%.
Gen 3 reactor models are relatively new in China. Hopefully, the cost will come down more in the future as they streamline the construction process. Also, the future superlarge reactors like the CAP1400 might reduce costs even more.
https://anthropoceneinstitute.com/w
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:45:41 UTC No. 16458654
>>16458630
So is Japan. Which is something you can do if you weren't in a hurry to pour acid into the primary circuit and start removing and cutting up critical parts.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:47:02 UTC No. 16458657
>>16458571
Well, some retarded rightoids still want to reactivate them lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:48:49 UTC No. 16458663
>>16458630
The only way to address the high cost is to build more. The experienced workforce needs to be rebuilt. You need to make hard commitments to buy 20+ units, so that vendors can justify the investment into a proper supply chain that lets you achieve proper economies of scale.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:55:38 UTC No. 16458680
>>16457298
Because gubrmint subsidizes """""""""""green""""""""""" energy like crazy, there's no way wind turbines are cheaper than gas. Also "levelized cost" is suspicious as fuck, what does that even mean.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:57:11 UTC No. 16458686
>>16458473
I found this paper on the cost of Chinese nuclear reactors. It says that for Gen 3 the average cost has been 17,600 yuan per kilowatt, which is about 2,480 dollars today. On average the financing cost is 16% of the total cost, and the overnight construction cost is 84%. So the overnight cost of construction is actually more like 2,080 dollars per kilowatt.
The average construction duration has been 76 months. Simplifying and assuming every case is a fully average case, it would imply a cost of capital of about 3%, not much more than the interest rate on a Chinese 30 year bond.
Gen 3 reactor models are relatively new in China. Hopefully, the cost will come down more in the future as they streamline the construction process. Also, the future superlarge reactors like the CAP1400 might reduce costs even more.
https://anthropoceneinstitute.com/w
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:09:40 UTC No. 16458709
>>16457824
lmr (large modular reactors) are the present and the future
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOV
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:13:35 UTC No. 16458717
>>16458680
>there's no way wind turbines are cheaper than gas
Last time I checked, I didn't have to pay for my own neighborhood to get windy
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:14:29 UTC No. 16458719
>>16458717
>no wind
What now?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:19:12 UTC No. 16458724
>>16458680
It depends entirely on the price of natural gas
Lazard assumes $3.45/mmBTU (see the link posted earlier in thread) even though average Henry Hub spot prices were $2.57/mmBTU in 2023
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:48:14 UTC No. 16458761
>>16457930
>Which, I'm not completely unsympathetic to: the consequences for fucking up nuclear are obviously quite serious.
Why the fuck would you put a colon instead of a semicolon?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:55:35 UTC No. 16458770
>>16457298
This seems like a reasonably relevant thread to mention that China's first CAP1400 has just been connected to the grid. It is an enlarged (1500MWe) and fully indigenized derivative of the AP1000.
China owns all intellectual property rights because the AP1000 tech transfer contract with Westinghouse said that China would own the full IP rights of any AP1000 derivative design of 1350MWe or greater output. So in the future, China might start exporting a bigger and better version of the AP1000, while Westinghouse exports nothing, which would be quite ironic.
https://news.bjx.com.cn/html/202411
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:42:57 UTC No. 16458897
>>16457298
They have to pay meltdown insurance which is like flood insurance multiplied by malpractice insurance raised to the power of earthquake insurance.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:50:15 UTC No. 16458902
>>16458473
>, and the cost of capital is 2.5% because it's a risk-free state-run program
Just because something is state-whatever doesnt means its risk free. Governments are not magical
The govt of China could declare that bons now pay 0.1% and the pension funds would still buy them, doesnt mean the cost of building the reactors is any lower, all the cost is just eaten up by the funds and it simply reflects on lower payments to pensioners
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:50:39 UTC No. 16458977
>>16457298
>Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE+) is a U.S.-focused annual publication that combines analyses across three distinct reports: Energy (LCOE, 17th edition), Storage, (LCOS, 9th edition) and Hydrogen (LCOH, 4th edition). Lazard first started publishing its comparative analysis of various generation technologies in 2007.
Uranium fuel cycle and Carter's soft ban on nuclear reprocessing
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:55:55 UTC No. 16458986
>>16458590
>pressure vessel
this is not necessary for power generation, sure you need a reactor, but high pressures are not an inherent design feature
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 12:19:16 UTC No. 16459570
>>16458986
High pressure in the reactor vessel is an inherent design feature of PWRs, which are the overwhelming majority of the reactors that the world is building
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 14:55:12 UTC No. 16460961
>>16459570
What if it's thorium instead of uranium
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 19:45:09 UTC No. 16461285
>>16458902
China's debt is not just intra-governmental. China can sell another 30 year bond tomorrow on the open market, and it would have to pay 2.5% interest on it. So that's the current marginal cost of capital for the Chinese state.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 19:46:51 UTC No. 16461289
>>16458717
You have to pay for the wind turbines though, as well as the interest on the loans you used to finance those wind turbines
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 19:51:09 UTC No. 16461295
just a quick reminder that china lies
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 19:56:44 UTC No. 16461301
>>16457298
Regulation. Most of which only exists because of massive lobbying by Big Oil, Coal and Gas. The amount of cash they've thrown at nuclear to make it economically unviable is insane.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:03:49 UTC No. 16461320
>>16460961
Then it would be worse
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:04:02 UTC No. 16461321
>>16457298
Beurocracy
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 04:46:09 UTC No. 16461802
>>16461289
>as well as the interest on the loans you used to finance those wind turbines
That would be less than a quarter than the amount of money you can get from the turbines. And the maintenance would be lower than that
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 05:04:23 UTC No. 16461805
>>16461295
As opposed to the US Government which is completely transparent in all its dealings and has never once presented a falsehood to the public.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 07:14:04 UTC No. 16461872
>>16458680
wind turbines can be cheaper than gas, they build them for often purely economic reasons nowadays because the cost to build wind turbines is often lower than what is saved in fuel by throttling down fossil fired plants when its windy
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 07:31:17 UTC No. 16461879
>>16457298
Overregulation, simple as
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 23:20:56 UTC No. 16462840
>>16461879
AP1000s and EPRs were designed to meet American and European regulatory standards and they could still build them without excessive cost overruns or delays in China
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 23:44:39 UTC No. 16462878
>>16461301
>>16461321
>>16461879
How come there's not a single country in the world that allows for cheap power with the help of adequately low regulations?
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 23:56:58 UTC No. 16462901
>>16462878
Unirocincally France is better for nuclear than the US, the people who discovered it.
How did the US let this happen? Hippies.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 21:08:19 UTC No. 16464078
>>16462878
There are countries that build nuclear reasonably cheaply. China, Russia, South Korea
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 21:25:10 UTC No. 16464097
>>16462901
You know that in France virtually the entire energy sector is run by a single state-owned company, especially the nuclear sector? If anything it's the free market that killed nuclear power and socialist states and governments that made it.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 21:29:29 UTC No. 16464103
>>16464097
True, case in point: Lithuania. In Soviet times their nuclear plant delivered more than 120% of their national energy needs. Then they turned capitalist, turned off the plant and started switching to coal.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 22:50:44 UTC No. 16464197
>>16458897
>They have to pay meltdown insurance which is like flood insurance multiplied by malpractice insurance raised to the power of earthquake insurance.
Why can't they be built far away from people and far away from valuable precious locales of nature? It's hard to transfer the energy
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 22:59:37 UTC No. 16464210
>>16464097
>If anything it's the free market that killed nuclear power and socialist states and governments that made it.
Because the regulations that prevent fuel reuse (eliminates almost all fresh uranium costs) and that prevent any reactors from being built on time and under budget are free as hell.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:02:11 UTC No. 16464212
>>16461295
https://youtu.be/CNeZOe3169E
https://youtube.com/shorts/2ClbUiS1
https://youtu.be/r6d351sizBQ
https://youtu.be/5u6PLgR8Zh4
https://youtube.com/shorts/8NApseFB
https://youtu.be/pzjpK2BYGCQ
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:09:17 UTC No. 16464220
>>16464210
>Because the regulations that prevent fuel reuse (eliminates almost all fresh uranium costs
What's the deal with fuel reuse? What are you saying there, the entire reason fuel is not allowed to be reused is only because it is so energy beneficially it is economically unbeneficial?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:14:04 UTC No. 16464221
>>16461285
>China can sell another 30 year bond tomorrow on the open market,
How much Chinese debt at 2.5% is held by non-chinese investors?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:16:36 UTC No. 16464222
>>16464220
It is expensive to reprocess fuel, i guess its just too radioactive and has nasty things like plutonium and caesium. Fresh uranium is cheaper.
It isnt going to waste, that nuclear waste can still be processed in the future
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:18:45 UTC No. 16464225
>>16457298
Lack of investment due to uncertain future due to uncertain lawscape. It works just fine in China.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 00:24:32 UTC No. 16464272
>>16464220
It's banned by most governments worldwide. It's literally free energy we're skipping on to Nerf nuclear.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 00:42:39 UTC No. 16464287
>>16464222
>It is expensive to reprocess fuel, i guess its just too radioactive
What's the reprocess process like?
You say it's so radioactive, but it has to be handled to be removed, and moved: so why not when removing it, toss it into a nuclear reactor designed to utilize fuel reuse? Like a beater car of nuclear reactors.
It can be reused in the future if needed, all that dangerously radioactive unreused fuel is kept in a safe and accessible location to go simply grab it when it's needed?
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 00:45:22 UTC No. 16464288
>>16464272
Are there no prime locations away from nice people places and things, that nuclear plants can be built, or it really is a hindrance trying to transport the energy?
So historically they are built close enough to a large group of people, which is a goldilocks zone game, of keep the scary thing away, get me fast cheap energy quick
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 05:58:36 UTC No. 16464505
>>16464287
>toss it into a nuclear reactor designed to utilize fuel reuse?
It gets reprocessed first, not just tossed into some new reactor. Which would also be expensive, now you want some extra reactor for spent fuel?
Spent fuel is kept in locations that are known and allegedly safe, like remote salt mines away from groundwater in places where theres no earthquakes.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 08:00:55 UTC No. 16464716
>>16457298
>lazard
Into the trash it goes
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 13:49:05 UTC No. 16464908
>>16457298
Regulations are updated continuously and have to be tracked continuously, also when designing and building a new nuclear power plant. Hinkley Point C was bogged down in a lot of politics that didn't help much.
There are more problems coming up soon: we have known resources for just 200 years but with the planned new reactors, that reserver will be sufficient for perhaps 50 years with the increased consumption from the added capacity.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:26:03 UTC No. 16465057
do people really want unregulated nuclear power plants?
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:31:50 UTC No. 16465067
>>16464505
>Spent fuel is kept in locations that are known and allegedly safe, like remote salt mines away from groundwater in places where theres no earthquakes
You or other anon said:
A) to radioactive to handle dismaying the reprocess process
B) if ever needed, could go to the location where X amount of "spent" (but according to other anons, still full of viable energy) rods are, and simply and safely remove them to then start the reprocess.
I asked what the reprocess process is like, why is it so extensive?
In the 100 years of nuclear abilities there has been no theories and methods on building gnarly will eat anything reactors that can utilize "spent" fuel rods from the pristine plants?
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:34:28 UTC No. 16465069
>>16464505 #
>Spent fuel is kept in locations that are known and allegedly safe, like remote salt mines away from groundwater in places where theres no earthquakes
You or other anon said:
A) too radioactive to handle dismaying the reprocess process
B) if ever needed, could go to the location where X amount of "spent" (but according to other anons, still full of viable energy) rods are, and simply and safely remove them to then start the reprocess.
I asked what the reprocess process is like, why is it so extensive?
In the 100 years of nuclear abilities there has been no theories and methods on building gnarly will eat anything reactors that can utilize "spent" fuel rods from the pristine plants?
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:13:15 UTC No. 16465397
>>16465069
NTA but the reprocessing issue relates to politics and regulations, not technology. Since reprocessing can yield weapons grade materials, it is heavily regulated and therefore not done. If done, a large fraction of waste could be recovered as fresh fuel, and teh remaining could be split into non-readiactrive lead and remaining super hot waste.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 01:35:19 UTC No. 16465576
>>16457298
Cost of lives is unaccounted for with coal mining, air pollution and turbine maintenance.
>>16457303
It's all the other's needing more security desu
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 02:45:31 UTC No. 16465629
>>16465397
Oh, so it is likely being used for weapons then huhub.
>If done, a large fraction of waste could be recovered as fresh fuel, and teh remaining could be split into non-readiactrive lead and remaining super hot waste.
A large fraction of the waste is fuel?
Is there a simplified qrd of the reprocess process?
Take spent fuel rods;
Put them in some vat chemical baths and pressure chambers and smelters with refining and separating? With mega radiation shielding
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 03:12:25 UTC No. 16465660
>>16457298
That's probably the cost to maintain old reactors or to set up new ones. Big up front investment.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 05:46:50 UTC No. 16465760
>>16465057
>something is safe only if the government says it is
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 06:22:59 UTC No. 16465783
>>16464210
Exactly and who lobbied for these regulations? The private fossil fuel industry. Face it, a privatized energy sector is what killed nuclear. There is a reason why the only country on the planet that is actually building 90% of all nuclear plants has a completely socialized energy system.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 06:24:00 UTC No. 16465785
>>16465057
No, I want a completely narionalized energy sector like France, Quebec, Norway and China.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 07:16:48 UTC No. 16465833
>>16465760
>seriously who are the largest group of most intelligent responsible trustworthy people who have the mosts best interests and how do you know
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 07:24:27 UTC No. 16465840
>>16465783
>>16465785
If it's close to true of estimations of 200 years of uranium left at current use levels and less considering current and near future reactors being built, is it even worth it?
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 10:09:11 UTC No. 16465890
>>16464197
>Why can't they be built far away from people and far away from valuable precious locales of nature?
The core needs water cooling with today's reactors. Big cities are often located by the shore as well.
Educated engineers are harder to find in the bum-fuck nowhere.
>>16465629
>Put them in some vat chemical baths and pressure chambers and smelters with refining and separating? With mega radiation shielding
Molten salt. Vacuum pumps. Chemical reactions and perhaps mechanical devices.
>It's hard to transfer the energy
It's the simplest part of electronics. Besides the energy will be stored in another form (as fertilizer or fuel cell fuel) at the site. It's all quite beautiful and might finally blossom with The Great Reset(tm) as soon as the imminent climate collapse hits.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 13:24:18 UTC No. 16465963
>>16457298
Given there are 4 under coalburning this data is untrustworthy.
Do a better research for real cost.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 13:25:26 UTC No. 16465965
>>16465785
Fuck off retard
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:51:29 UTC No. 16466096
>>16465965
The miseries of America's nuclear reaction construction, current and historical, aptly demonstrate the benefit of electric power being consolidated under the state.
It should be consolidated because small utilities are too small to take advantage of economies of scale, which is especially apparent in the case of nuclear power. America has 94 operating nuclear reactors yet over 50 different reactor designs because the industry failed to standardize. The 94 reactors are distributed over 54 plants, so almost all nuclear power plants in the US have just 1 or 2 reactors. So the O&M does not benefit much from economies of scale either.
The power sector should be state-run because power is a sector full of economic externalities.
Small private utilities are inadequate for financing nuclear power plants because they are too scared of such a large project failing and causing the utility to go bankrupt.
Reactor construction and design also benefits from being state-run because it means you can have one or two reactor designs without suffering from the problems of a private monopoly or oligopoly. The disadvantages of being state-run are outweighed by the advantages of economies of scale.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:53:55 UTC No. 16466104
>>16465840
Fuel supply is a solved problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integ
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:55:42 UTC No. 16466107
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:58:25 UTC No. 16466110
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 22:41:19 UTC No. 16466535
>>16466096
>yet over 50 different reactor designs
We should organize a conference to commission a new design that will replace all the other designs. A clean slate
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 23:08:44 UTC No. 16466561
>>16466535
Is a possible danger of settling on just one design, if something does go wrong in the building, functioning process, you are scrambling for the drawing board? Or there is and should be 100% confidence if the best and brightest nuclear minds got together they could quickly evolve and adapt thee optimal state of the art design?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:33:19 UTC No. 16467116
>>16466535
The US already has excellent designs, the AP1000 and the ESBWR. The US could purchase the rights from Westinghouse and GEH like China did. If they refuse to sell on good terms, the US can purchase the rights to APR1400 from South Korea. Or the CAP1400 from China, lol.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:57:26 UTC No. 16468357
>>16465057
No, just intelligently regulated ones
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:58:33 UTC No. 16468358
>>16464288
Nuclear reactor operators and maintainers include highly skilled people and most of them don't want to live in the middle of a desert. Furthermore, power transmission infrastructure is not cheap.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:05:28 UTC No. 16468364
>>16465057
Yes.
>b-b-b-b-but what about that one time when retarded slav government fucked up one nuclear powerplant
Not my problem.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 17:40:27 UTC No. 16468431
>>16468358
Some of them do.
>The Palo Verde Generating Station is a nuclear power plant located about 45 miles (72 km) west of Phoenix, Arizona. Palo Verde generates the most electricity of any power plant in the United States per year, and is the largest power plant by net generation as of 2021. Palo Verde has the third-highest rated capacity of any U.S power plant. It is a critical asset to the Southwest, generating approximately 32 million megawatt-hours annually.