Thread

1. jacquesm · 1790188361 · focus · HN ↗

   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.

   1. asmodeuslucifer · 1790189256 · focus · HN ↗

      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.

      1. planckscnst · 1790199087 · focus · HN ↗

         Is that because every country fails to adequately charge oil/coal/etc for its externalities? Are we essentially subsidizing oil, bringing the costs artificially low such that nuclear can't compete?

         1. Arnt · 1790200306 · focus · HN ↗

            Nuclear has several major cost problems if it's own. Insuring against a major accident is prohibitively expensive, the kind of inspection+maintenance regime that's necessary for safety isn't amenable to cost reductions. The list goes on. Basically:

            Nuclear isn't similar to the things that grow cheaper as the operators gain experience.

            1. Llamamoe · 1790200684 · focus · HN ↗

               Much if fhe inspections and standards aren't "necessary for safety" but the direct product of paranoia and lobbying. Nuclear is brutally overregulated, far, far beyond what's necessary to ensure safety, and that's where most costs come from.

               1. markvdb · 1790201513 · focus · HN ↗

                  Then why is the insurance for every single reactor public sector based?

                  1. DennisP · 1790206841 · focus · HN ↗

                     Possibly because if there's a big accident, everybody in the region who gets cancer will sue, even if there's no detectable change to cancer rates.

                     1. tcfhgj · 1790218284 · focus · HN ↗

                        Cancer is the smallest problem when bigger areas become inhabitable.

                        1. account42 · 1790249327 · focus · HN ↗

                           Yes and we should also shut down the large hadron collider because it might cause a black hole.

                           1. tcfhgj · 1790301628 · focus · HN ↗

                              you do you

                              1. account42 · 1790321628 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Unfortunately if other people act on irrational fears to the extend that it affects my energy prices I cannot just do me.

                                 1. tcfhgj · 1790332187 · focus · HN ↗

                                    Nothing irrational here, already happened

                                    1. DennisP · 1790342312 · focus · HN ↗

                                       Once, with a horrible reactor design that nobody builds anymore. It had two major problems:

                                       1) It was inherently unstable because when the fuel temperature increased, it made the reaction speed up. Modern reactors do the opposite.

                                       2) It didn't have a containment dome.

                                       1. tcfhgj · 1790343005 · focus · HN ↗

                                          how many black holes have been created by particle accelerators in the past?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.