Thread

1. idontwantthis · 1790784321 · focus · HN ↗

   A nuclear power plant is essentially a coal power plant with free fuel. Today, if you literally built a coal power plant with free fuel it would not be cheaper than solar. My question: If you built a small modular coal power plant, would that be cheaper than solar? It necessarily has to be cheaper than nuclear.

   1. vablings · 1790785994 · focus · HN ↗

      A nuclear power plant is a coal power plant except.

      It has incredibly strict requirements for safety, we are talking SOP & Risk assesment for climbing up a 3ft ladder

      There is a requirement for literally thousands of pounds of concrete to shield the reactor

      The employees have to be highly qualified and trained.

      The construction materials have to be validated, tested certified and then tested again during install to ensure conformance.

      You must deal with spent fuel

      They are not the same and cannot be retrofitted eitherways

      1. idontwantthis · 1790786845 · focus · HN ↗

         That's my point I'm trying to find a good argument for why modular nuclear is a good idea.

         Can modular coal (which doesn't need all of that) beat solar? If not, then I don't know why modular nuclear would be able to.

         1. kayfox · 1790792553 · focus · HN ↗

            It can provide power when solar and wind are not generating, and while doing so also provide base generation that allows the grid to be robust against fluctuations in solar and wind.

            1. dalyons · 1790801867 · focus · HN ↗

               except it cant do that without going bankrupt. Nuke power costs too much, you have to be selling it at 100% 24x7 to have any chance of paying back the capex.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.