Because there is a political party (I'm not saying which one, but they claim men can get pregnant) that pisses their pants and start crying any time you mention nuclear power.

>>16491338
your internal dialog must be like a cartoon

>>16491336
because the upfront capital is huge and there isnt a ROI until 25 years. When you approve a nuclear plant you're basically betting that your nuclear design will be the best in 25 years, or nuclear altogether will remain competitive. There's also a low supply of uranium

>>16491343
was he wrong tho

>>16491336
Energy crisis in the first world is a cost issue and making energy cost more isn't a solution to that.

but i thought einstein was a charlatan pft. you guys are annoying.

>>16491336
Widespread nuclear power is incompatible with the ethnic composition of the future world population.

>>16491336
Massive amounts of regulation mean that it's costly and difficult to get a power plant built and running. Coupled with law makers being hesitant to issue new licences means that the best form electric generation we currently have available is being ignored. Worse still is the number of so-called "green" politicians and parties that are actively trying to get nuclear power shut down (cf. The German green politician that celebrated a nuclear power plant being shut down, despite openly acknowledging that it would be replaced by a lignite coal power plant)
>>16491348
How can one post contain so much misinformation?
>There's also a low supply of uranium
Totally false. Even more false if you account for recycling and breeder reactors.
>But there are no breeder reactors in operation
Yeah, because more uranium resources were found and better methods of enrichment were discovered, making them less useful.

>>16491336
Output stability was deliberately undervalued in economic calculations, while the intrinsic issues of wind/solar scalability, dispatchability, and resilience were (again, deliberately) glossed over. Leading to repeated instances like Europe-wide "wind droughts", which caused electricity prices to rise. Ironically, despite being presented as environmentally-conscious, wind and solar are hilariously vulnerable to climate change-caused extreme weather phenomena, ex. superhail, flash floods, insta-tornadoes and the like.

>>16491606
even if you gave everyone breeder reactors we would still run out. if we went 100% nuclear, humanity would consume 10x more uranium than we do currently. right now there's about 90 years of proven uranium reserves left at current consumption, or 9 years of reserve if we solely relied on nuclear power. Im sure there's probably much more uranium to be found, but even at a order of magnitude you're only talking about a century at most, a millennium at current consumption. This also implies that our exponential energy consumption stops from this point onwards (it wont)

>>16491709
>This also implies that our exponential energy consumption stops from this point onwards (it wont)
It will not only stop but it will decrease since we're headed for a massive population decline in the parts of the world which use the most energy.

>>16491709
>right now there's about 90 years of proven uranium reserves left at current consumption, or 9 years of reserve if we solely relied on nuclear power
those numbers are not remotely true unless maybe you only consider currently identified uranium stock that can continue being mined for less than $130 per kg. obviously as demand increases so too would mining operations and new reserves would be tapped. not to mention the amount of enriched fissile material uselessly locked away in military stockpiles alone could power the world for centuries. even the amounts used in just the hiroshima/nagasaki bombs could have powered a large nuke plant for many months.

>>16491739
The whole "not enough uranium" thing sounds to me like that Peak Oil BS from 18-something years ago.

it's not a problem, it's a price. hydroelectric companies here deliberately don't want to solve their demand issues because they can just increase the price and tell people to use less. what are you going to do? say no? you have no other option. the same applies for all other sources. it's all a strategy to maintain monopolies.

>>16492189
Yep, it's an issue of captured supply, due to high initial cost of entry. Companies have better profit margins by selling less at a higher price, than by selling more at a lower one. And this will keep being an issue as long as electricity supply is treated (from an economic p.o.v.) the same as any other commercial product.

>>16491336
There isn't enough fissile material. Fusion is a different matter but it appears we can't make it work yet.

>>16491348
>because the upfront capital is huge and there isnt a ROI until 25 years
Libtard lies.

>>16491336
xoomers were mindbroken by Threads

>>16494002
Which was very thinly-veiled Soviet aghitprop.

>>16491336
>le more complex le good
it's just not

>>16494399
What an ignorant thing to type out

>>16491336
Try finding an insurance to cover all eventualities. Then you'll get why.
Turns out if you include all costs it's the most expensive form of energy and the only reason it was ever brought into being was due to nuclear weapons and the age old con of privatizing profits and socializing risk and losses.

>>16495318
how could it possibly be harder than insuring a hydroelectric dam that might break and flood a city? or coal plants polluting and giving people illnesses? it's all a joke.

>>16495408
The statisticians of insurance companies disagree.

>>16495408
By not having to include externalities. Nuclear is the only power source which is forced by law to include *everything*, literally every externality, no matter how unlikely. Not to mention the entire fuckery around ALARA and "no safe limit".

>>16491336
russia

>>16491343
seems like fun desu

for the price of a nuclear plant you could build a solar + wind farm with battery storage with infinitely less regulatory and engineering problems

>>16491336
people can't even handle a virus without breaking down. people are not competent or high IQ enough to handle a nuclear based power grid.

>>16496092
A hightly infective virus is personal. Nuclear energy is not.

>>16491336
Most countries of today are politically incapable of large scale infrastructure projects or public works, especially ones as complicated as nuclear reactors. Few countries' can carry out a Messmer plan style nuclear power roll-out - today's France wouldn't be able to do so.

Most of the countries that are building nuclear reactors today receive export loans from Russia to make the financing more politically palatable, and they lean heavily on Russian expertise so they don't have to go through the long arduous expensive journey of building up domestic nuclear construction expertise.

China is at the beginning stages of the largest roll-out of nuclear power in history. In 5-10 years, their construction rate will exceed the US at its peak in the 1970s, and they will do so every single year. However, because Chinese power demands are so great, nuclear power still won't contribute a large fraction of China's power needs.

>>16496073
The cost depends heavily on who you hire to build the nuclear plant. Do you hire experienced builders like they do in China, or do you hire incompetents who haven't built a nuclear plant in 30 years (if ever) like they do in the US?

>>16491348
>There's also a low supply of uranium
That issue is overblown, because
1. Fuel cost is a very low part of the overall cost of nuclear power. You can easily afford to pay the additional cost to mine more expensive uranium deposits or extract it from sea water
2. Breeder reactors can produce fuel from thorium-232 or uranium-238, which are abundant

>>16496073
Let's take China as an example, since they are building both solar and nuclear power at the largest scale in the world.

An HPR1000 nuclear reactor costs about 2.3 $/W in China. The capacity factor is 90%, so the cost for average generation is about 2.55 $/W.
https://www.nengyuanjie.net/article/89951.html

Solar panels are about 0.11 $/W. The average capacity factor for solar is about 15% in China, so the panel price adjusted for average generation is 0.73 $/W. Grid battery storage is 0.14 $/Wh or higher in China, so 12h of storage adds 1.68 $/W to the price. That's 2.41 $/W. Then you also need to pay for other things like inverters, installation, and long transmission lines to bring the power from sunny places to load centers...

>>16491606
There are breeder reactors, and they are in commercial operation. For example, there are two sodium-cooled fast breeder reactors in Russia.

>>16491336
Just build a dyson swarm, why the fuck are we wasting our time with this crap?

>>16496161
Also, keep in mind that the lifetimes are different. An HRP1000 nuclear reactor lasts for 60 years or longer. A solar panel lasts for about 30 years before it becomes so inefficient that a replacement is warranted. An LFP battery undergoing daily charge cycles will last 15 years at best

>>16495318
>>16495541
Insurance companies can't insure for accidents that happen extremely rarely but could be very expensive when they do happen. That's not compatible with the insurance company business model. For insurance to be viable, you need the insurance payouts to occur quite frequently and spread out in time, and you need individual payouts to be modest in comparison to the total revenue stream of the insurance company.

Hence why only states can act as "insurance companies" when it comes to nuclear accidents.

>>16496178
You used a lot of words to say "too risky".

>>16496161
>>16496175
so renewables + batteries are cheaper, require less upkeep and maintenance, less engineering challenges, don't have to deal with nuclear waste, don't have to manage large teams of people to keep it running, 0 chance of permanently irradiating a landscape or critically failing, quicker to build and decommission, doesn't require government intervention, doesn't require nuclear refinement facilities to produce fuel, is a mainstream technology that will get cheaper over time due to economies of scale

tough call here guys

File: 1731107452893714.gif (1.99 MB, 400x310)

1.99 MB GIF

>>16496073
>storage

>>16496701
Nuclear actually exists and works as promised, so yes, the choice is indeed exceedingly easy

>>16496738
go live in Chernobyl then if you like nuclear power, my country generates 1/3rd of its power using renewables and is increasing that share every year, cope and seethe you irradiated glow nigger

>>16491348
*regelations push the required capitol to stupendous levels
FTFY
Throw spent fuel into the sea; safe and effective.

>>16491336
Govt won’t let it

>>16496745
Your country is gay and stupid and so are you.

>>16496701
>so renewables + batteries are cheaper
I very much wrote that this is not the case. The cost for an operational built HPR1000 is about the same as the cost for just the panels and batteries. You need far more money to build an operational solar plant: inverters, installation, more transmission lines than nuclear because suitable locations tend to be further from load centers, etc. It gets even worse when you compare how many years of life remain in the plant after the amortization period is over.

>less engineering challenges
>don't have to manage large teams of people to keep it running
This is only a problem if you lack personnel who are skilled enough to build and operate nuclear plants

>don't have to deal with nuclear waste
China has a closed fuel policy. They will recycle the waste and use fast reactors. When you do that, you can get rid of the plutonium and minor actinides that constitute the long lived waste, so you reduce the danger period of the waste down to only about 300 years. Also, panels and batteries need to be properly disposed of as well, as do old wind turbine parts.

>doesn't require government intervention,
If this is a problem, that's just tells you how dysfunctional your government is.
The fact is that even solar power requires good government policy, if you want to build an efficient supply chain. It's not without reason that China dominates the PV and battery supply chain and the cheapest PVs and batteries are made in China. It's just that *installation* does not require a good government policy, and you can buy the batteries and panels from China.

>>16496073
>wind farm
probably not a great idea to nuke the local bird population

>>16497128
>>16496701
>0 chance of permanently irradiating a landscape or critically failing
100% chance of ruining the landscape you build it on though. You also have a 100% chance of ruining the land you mine resources on when you use open pit mines
Wind power is an even worse offender than solar imo. Each wind turbine is like an acoustic Chernobyl polluting the surrounding land.
Radioactive contamination of land can mostly be cleaned up by removing the top soil.

>quicker to build and decommission
Installation is. Building the PV and battery supply chain is not quick. China's been at it for many years. Long lead times only matters if you are bad at planning ahead. Long construction times only matter if you are stuck with high interest rates because banks worry you don't know what the fuck you're doing and might hit decade-long delays, or because banks worry green politics are going to suddenly shut your plant down.

>doesn't require nuclear refinement facilities to produce fuel
You need a massive supply chain to build the parts though. You also need the equipment for installation and maintenance, which especially for wind can be quite big and capital-intensive. For offshore wind, the installation and maintenance equipment can require whole shipyards to build.

>>16496701
>>16497137
>will get cheaper over time due to economies of scale
Panels are already pretty cheap. A large chunk of the cost of solar is in other things like installation, transmission and firming. Firming through storage might get cheaper thanks to lower lithium prices, and eventually significantly cheaper through improved sodium-ion batteries. Installation and transmission will not get much cheaper, because installation depends mostly on labor costs, and transmission depends mostly on the cost of labor and materials that are not likely to get cheaper over time.

Scale benefits also apply to nuclear power. Nuclear gets cheaper as you build more. The more you build, the more streamlined the supply chain becomes. This is especially true for modular designs like the CAP1000/CAP1400. Also, the more you build, the less the unit cost becomes to pay off the high initial capex such as the heavy forging facilities where you manufacture the pressure vessels.

Nuclear reactors also get cheaper as you build them bigger. China is again the perfect example. China just started up the prototype CAP1400 and is developing an even larger CAP1700.

China is also trying new building techniques such as installing shipyard gantry cranes over the build location to lift enormous modules from the module fabrication building. This works well when you build 4+ reactors in one spot and build them with little pause in between.

>>16496738
>>16496745
I think it's important to realize that nuclear, solar and wind are not necessarily better than the other. They are complementary. China is once again the perfect example.

About half of China's electricity demand is along the coast. However, the densest, most abundant, and most stable solar and onshore wind resources are in the sparsely populated northwest. To bring the power to the coastal load centers requires 1,000km-2,000km transmission lines, which are not cheap. At the coast, the local wind and solar resources are limited and not sufficiently diversified to guarantee a stable supply when the weather is uncooperative for prolonged periods. This makes nuclear very competitive at the Chinese coast compared to solar and wind.

It's also important to realize that there is both a market for electricity and also a market for heat. Nuclear power is very competitive in the thermal power market. The conversion efficiency from heat to electricity is about 35% in a regular PWR and about 45% in a HTGR. If you supply thermal power rather than electrical power, you get 2.5-3 times as much energy out of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power can therefore be very competitive for district heating and industrial heating.

>>16496745
Pointing to nuclear power plant accidents as a reason to not build nuclear power plants is a bad reason because there's only been two significant accidents in decades of nuclear power operation. Both the Chernobyl and Fukushima failure modes are eliminated in modern Gen 3 designs. The Soviets were too cheap to even build a proper containment building around the RBMK reactors.

Most of the "damage" caused by the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents was the enormous capital destruction that ensued as people started shutting down functional nuclear power plants, cancelling new ones, and gutting their nuclear industries.

>>16496701
>don't have to manage large teams of people to keep it running
So build 6-8 reactors in the same location like the Chinese and Koreans do, instead of 1 or maybe 2 like the stupid Americans did. That way you share most personnel between 6-8 reactors instead of 1-2.

>>16497161
True, but it all comes down to the human factor. Even if the plant is perfect and never fails, it's a very juicy snack for any terrorist/militarist retard that would hold it hostage. Because if you destroy a coal plant or something similar you can rebuild it back in like ten years. But once something happens to NPP that whole area is mostly gone forever AND you have to keep maintaining and containing it for an indeterminate amount of time.

>>16495318
>>16496178
Just don’t insure it then.
>>16496701
>so renewables + batteries are cheaper
Than regulated nuclear power, possibly. Oil and coal are vastly cheaper. Use those instead of Chinesium.
>>16497137
>100% chance of ruining the landscape you build it on though.
Pathetic nihilistic excuse to cease all human activity. Could be used against nuclear, oil & coal, or wind & solar. Humans existing causes environmental “damage”. Issue being that only humans can judge such interaction as “damage”; nature exists for man to conquer.
>You need a massive supply chain to build the parts though. You also need the equipment for installation and maintenance
Like anything else, once there’s a demand for it in the market, the market shall supply it. Or are you suggesting we use the government to provide our energy?
>>16497143
>Panels are already pretty cheap.
When their manufacture is subsidised by the chink govt, and their importation is subsidised by the German govt, yes. Without those subsidises, doubtful. When the necessary storage is factored in? Not a chance.
>>16497156
>I think it's important to realize that nuclear, solar and wind are not necessarily better than the other. They are complementary.
Not with a government running the show. Let there be a free market, it will determine exactly what type and how much of each energy source is needed.
>there is both a market for electricity and also a market for heat.
Deregulate energy industry to let the market solve it then.

>>16496701
>>16496701
>don't have to deal with nuclear waste,
Throw it in the sea.
>don't have to manage large teams of people to keep it running,
Reactors could be made as simple as a pile of rocks with a bucket of water. To turn the reactor off, let the water boil away leaving no moderator.
>0 chance of permanently irradiating a landscape
It’s not permanent. Chernobyl (worst UFS weve ever had) killed 30 people via that. The rest died to chemical fires. Remember that governments mandated the evacuation of places around reactors. AKA not the nuclear reactors fault.
>quicker to build and decommission,
A pile of rocks in a bucket doesn’t take long to make at all. It’s all regulations that push build times to decades. Even conventional coal and oil power stations don’t need to take years. DEREGULATE.
>doesn't require government intervention,
No power sources do. Bearecrates want excuses to steal more of your money via taxes.
>go doesn't require nuclear refinement facilities to produce fuel
Nuclear fuel needs as much refining as any other raw material. Don’t need to enrich fuel as several extant reactors already proved. Rocks in a puddle.
>is a mainstream technology that will get cheaper over time due to economies of scale
All dependant on the government not banning it.

You’ve been debunked.

>>16496745
>go live in Chernobyl
Can’t.
Not because muh radiation, but because the government won’t let me.
That’s nuclear in a nutshell. Govt regulates it like so much in the economy, so it’s fucked.

>Why don't we have enough nuclear plants to solve the energy crisis yet?
Oil companies

>>16496347
No, it's just that the risk is distributed in a manner that is incompatible to the insurance company business model. It's perfectly possible for a state-like entity to act as the insurer.

>>16497337
>Let there be a free market, it will determine exactly what type and how much of each energy source is needed.
It will not. If you wonder why, you can open up an introductory economics textbook and look up what concepts like "market failure", "externality", "barriers to entry", "natural monopoly", etc, mean.

>>16497187
Modern nuclear reactors are protected by shield buildings that can withstand even an airliner crash

>>16497576
>>16497583
I'm talking about people gaining access to the building and threatening to blow it up from the inside.

>>16491336
Welcome in hell : https://youtu.be/adr77QjHTCs

>>16497584
The plants are protected by multiple fences, walls and armed security. They'd need to defeat security before reinforcements can arrive, then bring in a very large bomb capable of destroying the shield building.

You might as well worry about them blowing up a building instead. That seems like a more realistic risk. 9/11 had 3,000 deaths and 6,000+ injuries. Does this mean large buildings should not be built?

>>16497353
>To turn the reactor off, let the water boil away leaving no moderator.
The decay heat would cause a meltdown

>>16497584
lol you have no clue how locked down nuclear power plants are.

File: Lianjiang2CA20module-Octo(...).jpg (166 KB, 730x411)

166 KB JPG

>>16497143
Enormous gantry crane installing a CA20 module at Lianjiang NPP

File: 462855827_106930547186597(...).jpg (115 KB, 720x539)

115 KB JPG

>>16497642
>>16497143

>>16497643
ZPMC writes:
>Recently, the 1,600-tonne gantry crane manufactured by #ZPMC successfully achieved precise one-time positioning for a large module lift at the #Lianjiang #Nuclear Power Project in #Guangdong. This marks a significant breakthrough as it is the first use of a large gantry crane for lifting major modules in the global nuclear power sector.

>Compared to traditional crawler cranes, the gantry crane at Lianjiang #Nuclear Power plant offers notable advantages in safety, wind resistance, work efficiency, and maintenance. Its gantry structure provides exceptional stability and safety during operations, with a maximum wind resistance of level 8. The crane can be easily relocated in under 30 minutes from the staging area to the lifting position and can quickly withdraw after lifting without requiring changes in working conditions, greatly minimizing the impact on the construction schedule. Furthermore, its maintenance is straightforward, effectively lowering operational and management costs.

>>16491348
>When you approve a nuclear plant you're basically betting that your nuclear design will be the best in 25 years
Nuclear tech moves at a glacial pace, so that's a pretty safe bet

>>16491336
Because the energy crisis is too profitable for (((certain powers))).

>>16497413
Oil companies cannot make laws and regulations. Therefore it must be the governemnt.

>>16498467
>Government
>Oil companies
They are the same picture.

>>16498467
Yes they can. It's called bribery and regulatory capture, euphemistically referred to as "lobbying".

>>16497353
>Throw it in the sea.
Don't. One-pass nuclear waste is valuable. In the future, as fresh uranium gets more expensive, you'll be able to sell waste to people with fast reactors and recycling infrastructure.