Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gpm 44 days ago
> - nuclear power is expensive by choice. It is not inherent to nuclear power

Nuclear power is fundamentally expensive. It's large pieces of infrastructure, involving handling and securing extremely dangerous materials.

Solar panels, wind, and batteries have all dropped in price so much that solar backed by batteries to create stable powers (and/or wind doing the same, or a mix), is in the vast majority of the world vastly cheaper than nuclear.

> - nuclear energy comes in many forms. Not only high pressure reactors

All of which are fundamentally expensive.

> - we are all going to be poorer, and live in a more polluted, higher CO2 world, because of all the people that choose to not inform themselves about the truth on nuclear

Every kw of nuclear production we create is resources we could have instead put into adding more than 1 kw of solar backed with batteries at this point. Moreover the other renewables would come online and displace fossil fuel usage faster. Thus spending money on nuclear results in a more polluted higher CO2 world, not the other way around.

There was a time when nuclear was the cheapest way to build clean energy, that time has passed and isn't coming back.

> - the harms from radiation exposure are mostly precisely zero, and require large exposure to be non-zero

Many people have died from radiation exposure. Many people have gotten cancer from radiation exposure years later. Many many square kilometers of earth have been rendered uninhabitable by distribution of radioactive isotopes. This is misinformation and spreading it is frankly dangerous. A very healthy dose of respect is required whenever handling radioactive materials and people should not be told otherwise.

5 comments

> Nuclear power is fundamentally expensive. It's large pieces of infrastructure, involving handling and securing extremely dangerous materials.

The actual operating costs are extremely low. Most of the cited $/kwh figures include the capital costs of the extreme 10+ year approval process. There's also no economies of scale right now.

If you add up all of the deaths directly from radiation exposure in the nuclear power industry it's literally 31 - and 28 came from Chernobyl. It's a fraction of rounding error compared to every other energy type.

Nearly all of the dangers of radiation were cooked up by the oil and gas industry based on a series of now discredited fruit fly studies in the 1950s.

Chernobyl killed 30 or 31 directly (i.e. acute radiation poisoning), and thousands indirectly (i.e. cancer) though the count for that is disputed... I don't know where your 28 number comes from but there's no dispute that the direct number is higher than that...

There's been a handful of other purely civilian disasters that killed people with radiation from sources meant for nuclear power, and a large number of military ones.

But if we're looking for civilian radiation deaths the majority outside of Chernobyl aren't nuclear power, they're radiotherapy, because the nuclear power industry was appropriately regulated after the early mass casualty events resulting from military nuclear reactors (e.g. the Kyshtym disaster at 200 to 8000 deaths) and the Windscale Fire at (100 to 240 deaths) and it's harder to regulate the more wildly distributed health care applications.

That we're handling things with appropriate care isn't evidence that they're not dangerous.

> and thousands indirectly (i.e. cancer) though the count for that is disputed

That's the thing, these numbers have been extremely inflated. The LNT model we've used for nuclear safety has never withstood any serious scrutiny. If anything, we've learned humans are extremely resilient to non-acute exposure.

Excess death numbers at places like Fukushima and Chernobyl have found almost no noticeable change in cancer rates, even for people with serious exposure.

Ironically, if you compare excess death numbers to traditional fuel sources (coal, gas, etc) they are much worse.

Batteries cost > $100 / kWh, the industry still considers that a target to brag about: https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/lithium-ion-...

This is WHOLESALE BOM price, which is about as useful as the price of uranium.

That is horrifically expensive.

$100 / kWh capacity, over 10000 cycles, is $0.01 kWh delivered. It's dirt cheap.

Also that's not the cost though. You're looking at vehicle packs not stationary storage packs at that cost. We've seen stationary storage packs get down to $50/kWh last year - with an average pack price of $70: https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/new-record-l...

And prices continue to decay. Those are the most expensive prices you'll ever see going forwards.

And there's other benefits. Batteries distribute well, letting us lower grid related costs by making more constant use of the chokepoints in the grid for instance.

So ABWR is fundamentally expensive? So is Hualong?

"Every kw of nuclear production we create is resources we could have instead put into adding more than 1 kw of solar backed with batteries at this point. Moreover the other renewables would come online and displace fossil fuel usage faster. Thus spending money on nuclear results in a more polluted higher CO2 world, not the other way around." - what a nice nonsense argument. With the same success I can say without nuclear - if you build ren and keep fossils for firming, you'll pollute in fact more over time, because you'll still use them. That's also why DE wants to expand gas capacity. And this plan was laid out not by CDU but Fraunhofer ISE itself

Not that many died from rad exposure or cancers from power plants. I mean, depends with what you compare. Entire Chernobyl deaths are expected to be 4k or less depending on data. That's how many ppl die in Germany in 2y from car accidents. That's probably how many died from early phaseout of nuclear https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-025-01002-z

You are right that radioactive material still needs special handling. Just like many other toxic materials like https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6nly288j4o

Could you please read the resources above that debunk the points you just made?