I've seen quite a few SMR proposals over the last couple of years and not a single one that dared to address the whole cycle from deployment to eventual decommission as a function of the total revenues - costs to operate. Most of these projects seem to be made to bilk investors or governments rather than to actually produce power. The day Italy produces the first KWh that is net profitable to the operators without counting subsidies I will be highly amazed, and that's assuming they get to operational in the first place.
I agree, I tell everyone who will listen that no country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA etc has ever made nuclear power profitable. And you can't blame it on the environmentalists in China and Russia.
That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.
> country, not Russia, China, Japan, France, USA
Are you serious when putting France in this list? Nuclear is such a cash cow here that EDF manage to make profits even while being forced by the regulator to sell a big fraction of its nuclear capacity below the operating cost and buying it back to them at market price! (We're talking about a multi-billon subsidies scheme, look for ARENH).
And that is despite (rather legitimate IMHO) regulatory constraints that have no equivalent in any other industry.
Anything is cheaper when you don't count all the costs.
In January 2017 a parliamentary committee reported: "The cost of decommissioning is likely to be greater than the provisions," the technical feasibility is "not fully assured" and the dismantling work will take "presumably more time than expected."
Decomissionning is a made-up issue: no other industrial activity is expected to return clean nature after they stopped operating, even mundane things like business offices real estate or highways wouldn't be economically viable if they had to provision for decommissioning.
You could clean up the high activity thing and let the buildings and their asbestos in place and nuclear decommissioning would still be more environmentally friendly than every other heavy industry.
> no other industrial activity is expected to return clean
Does not mean it's a made up issue. That's classic whataboutism. Ecologists are not concerned just about nuclear activity, but precisely about the overall industry destroying our entire environment, and for whose profit?!
Funny how all that concern they have never manifests for wind and solar power.
Nor do I see a great deal of concern for manufacturing, as long as it is done somewhere else. If it done here: it is super dirty and dangerous, jobs no one wants. Elsewhere: what great opportunity for them to rise out from poverty. The fact that the environmental regulations are nonexistent, either never brought up or dismissed because we can't regulate another government.
You seem out of touch with actual ecologists. Just because some ecologist discourse you don't hear on CNN doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Of course ecologists are very concerned for solar and wind power, or rather for their industrial counterparts! I know quite a few activists who are very concerned with non-recyclable solar panels and wind plants, but build solar "boilers" and tiny wind generators from spare parts and renewable materials (such as wood).
Ecologists are also concerned with outsourced manufacturing. Not every ecologist is a caricature of a Silicon Valley engineer who says we'll save the planet by buying Tesla cars and building solar plants. In fact, 100% of the ecologists i know (who are actually involved in activism) will say that those people are not ecologists but merely green-washing.
> Decomissionning is a made-up issue: no other industrial activity is expected to return clean nature after they stopped operating,
That is factually wrong. Coal mining has to re-naturalize the areas used for mining after the coal was removed.
And most industries are supposed to not just leave toxic waste and instead have a plan what to do with toxic waste products these days. And no, an empty building cannot be compared to radioactive waste.
They consider the concrete around the plant's parking lot to be nuclear waste though (I'm not kidding, that's how the French regulations works).
I have a family member working for a Canadian company that steps in after a mine has stopped operating. It cleans up and remediates the surrounding land and water to minimize environmental impact. This is usually a thorough process that takes a long time. Many months or years.
jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
asmodeuslucifer · · focus · HN ↗
That being said, many countries consider it a national security issue not to be held hostage to foreign oil.
stymaar · · focus · HN ↗
Are you serious when putting France in this list? Nuclear is such a cash cow here that EDF manage to make profits even while being forced by the regulator to sell a big fraction of its nuclear capacity below the operating cost and buying it back to them at market price! (We're talking about a multi-billon subsidies scheme, look for ARENH).
And that is despite (rather legitimate IMHO) regulatory constraints that have no equivalent in any other industry.
asmodeuslucifer · · focus · HN ↗
In January 2017 a parliamentary committee reported: "The cost of decommissioning is likely to be greater than the provisions," the technical feasibility is "not fully assured" and the dismantling work will take "presumably more time than expected."
<a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france?ref=undecided.tech" rel="nofollow">https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
stymaar · · focus · HN ↗
You could clean up the high activity thing and let the buildings and their asbestos in place and nuclear decommissioning would still be more environmentally friendly than every other heavy industry.
gspr · · focus · HN ↗
Oil and gas extraction platforms here in Norway, I believe.
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
Does not mean it's a made up issue. That's classic whataboutism. Ecologists are not concerned just about nuclear activity, but precisely about the overall industry destroying our entire environment, and for whose profit?!
themaninthedark · · focus · HN ↗
Nor do I see a great deal of concern for manufacturing, as long as it is done somewhere else. If it done here: it is super dirty and dangerous, jobs no one wants. Elsewhere: what great opportunity for them to rise out from poverty. The fact that the environmental regulations are nonexistent, either never brought up or dismissed because we can't regulate another government.
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
Ecologists are also concerned with outsourced manufacturing. Not every ecologist is a caricature of a Silicon Valley engineer who says we'll save the planet by buying Tesla cars and building solar plants. In fact, 100% of the ecologists i know (who are actually involved in activism) will say that those people are not ecologists but merely green-washing.
throwaway7356 · · focus · HN ↗
That is factually wrong. Coal mining has to re-naturalize the areas used for mining after the coal was removed.
And most industries are supposed to not just leave toxic waste and instead have a plan what to do with toxic waste products these days. And no, an empty building cannot be compared to radioactive waste.
philwelch · · focus · HN ↗
stymaar · · focus · HN ↗
padjo · · focus · HN ↗
abdullahkhalids · · focus · HN ↗