| ▲ | AndyPa32 3 days ago |
| I disagree with cheapest. If you factor in twenty years build time and nuclear waste disposal, the whole thing is not economically viable. Then there's a problem with nuclear fuel. The sources are mostly countries you don't want to depend on. You are of course right with your assessment that nuclear is green, safe and eco-friendly. That's a hard one to swallow for a lot of eco activists. |
|
| ▲ | m101 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It is expensive because of the regulatory burdens associated with making it unreasonably safe. By unreasonably safe I mean that harms predicted by radiation models are unscientific, and death rate expectations are far lower than alternative power generation technologies. Nuclear fuel storage is relatively straightforward, and volumes have potential to be reduced 30x through recycling. |
| |
| ▲ | oneshtein 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Nuclear power plants require international laws and international cooperation for insurance, because one serious incident, such as Chornobyl, can wipe a continent. In Ukraine, profits from all nuclear plants will cover damages, caused by Chornobyl, in 1000-5000 years IF nothing more will happen to Chornobyl or other an other nuclear power plant in those years, which is unlikely. | | |
| ▲ | pqtyw 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Still, though, if nuclear continued growing at the same pace it was until the 80s we'd be in a massively better spot climate change wise. Sure, these days its too expensive in relative terms but switching back to fossil fuels due to all the Chornobyl/Three Mile panic (but mainly likely because of the cost) might end up being one of the bigger mistakes in human history. | |
| ▲ | close04 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We can make nuclear safe (enough) but after one big incident nobody wanted the political career suicide to push for this. So we are stuck with criticizing stone-age level nuclear power because we never took it further. The West never stopped doing something just because the USSR didn’t do it properly. If we did the same with commercial air travel after the first disasters we’d still cross the oceans in boats. Car accidents kill 10-15 times more people every year worldwide than Chernobyl did but we don’t give up on cars either. Heck, smoking kills 7-8 times more people than cars every year (that’s 80-100 Chernobyls worth every year) and we still allow it. The reasons are political not technically or financially insurmountable obstacles. We didn’t shut down nuclear in Europe for “green” reasons or because we can’t improve it, or because it kills too many people, but because enough Russian money went into politicians’ pockets to do this. | | |
| ▲ | oneshtein 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You arguments boils down to «it's OK to wipe a continent once in a while, because nuclear energy is the safest energy option per megawatt produced». | | |
| ▲ | dpassens 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No, the argument is that it didn't "wipe the continent" and in fact caused far less damage than other things we're totally fine with. I don't see GP saying that they want an incident like this to repeat, just that, if it did, the consequences would be far less severe than "wiping the continent". | |
| ▲ | pqtyw 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > OK to wipe a continent Why not exaggerate to the "entire planet" if we are going this way.. Regardless, in hindsight humanity could have prevented (at least to a significant extent) climate change if we doubled down on nuclear 40-50 years ago instead of stopping most expansion. What will be the cost of that? | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I doubt so: 416 industrial nuclear reactors are deployed in the world today. They produce 10% of the electricity, itself 20% of the final energy, so nuclear power produces at best 2% of the energy consumed. Nuclear power would provide 10% of the energy, which would be far from sufficient since it is necessary to electrify uses (in order to reduce the quantity of fossil fuel burned) and therefore produce more electricity, if we could multiply the power of the fleet by 5, therefore building around 1500 new reactors and keeping the existing fleet active. Hoping for this before 2100 would be absurd. | | |
| ▲ | pqtyw 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, its way too late now. 80 reactors were launched between 1960 and 1970, 185 between 70s, 237 in the 80s, in the 90s it was barely 60. Instead if it kept doubling every decade it would be well over 10%. Of course electrification of transportation etc. should have starter much earlier. Obviously none of that was economical compared to coal/gas/oil back then. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > doubling every decade Uranium deposits mined under the right conditions can supply the current stock for at best two centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium To extend this beyond that, we must hope for a revolutionary production process (pursued in vain for decades: breeders...), the ability to exploit less promising uranium deposits, thus tolerating increased emissions and costs, or the discovery of a large deposit. Hoping for such a discovery is risky because intensive prospecting began at the end of the Second World War (the quest for nuclear weapons), and the rapid and sharp rise in the price of uranium (a bubble) that occurred around 2007 triggered a massive investment in prospecting, the results of which (15%) are very inadequate. Therefore, multiplying the stock by five would leave at best 40 years of uranium certainly available under current conditions, and would therefore be an inept investment (one needs to amortize the plant). Moreover there are geostrategic considerations: many nations don't have any reserve not want to have to buy uranium (creating a dependency) or technical expertise. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Since the 70s, oil reserves only lasted for another decade. "Current reserves" is a moving target: once scarcity raises prices, prospecting makes sense again. Uranium is incredibly cheap. Prospecting is not worth it as there are enough reserves to exploit in the foreseeable future. Seawater extraction is starting to be competitive with mining. With that, even natural Uranium becomes essentially unlimited. In addition, we currently throw away >95% of the energy potential of the Uranium we use. Why? Recycling is not economically viable, because raw Uranium is far too cheap (see above). So facto 20 of what we've used so far is just sitting in Castors. And fortunately not in deep geological repositories, out of reach. And then there's Thorium, which is significantly more abundant in the crust than raw Uranium. And of the Uranium, only a small percentage is currently usable. Fuel is simply not going to be a problem. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Uranium is incredibly cheap. Prospecting is not worth it as there are enough reserves to exploit in the foreseeable future. A huge uranium bubble between 2004 and 2008, which triggered massive investments for prospection... and a ridiculous result (15%). The cause is known: the quest for atomic weapons triggered during the 1950's and 1960's massive prospection, and there is no decisive way to better prospect and few not yet prospected zones. > Seawater extraction is starting to be competitive with mining This is periodically announced since the 1970's, and no-one could industrialize.
Bottomline: "pumping the seawater to extract this uranium would need more energy than what could be produced with the recuperated uranium"
Source: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/jones-j2/docs/e... > In addition, we currently throw away >95% of the energy potential of the Uranium
> So facto 20 of what we've used so far is just sitting in Castors. And fortunately not in deep geological repositories, out of reach. It would be sound if a ready-for-deployment model of industrial breeder reactor. There is none. > And then there's Thorium Indeed, but not industrial reactor. Next. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | LOL. An overview article that was obsolete even in 2016 when it was published. You need to get with the times. "... the amount of uranium in seawater is truly renewable as well as inexhaustible." "New technological breakthroughs from DOE's Pacific Northwest (PNNL) and Oak Ridge (ORNL) national laboratories have made removing uranium from seawater economically possible." https://www.ans.org/news/article-1882/nuclear-power-becomes-... More recently: Ultra-highly efficient enrichment of uranium from seawater via studtite nanodots growth-elution cycle Nature, 2024. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50951-4 High-capacity uranium extraction from seawater through constructing synergistic multiple dynamic bonds Nature, 2025 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44221-024-00346-y If you prefer a popular overview: Uranium Seawater Extraction Makes Nuclear Power Completely Renewable https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s... A speculative bubble is not the same as serious serious demand, and the actual demand never materialized. The vast majority of the "prospecting" was just speculators, not serious mining companies. And for serious prospecting, the 4 year time-frame was way too short, you just barely get done with the early stages of - land acquisition and permitting - Geological surveys (airborne radiometrics, mapping, geochemistry) - Target generation - Initial drilling programs - Preliminary resource estimates (if successful) You don't have enough to get to actual serious exploration and feasibility studies: - Infill drilling - Metallurgical testing - Environmental baseline studies - Scoping and feasibility studies - More permitting - Community consultation Breeder reactors exist, they face the same problem as recycling: mined uranium is still way too cheap to make investment in those technologies economically attractive. Should Uranium get more scarce and thus more expensive, the economic incentives change very quickly and then we can pull those technologies off the shelf. Same for Thorium reactors: currently not necessary, as we have plenty of Uranium for the existing Uranium based designs. Doesn't stop companies like Copenhagen Atomics from investing, as they see other advantages in addition to very readily available fuel. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pqtyw 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Having a massive head start at stopping or slowing down climate change would have been quite nice, though. Even if it weren't a permanent solution. But yes, I agree that fossil fuels also had a lot of very significant political, economical and technological advantages over both nuclear and renewables which is why coal/gas/oil won. For renewables it might be changing now it just might be a bit too late... |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | close04 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, those are your words. The dumbed down, skewed, ragebaity, Fox News level strawman. The guaranteed way to drag down the conversation when you have nothing of value to say: pretend the other guy said something just as worthless and then fight that because it’s easier and you think you have a shot. Your arguments have been shot down all over this thread. Do you need a win so bad? | |
| ▲ | YawningAngel 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | We have had several serious nuclear incidents and none have destroyed either a continent or the people on it | | |
| ▲ | Kon5ole 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the future. We have never had a worst case event but we do know pretty well what the consequences of a worst case event could be. The worst case consequences of Chernobyl were stopped because people literally risked their lives to prevent it. The fire was put out, the steam explosion was prevented, and countless lives were saved as a result. Even so, many countries spent billions, over several decades, to minimize the consequences. As far as 2000 miles away, animals are still to this day fed special foods and managed to avoid prolonged grazing in contaminated areas. Think about it for a second - over 2000 miles away, almost 40 years later, this still requires active management. Despite best efforts to handle the situation when it happened. Now consider that every reactor carries it's own copy of the risks, and they only generate around 10 TWh of electricity per year. That's just way too little electricity for such a risk. It makes no sense. Meanwhile solar and storage is deployed at a rate equivalent to a new reactor every month as we speak. Faster, cheaper, and comparatively risk-free. | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most Russian Roulette games have many 'clicks' before the 'bang'. | | |
| ▲ | 0-_-0 2 days ago | parent [-] | | these were the bangs | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Maybe. Maybe not. Nobody knows for sure, however after each of these click/bang the "there will be no more problem!" thesis seems less and less prominently published. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Car accidents kill 10-15 times more people every year worldwide than Chernobyl did but we don’t give up on cars either. Heck, smoking Avoiding car accident and not smoking is way, way easier than avoiding most effects of a major nuclear accident (fine dangerous and very durable dust disseminated on a vast geographical zone, thanks to wind and rain). The total amount of victims of the Chernobyl accident is a matter of debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... | |
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, we can't. I worked in the industry when there was strong, independent regulation and private engineering consultancies. These don't exist anymore. The NRC is stacked politically and it and EPRI lack the gray beards it once had and the engineering industry is a shadow of its former self. Dunning-Kruger ignorant proponents advocate for it without understanding the issues or the complications in this current situation that is a far different situation than 30 years ago that might've been reasonable when Duke Energy wanted a revival. Its time has passed because the economics of conventional alternatives make it moot. | | |
| ▲ | close04 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I meant “we” as humanity. You gave a very US-centric perspective at a time when the US finds it challenging to deal with many long solved issues. Why conflate not wanting, not caring, not wanting to pay for it, or just not being able right now with it being humanly impossible? We didn’t get to making the calculations of economics to improve the tech because of the corruption and lack of education I was mentioning before. What we have is calculations based on 60 years old tech and risk analysis based on a 40 year old accident. As I said in the previous comment, if you’d do the same for commercial flight you might find steam ships are a better deal. | | |
| ▲ | sillyfluke 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You would need to wait at least five years to make sure Europe will not go the way of the US due to the similar uptick of the same ideology now in power in the US, more if it's still a tiebreak in five years time. Betting on a technology that has a catastrophic likelihood of low probability but high impact at a time when your scientific and regulatory institutions are crumbling is a high risk strategy. Unless you're arguing that modern nuclear tech is literally childproof and not susceptible to catastrophe under idiocratic regimes. | |
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your mind appears closed and you're not interested in having a normal conversation because you don't have any valid points. Best of luck to you. I worked with Japanese and Germans in the field, so I guess you don't know what you're talking about and are projecting your biases. The owner of the company was a Jewish Moroccan expat who contributed greatly to the field. Please have a look inside yourself before confessing your issues. | | |
| ▲ | close04 a day ago | parent [-] | | Rude and aggressive reply to an otherwise perfectly civil comment, “trust me bro, I’m an expert”, bringing up “arguments” but never actually stating any, and chatgpt-like random statements about Jewish-Moroccans from “the company”. Hallmarks of competence. Color me humbled... |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | looofooo0 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What kind assumptions is this based on? | |
| ▲ | justsomehnguy 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > can wipe a continent Sorry, but no. Chernobyl exclusion zone is less than a single area of the Agent Orange usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chernobyl_radiation_map_1... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial-herbicide-spray-mi... | | |
| ▲ | aydyn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Again, Chernobyl was not the worst case scenario. Everyone knows the story, some heroes sacrified their lives to prevent it. | | |
| ▲ | Integer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You mean, everyone watched the TV story which has little basis in fact. Chernobyl was the worst case scenario - there's no way to build a reactor that would produce worse radiation effects when destroyed than to use a pile of graphite. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Angostura 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > harms predicted by radiation models are unscientific, Where are your scientific alternative models? |
|
|
| ▲ | freetonik 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Long build times are often the result of constantly changing regulations. Also it’s interesting that build times in Japan are almost 2 times smaller than in US. |
| |
| ▲ | rootsofallevil 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Nuclear doesn't have a great record in other countries either. I might have the wrong figures but Hinkley Points C is over 2 times over budget and likely to be 5+ years late. The exemption being France and maybe China? France did a programme of nuclear power stations rather than the 1 or 2 offs that seem to be the norm elsewhere and that seems to have worked pretty well. I'd be surprised if HPC is competitive with solar + wind + BESS when it comes online but I could well be wrong | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No, the exceptions are builds like HPC. The average build time is currently 6.5 years. The median is lower at 5.8. The variations across both time and space of those average are neither large nor particularly systematic. There have always been outliers, so if you focus on those you can "prove" anything you like. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... | | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Which for western construction creates a dataset weighted around ~1980. Not sure why that is relevant half a century later? Instead taking the average of all modern western construction and we get close to 15 years. With the recent insanely subsidies european projects being proposed even the initial timeline calls for a ~10 years build time. Assuming everything goes to plan. |
| |
| ▲ | tatref 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years late https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl... | | |
| ▲ | tuetuopay 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We’ve had our share of anti-nuclear activists in France. The project got endlessly stalled, with shifting legislative grounds, and general opposition. Also, the general inefficiency and incompetence from Areva meant this was a match made in heaven (or hell, depends) to get nearly infinite delay. | | |
| ▲ | pfdietz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction. What you're blaming the opposition for is exposing that and holding the nuclear people responsible. How dare they, right? /s | | |
| |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At least 5 times, indeed: it was due to cost 3.3 billion euros, its cost to date is 23.7, it it not running at full power and a major update (reactor cover) is already planned. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl... | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And even that absolutely catastrophic nuclear construction project has a better ROI than any German intermittent renewables. After almost 25 years of renewable subsidies. Note: catastrophic nuclear is still better than best renewables. | | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent [-] | | Source please. That truly does not make sense given that renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world and renewables are the fastest growing energy source in human history. In contrast nuclear power is backsliding, and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher a day ago | parent [-] | | > That truly does not make sense Reality doesn't have to make sense to you. > renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world Nope. Countries are trying to phase out renewables subsidies. And failing. Recently, the UK, Denmark and Germany have had offshore-wind sales with exactly zero bids. > fastest growing energy source in human history. People love those delicious subsidies. > In contrast nuclear power is backsliding Nope. > and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached. Only in markets that have been thoroughly distorted by subsidies and other preferential treatment for intermittent renewables. | | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent [-] | | Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims. Instead you go on a tangent hoping to muddy the water. I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth. Now you’re trying to paint the entire renewable industry, solar, storage, onshore wind etc. with the paint brush of off-shore wind. The German and Danish auctions were negative bid auctions. To explain what that means: companies were asked to pay for the privilege to build off shore wind at a set very low CFD. Those delicious subsidies right?!? Might even call them negative subsidies! Given recent interest rate hikes and increased cost for construction materials off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability. Other projects like this one in Germany moves forward without any subsidies. https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2... What you of course don’t mention is that the recent interest rate hikes and increases in construction costs impacts nuclear power far more than off-shore wind and other renewables. So someone actually knowledgeable in the topic would not promote nuclear power as the alternative. So again. Please stop lying and misrepresenting cherry picked stats. You know better. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher a day ago | parent [-] | | > Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims. The source is the report by the French Cour des Comptes. I am not your research assistant. > I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth. I find it interesting that you have no arguments left and have to resort to ad-hominem attacks. And thank you for confirming my point: >off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability. Meaning the very best off-shore wind projects may or may not be profitable. We don't know yet. Whereas the worst French nuclear project in recent history (FV3) is predicted by the Cour des Comptes to have "modest" profitability in the worst case scenarios. So once again: worst nuclear >> best intermittent renewable. QED. | | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent [-] | | The report with a discount rate lower than the inflation and a 40 year pay back time. For anyone even having a slight economic understanding the writers of that report are shouting from the top of their lungs that investing in nuclear power is pure lunacy. But shrouded in a language allowing lobbyists and blindingly biased people to cite it. Any understanding of economy and shilling for nuclear power seems to be a very disjoint set given what we are seeing in this thread. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Interesting" unsubstantiated opinions. And counterfactual, as nuclear is immensely profitable and the world is investing in nuclear. | | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Here’s the source Cour des Comptes report validating that you are incorrect. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45243337 The world also very much is not investing in nuclear power given how it is backsliding as a % of the global energy mix with a huge number of closures looming in the close future with no replacements in sight. Given this answer I don’t know if you are either trolling or have serious problems with delusions. I dislike drawing conclusions so I will end this conversion with a question: If you are not trolling, have you tried seeking help from the mental healthcare system? | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, you are still incorrect. Nuclear had a record production year in 2024, despite the German exit. 2025 is predicted to be another record year. There are currently 60+ reactors under construction, 90+ in preparation and 170+ announced/in planning. The future is nuclear. | | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Please. Do tell me where I am incorrect. You just keep making unsubstantiated claims about me being "incorrect" and when we go to the sources they contradict you. Or you are explicitly going on tangents attempting to muddy the water. Nuclear power having a record year in 2025 and me claiming: > The world also very much is not investing in nuclear power given how it is backsliding as a % of the global energy mix with a huge number of closures looming in the close future with no replacements in sight. Are both correct statements. I even acknowledge that we have a lot of existing infrastructure while commmenting on the trend line. That 60+ reactors number also includes several abandoned projects. In 2024 the world managed to complete 6 reactors. So far the number in 2025 is a 1 reactor. Of course ignoring that this is a debate focused on the west with western construction costs. In which the nuclear construction rate far under the replacement rate. But you can't deal with reality. When it came to the future you went straight into hypotheticals not backed by firm deals hoping no one noticed. This is not a sane behaviour, nor commenting in good faith. Nuclear projects are easy to announce. Maybe we can ask these reactors how it went getting a final investment decision: France: EPR2 project, do I need to say more? Stuck in financial limbo due to the insanely large subsidies needed to get it off the ground with a government that just collapsed due to being underwater in debt while having a spending problem and being unable to reign it in. UK: - Sizewell C - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_nuclear_power_stati...) - Wylfa-Newydd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_sta... - Oldbury B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#... - Bradwell B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_stati... - Moorside - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station US: - Bellefonte - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellefonte_Nuclear_Plant#Units... - Bell bend - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Bend_Nuclear_Power_Plant - Callaway - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St... - Calvert Cliffs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Nuclear_Power_P... - Comance Peak - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Pl... - Galena - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant - Grand Gulf - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Gulf_Nuclear_Station#Uni... - Levy County - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_County_Nuclear_Power_Plan... - Nine Mile Point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Mile_Point_Nuclear_Genera... - River Bend - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Bend_Nuclear_Generating_... - Shearon Harris - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearon_Harris_Nuclear_Power_P... - South Texas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas_Nuclear_Generating... - Victoria County - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_County_Station - Virgil C. Summer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener... China: Keeps announcing reactors without starting to build them. China also recently revamped the financing side removing the previous CFD are instead forcing the reactors to compete on market terms which is slowing down investment. China averages ~4-5 construction starts per year which cumulatively leads to nuclear power shrinking as a part of the electricity mix. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, I have no time to debunk all the disinformation you put out. > China: Keeps announcing reactors without starting to build them. I asked ChatGPT: Is it true that China keeps announcing nuclear reactors without building any?
ChatGPT said:
No, it's not true that China keeps announcing nuclear reactors without building any. In fact, China is one of the most active countries in the world in building nuclear power plants.
Here's what the facts show (as of 2024–2025):
China is actively building nuclear reactors
As of 2024, over 20 reactors are under construction in China, making it the country with the largest number of reactors being built.
Many more are in various stages of planning and permitting.
China has over 50 reactors in operation already and continues to expand its fleet aggressively.
China’s typical process
China often announces long-term nuclear energy plans as part of its five-year plans or carbon neutrality goals (aiming for carbon neutrality by 2060).
Not all announcements lead to immediate construction — some projects are proposed or approved but not yet started, due to:
Regulatory approval processes
Site selection
Financing and technology partnerships
Local opposition or environmental reviews
Examples of real construction and completion
The Hualong One (HPR-1000), a Chinese-designed Gen-III reactor, has been built and connected to the grid in multiple locations, including:
Fuqing-5 and Fuqing-6
Karachi-2 and Karachi-3 in Pakistan (exported models)
China is also investing in SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) and fast breeder reactors, including:
The Shidao Bay HTGR (high-temperature gas-cooled reactor), which reached criticality.
The CFR-600 fast reactor, under construction.
Why might people think China is only announcing?
Some reasons for the misunderstanding:
Media headlines often report announcements, but follow-up coverage of construction or completion is rare unless it's a major milestone.
Some proposed projects take years to move forward, so people may assume they’re stalled.
There is general skepticism toward state announcements in some international media. Conclusion: China is not just announcing nuclear reactors — it is actively building and commissioning them at a faster rate than almost any other country. While not every announcement leads to immediate construction, a large percentage do eventually get built. ---- > That 60+ reactors number also includes several abandoned projects. The PRIS database lists 63 reactor projects. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstruction... How many of those do you consider "abandoned"? Is it a significant number? ---- Financial Limbo. Once again, I asked ChatGPT: "Is the EPR2 project stuck in financial limbo?
Not exactly. While the EPR2 nuclear reactor project faces significant financial uncertainties, rising costs, and regulatory hurdles, it is not truly "stuck in financial limbo." The project is currently in a prolonged but fairly typical preparatory phase for large-scale infrastructure, where securing financing, approvals, and detailed planning takes time.
These challenges are common in complex, capital-intensive projects—nuclear or otherwise—and reflect the cautious and deliberate approach needed before construction can begin. The French government and EDF remain engaged, with key decisions and financing strategies expected soon, indicating the project is still moving forward, albeit slowly and with some risks." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Nursie 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It won’t be competitive with anything. But that’s OK, Theresa May signed a guarantee that they’d get paid an uncompetitive price by the taxpayer, regardless. | | |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 3 days ago | parent [-] | | But that expensive guaranteed price still wasn't enough to cover the actual costs and the EdF CFO resigned in protest. Once that became too obvious to deny, after the French government had renationalised EdF, they were begging the UK government to give them more money, possibly buried in the contract for the second plant build. For that build they stopped using CFD, a financial instrument designed for nuclear but which has massively helped renewables, be ause it couldn't hide the nuclear cost overruns. They're now charging electricity users in advance for the nuclear they are going to build with no guarantee of eventual costs. |
| |
| ▲ | looofooo0 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | United Arab Emirates. Fastest build times are Japan with under 4 years. Germany built its Konvois in just shy of 6 years. Just before we stopped building altogether. France built 50+ reactors in 15 years. We know how to build nuclear quickly, reliably and (relatively) cheaply. We also know how to do it slowly, eratically and expensively. Fortunately the former comes almost but not entirely automatically with building lots of them. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | During the past 25 years there were projects aiming at building industrial nuclear reactors. They all ended badly (canceled, way over budget or delay...). | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That's completely false. The Konvois in Germany were extremely successful. France built 50+ reactors in 15 years from a standing start. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I wrote "During the past 25 years" Please describe any nuclear reactor which was successfully built in France or Germany during the past 25 years. France: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl... | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Germany didn't build any. France built hardly any. And that's the complete answer: we know how to build nuclear reactors quickly and cheaply. Building only very few of different novel designs while slowly (or quickly) losing the industrial base to do so, for example by making it illegal to build more (or at all) is exactly how you don't do it. | | |
| ▲ | ViewTrick1002 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles. Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies. Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix. A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution! But nuclear is fast to build, if we ignore all modern western examples! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia. Barakah (delivered March 2024) was late (by about 3 years?), undersold (KEPCO hadn't any other ongoing project and the Korean government at the time wanted a nuclear phase-out) and various tricks are now known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | pzo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| but comparing to solar / wind there you also have to factor batteries production, battery replacement, wind turbine replacement and recycling (they are not easily recyclable), cleaning solar panels etc. |
| |
| ▲ | gnatolf 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 'recyclable' is such a vague term. E.g. radiation-affected typically easily recycled materials are very hard to deal with (think e.g. pipe steel from power plants) and are effectively non-recyclable, instead of close to 100% recyclable, as their non-contaminated counterparts. Opposed to that, battery recycling is mostly hard to deal with in terms of economics, and admittedly the chemistry involved is complex, but at least from a technical point of view, plenty of solutions are available - and the tech is coming in relatively quickly now that the demand is there (remember, first generation EVs are just now getting closer to EOL). It's slightly amusing that recycling of a wind turbine is treated as if it was a big deal - yes the laminated rotor parts can't be part of circular economies, but the total material amount of this laughably small. All the metal components are very easily recycled. | | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pzo 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm talking about wind turbine wings. A lot of stuff is fiberglass and have to be buried. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In many Western nations bury them is now forbidden. Most are burnt in cement kilns (producing useful heat). In France, 95% of the mass of a wind turbine must be recycled (legal obligation), the concrete base is not spared and the law requires wind farm operators to lock (upfront) a financial guarantee (deposit). Recyclable blades are appearing (RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN...) and even existing ones are being considered: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-che... According to EDF (multinational electric utility company owned by the government of France, the giant in France, owning and operating all nuke plants) 94% of a solar panel is recyclable. In France most of it is already recycled. | |
| ▲ | gnatolf 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yea, I know. Their volume may look impressive, the actual amount of material is quite small and 'burying' that absolutely non-toxic stuff isn't any problem. |
|
| |
| ▲ | zekrioca 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They are easily recyclable. Nuclear isn’t, unless of course you have a 24/7 protected and monitored by 100’s of people storage place to keep all that safe for the next 10000 years. Very ‘cheap’ indeed. |
|
|
| ▲ | JackSlateur 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| From a technical point of view, nuclear waste is a solved problem. The issue is political. Ibidem for the fuel: yes, you can depends on wild countries; You can also depends on Australia, Canada and India, which seems like not-so-bad countries (in my opinion); |
| |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > From a technical point of view, nuclear waste is a solved problem When it comes to nuclear waste repositories real experts official publish: "Internationally, it is understood that there is no reliable scientific basis for predicting the process or likelihood of inadvertent human intrusion." Source: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/201... | | |
| ▲ | JackSlateur 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I have no idea how this information relates to the parent post; | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | A problem with nuclear waste is that living being (especially human beings) must not be exposed to it. | | |
| ▲ | JackSlateur 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes Like magma, sulfuric acid, mercurium, lead, basically thousands of stuff You eat it, you die | | |
| ▲ | baobabKoodaa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You're being obtuse on purpose and that's not nice. Could you please just respond to the argument in a good faith manner rather than pretend you don't understand the argument? | | |
| ▲ | JackSlateur 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes As I said earlier, I do not understand the relation between the answer and its parent Yes, toxic waste are toxic, this is not the issue (as far as I know) The issue is the long life of nuclear waste, which is a solved problem due to fast breeder reactor (half life ~30ky, which is nothing compared to what light water reactors produce); Also, the quantity of waste is drastically reduces; Why are not mass producing them: political issue; | | |
| ▲ | natmaka a day ago | parent [-] | | > solved problem due to fast breeder reactor For this we need an industrial model of breeder reactor. Please name it. There is none. Many nations (US, France, Germany, Japan...) engulfed huge amounts of money on this quest, during decades. TLDR: this works on lab reactors cajoled by scientists. It doesn't work industrially. Russia has (by far) the most advanced potentially pertinent reactors ("BN"), and they work so well that this nation pauses on this architecture (sodium) and is back to the lab (300MWe) with another architecture (lead) named "BREST". > the quantity of waste is drastically reduces Therefore it would not solve the problem (we would have to put this waste somewhere then pray that nobody ever mingles with it). | | |
| ▲ | JackSlateur a day ago | parent [-] | | > Russia has (by far) the most advanced potentially pertinent reactors Wikipedia disagrees > we would have to put this waste somewhere then pray that nobody ever mingles with it). Preventing people from killing themselves is not an issue per-se. | | |
| ▲ | natmaka 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Wikipedia disagrees ?
Please quote and source, or name a model of industrial breeder reactor ready-to-be-deployed. ((nuclear waste)) > Preventing people from killing themselves is not an issue per-se. "Wikipedia disagrees": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin... | |
| ▲ | mastermage a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ethics? | | |
| ▲ | JackSlateur 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Knives can kill: should we destroy them ? Height can kill: should we make the earth even ? Rock can kill: should we ban rocks ? Water can kill: should we destroy all waters ? (yes, this is argumentum ad absurdum; Effort is made to prevent access to the nuclear waste, like all toxic materials) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | zekrioca 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Solved problem? Have you ever waited 10000 years to see if the waste really decomposes and the area where it was stored is safe for kids to play? | | |
| ▲ | JackSlateur 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Ergo FBR, no 10000y+ nuclear waste, problem solved (there is still very low amount of waste that have a long half-life, really not a big deal) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dgellow 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How is it not economically viable given it is actively used since multiple decades in France? I also disagree with saying it is the cheapest, in practice it is actually pretty expensive compared to solar and wind, but economically nuclear makes a lot of sense, it fits a really good role in the grid |
| |
| ▲ | uecker 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Just that it is used does not mean it is economically viable if the government is deeply involved - which is the case in France. | | |
| ▲ | dgellow 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That’s not how economic viability works. EDF posted €11.4bn net profit in 2024[0] and France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity precisely because nuclear is economically viable. Government involvement doesn’t negate viability, it enables it, just like with roads, ports, or any other infrastructure requiring long-term capital deployment. 0: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jeroenhd 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Until we solve the long-term energy storage problem that renewable sources have, we're going to need a backup of some sort. Something you can turn up late at night in the middle of winter. So far the cleanest solution we've come up with is gas plants, but gas plants made Europe extremely dependent on Russia. The alternatives are oppressive regimes or the US, which has been starting trade wars seemingly out of boredom. Nuclear fuel, on the other hand, is exported not only by Kazachstan, but also Canada and Australia. In terms of "countries you don't want to depend on", I'd rather have Canada than Qatar. I'm not sure if the economics still work out if you factor in the ineffective, half-assed Russian sanctions that have Europe fund Russia's war economy. The only alternative is probably coal, but only if you don't hold coal to the same standards in terms of waste disposal and nuclear exposure of the public as nuclear plants. Nuclear isn't cheap, in part because it's become a niche market only some countries still participate in, but the politics and large-scale economics aren't as bad as the anti-nuclear crowd make them seem. They'd probably be bad for America, because the mighty oil industry stands to lose money and they'd need to import their fuel, but for countries already importing their fuel the balance is completely different. Infuriatingly, the crowd that wants to do something about global warming also seems to think every nuclear reactor is going full Chernobyl within the decade. All of the parties I even consider voting for are staunch anti-nuclear activists for no documented reason other than "we don't like it". |
| |
| ▲ | Nursie 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > we're going to need a backup of some sort. Something you can turn up late at night in the middle of winter. AFAICT this is not really nuclear. They excel at constant production, not switch ability to fill in around renewables. | | |
| ▲ | tomatocracy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Nuclear can be turned up and down relatively easily. It's on/off that takes a long time. And you can supplement nuclear with pumped storage hydro to steepen its turn up/down curve in extremis. | | |
| ▲ | jcattle 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The less a traditional nuclear reactor contributes to the grid the worse its economics. If you have a nuclear reactor you want to run it 24/7 at max output for it to make any economic sense. Otherwise you have all your fixed costs which need to be offset by the few hours that the reactor is actually selling energy, making this energy even more expensive. | |
| ▲ | natmaka 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Nuclear can be turned up and down relatively easily TLDR: it doesn't work this way. Detailed version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41796580 | |
| ▲ | pqtyw 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's the point though? Isn't the variable cost of nuclear very low in relative terms? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | retinaros 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| sure state funded solar panel that you need to change every 10 year and batteries with rare minerals are cheaper. |
| |
| ▲ | looofooo0 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not true, lifetime is longer and there are no rare earth elements in battery cells themself. Rare earth are not really rare btw. | |
| ▲ | zekrioca 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Solar panels can now last as far as 30 years. |
|
