There was wide scale unscheduled reduction in nuclear generation this Summer: in Hungary (Paks - reduced to 10% output), Romania (full shutdown of Cernavodă), France (5 plants fully shutdown, 2 curtailed) and Switzerland (Beznau operating at 50% then shutdown). All due to weather (lack of water for cooling).

I clearly distinguished scheduled from unscheduled downtime and am talking purely about nuclear intermittency caused by unscheduled downtime. And even if I didn't/wasn't, your original claim:

> Nuclear works 24x7 on its own.

simply does not stand up to any scrutiny.

During January this year, nuclear contributed about 62TWh of the electricity generated in the EU while in June this had fallen to 43.7TWh - about a 30% decrease. The deficit was largely filled by a surge of solar generation as well as burning more gas.

The drop was due to both scheduled and unscheduled downtime. There is no such thing as a non-intermittent source - even without unscheduled outages, a typical nuclear plant spends over 4 weeks offline a year. You need to be able to handle that also - i.e. with redundancy and backup.

Also because nuclear (like coal - the other thermal steam generation tech) requires huge scale to be profitable, it requires huge transmission investment. Contrast this with solar, for example, which is economic to scale down and can deployed in a more distributed pattern.

Not according to the standard statistic for electricity generation cost - LCOE which amortizes capital costs.

> They are also quite cheap to run. As far as I know, there is no cheaper source of electricity than a nuclear power plant that has paid off its construction costs.

The are not cheap to run. Indian Point closed ahead of end-of-life because it couldn't support its operational costs - about $31 per MWh - about $500m per annum. Average wholesale prices at the time were around $28/MWh.

The history of distributed software is littered with the corpses of attempts to make the RPC look like a function/method call (I worked for a CORBA vendor decades ago). But these two techniques are so different on a fundamental level they are not substitutable except in the most trivial cases. The compute and elapsed time RPC overhead which makes perfectly good local abstractions completely impractical across a network. And then there are the differences in terms of failure modes, concurrency and synchronicity.

So even a beautifully designed and layered piece of “monolithic” software with a code base costing of coherent and clean abstractions will not be easy to port to a microservices/distributed architecture.

They may have been confusing or deliberately conflating things with the fact that in most western jurisdictions, you are not allowed to kill, for example, a fleeing trespasser or burglar. This is viewed as an entirely different situation from one where you are being threatened directly with immediate physical violence.

Which jurisdictions? Is this in the US? I’ve lived in a bunch of European countries and in none would you be charged with murder in that situation.

And that’s just capex - even if a nuclear plant could be built for free, the cost of operation (huge head count, fuel and waste handling), means it cannot compete with newer technologies. Indian Point shutdown years before end-of-life because it was too expensive to operate.

Nuclear plants are large and complex and expensive to build and run. I’m not sure why it should be surprising that electricity generation technology has advanced sine the development of the PWR - it’s been more than half a century. The world has moved on from electricity generation using a huge steam engine attached to an alternator with a fiddly and complex firebox.

It’s economics and newer technologies that have made nuclear power obsolete - not public opinion.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49484796

Points: 49

# Comments: 67

Oil and gas production is relatively in elastic taking years to expand.

The extra installed solar and wind generation - as a reaction to increased fossil fuel costs and supply disruption - permanently displaces fossil fuel consumption. No matter what fossil fuel prices do subsequently. Like the massive growth in nuclear generation immediately after the 1970s oil crisis.

Championing the continuing extraction of fossil fuels to be sold for combustion given what we know they do to the planet is not balanced in terms of morality by you driving an EV sorry. We have to abandon fossil fuels for energy asap and we practically can - the tech is available and affordable. The current reliance on fossil fuels - outside of some niches - is a political choice backed by inertia and established and powerful financial interests.

We have government agents frequenting this website to sew anti-US sentiment? Really?

Could you identify some of them? Or at least one or two of the obvious ones?

The US and Canada combined are responsible for 28% and 31% of the global oil and natural gas extraction respectively. If this share were eliminated, then it would force global demand down via the supply/demand price curve especially as there are competitive clean alternatives to burning fossil fuels for energy these days.

We're approaching a global crisis point - and every country needs to reign in fossil fuel extraction and consumption. It's morally indefensible to continue profiting from the sale of products that are f*cking up the planet. Just because there are others that are immoral, doesn't give you an excuse to act without morals. Or claim it's better that you act immorally than someone else.

I don’t agree. After my last bike was stolen I decided to buy the cheapest Decathlon had to offer - 240 - for getting around town and there’s nothing unsafe about it. It’s heavy and has cheap components but everything works fine for light city cycling.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49276142

Points: 3

# Comments: 1