Readit News logoReadit News
natmaka commented on How Tesla is proving doubters right on why its robotaxi service cannot scale   aol.com/elon-gambling-tes... · Posted by u/Bluestein
const_cast · a month ago
> and most crucially, unsafe

This is more or less a completely imagined issue. The most dangerous form of transportation is personal vehicles, and its not even close.

For example, on the NY subway you have a 100x greater chance of dying by driving instead of taking the subway. 100x.

If you look at the risk of injury it's not any better.

The thing is that feeling unsafe and actually being unsafe are two different things. Cars feel safe because you're isolated, you have walls between you and everyone else. Public transit feels unsafe because you can directly see other people and there's nothing stopping them from just walking up to you.

Like, for your point on drugs, on a subway you can literally see the people on drugs, which makes you feel unsafe. In a car, you don't know who is on drugs, so you feel more safe. But, you're not. People are still on drugs, but now, they're also operating a deadly weapon.

natmaka · a month ago
> on the NY subway you have a 100x greater chance of dying by driving instead of taking the subway

Is this comparisons solely based upon deaths by (car passenger * distance traveled in NY streets) to deaths by (passenger * distance traveled in the NY subway)? The total amount of car passengers victims of accidents happening on highways, for example, seems not pertinent to me.

natmaka commented on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.   spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/rbanffy
throw0101d · 2 months ago
>> Getting smacked with an asteroid

> There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear.

Sure there is (with enough warning); it's just physics:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Redirect_Mission

> Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewables', and the gap is widening. Source: LCOE (the gold standard)

I live in Ontario, Canada, and renewables are much more expensive than nuclear (Table 2):

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2024...

In previous years nuclear was cheaper than (natural/methane) gas:

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023...

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2022...

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2021...

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2020...

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2019...

To date, nuclear energy has cost the province $58B and has generated 3300 TWh, while our renewable experiment with the Green Energy Act will cost several billion per year over the life of the twenty year contacts and generate 200 TWh.

> In order to generate electricity even France burns non-negligible amounts of fossil fuel since the inception of its nuclear fleet:

Perhaps they should get more nuclear so they burn less fossil fuels. Ontario's mix:

* https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply

There are currently plans to expand the nuclear fleet.

> One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane. A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future.

It threatens the people who live >500m underneath the ground once it is buried.

natmaka · 2 months ago
> asteroid

We cannot cancel this risk, and we can cancel the risk of nuclear accident by not exploiting nuclear reactor (this is now possible thanks to renewables).

> To date, nuclear energy has > while our renewable experiment

The LCOE is the gold standard.

Comparing an existing fleet of reactors with many hidden costs (indirectly paid for by the taxpayer or the consumer) with the full cost of renewables, and neglecting the cost of any nuclear mishap (accident, waste, decommission...) is a classic trick. In France some even compare the official production cost of the amortized fleet (w/o the investment) to the complete cost of renewables. Yay!

> once it is buried

Who will bury an industrial nuclear reactor during a major accident, and how will they do it? Where is this even only a plan?

Or is it about building it underground, and what about skyrocketing inspection and maintenance costs? Where is this even only a plan? Do your really believe that a broken nuclear reactor vessel vomiting corium will be safe underground, and in such a case why are waste long-term repositories (way less 'active') so difficult and expensive to design and build (as already stated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517316 )?

natmaka commented on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.   spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/rbanffy
epistasis · 2 months ago
Honestly I think Canada should go back to the CANDU rather than the BWRX. As long as they don't modernize it too much to take advantage of "new technology" it might still be cheap. And they can use their own uranium, and not be dependent on the hostile nation to the south. You won't hear me say this very often, but the Decouple Pod is right:

https://youtu.be/CXVHRkd3byg?si=-wqRibYVIOb-E75f

And the fuel flexibility of the CANDU brings all this back to the waste reprocessing original topic too!

natmaka · 2 months ago
> CANDU

This view is much easier to defend than the one in favor of new reactor designs. However, the fundamental debate is about renewables vs. nuclear, and factually, nuclear, even in a nation with good uranium deposits + good track record + design safer than most other ones... is increasingly difficult to defend.

> don't modernize it too much

The price to pay for this is high because it means giving up on trying to resolve some of the problems of nuclear power (risk of accidents, dependence on uranium, waste, proliferation of weapons, etc.).

> it might still be cheap

Projects over the past two decades show that even projects with improved old reactor designs (rather than radically new concepts) fail.

> Decouple Pod

It seems to me that he misses some key points, for example won't such an underground setup be way more difficult to inspect and even more to maintain/repair? Long-term waste repositories projects are way less demanding and their costs are exploding.

natmaka commented on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.   spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/rbanffy
chickenbig · 2 months ago
Let's not forget the GE-Hitachi (or is that Hitachi-GE) ABWR!

CFR Part 52 license (the first one to get it) https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part052/f...,

UK GDA license (of a variant) https://www.onr.org.uk/generic-design-assessment/assessment-...

natmaka · 2 months ago
The BWRX seems way more adequate (safer, more affordable)...

Let's check!

Hitachi Nuclear, hard hit by the reactor shutdown in Japan following Fukushima, canceled projects, even in Europe (inherited through the acquisition of Horizon Nuclear Power) and even their R&D for Generation 3 (ABWR).

Their overall move is moving them away from the energy sector (abandoning their wind turbine division in 2020).

The deal with GE ("GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy") dates back to 2007 and has produced nothing to date: these large industrial companies (inertia...) with very different and poorly complementary cultures have not worked together, and none will be permanently based on the soil of their first customer (Canada).

The combination of their resources and weak hopes will accentuate the difficulty of orchestrating a large two-headed project: Areva NP (French+German), worse.

The BWRX design is truly innovative and very recent; no examples exist.

Specification adjustments demanded on the fly by the safety authority will likely rain down, delaying and increasing the cost of the project.

The client will be sensitive to this, having already suffered this (at Darlington, the host plant itself) and is experienced (Darlington has been in operation for 30 years).

The customer is strict (their nuclear power is renowned for its good performance), well-positioned to benefit from the advice of US and French safety agencies (whose relevant institutes are interested in SMRs), and perhaps a little bitter about not being able to deploy their national CANDU.

This SMR model has been optimized to be low-cost (series effect), which could (the magnitude of the side effects of certain modifications) make it difficult to adapt despite its modularity.

I see a recipe for disaster likely to make the 4 EPR projects and Vogtle look like resounding successes.

natmaka commented on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.   spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/rbanffy
throw0101a · 2 months ago
Getting smacked with an asteroid like with the dinosaurs is also a source of concern.

This endless list of nit picky objections that go on and on and on and on and on, that are brought up no matter how low the probability, is why we can't have nice things (like cheap, reliable, zero-emission electricity available 24/7).

More people will die from plane crashes—which is amongst the safest ways to travel—than from nuclear waste radiation in the next few hundred years.

Geraldine Thomas, the co-founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, says there are more worrisome things than radiation:

* https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas

I personally live about 50km nuclear reactor and don't think about it at all.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_Nuclear_Generating_S...

natmaka · 2 months ago
> Getting smacked with an asteroid

There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear.

> cheap

Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewables', and the gap is widening. Source: LCOE (the gold standard) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

> reliable

A continental fleet of a renewables's mix is at least as reliable.

> zero-emission

No, the total lifecycle emissions of nuclear (industrial PWR) is low (10-15 g eqCO2/KWH) but not zero.

> electricity available 24/7

A continental fleet of a renewables's mix with storage (vehicle batteries thru V2Gn, green hydrogen, hydro...).

In order to generate electricity even France burns non-negligible amounts of fossil fuel since the inception of its nuclear fleet: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?Metric=Share+of+...

> More people will die from plane crashes

One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane. A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future.

Note: my own brother was killed during a jetliner crash (Swissair SR111, 1998).

natmaka commented on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.   spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/rbanffy
IMTDb · 2 months ago
The European EPR aren’t underwhelming: the power plants are delivering precisely what was planned. The underwhelming part comes from delay and cost overruns caused by local political opposition and lack of vision, as well as difficulties finding builder with the required know-how.

Despite this both France (which has just finished building an EPR) and the UK (which is building one right now) are doubling down and launching new projects to capitalise on the knowledge gained.

In France all historical reactors worked so well that we did not feel the need to build more. This lead to talented engineers going to retirement without having a chance to pass on their knowledge and experience, causing cost overruns on the new constructions. This is not inherent to the technology itself but a symptom of our decision to put it aside for a while. As an example when I was in engineering school I remember being told “don’t do a nuclear physics major there is no job for that in the future”. Not easy retaining excellence in a field when that’s what you tell your children. All the dude that went there anyway are in very very high demand today, as you might expect.

The new generation of reactors is more complex, mainly because of additional security and reliability requirements, which is a good thing. Those are certified for a lifespan of 60 years and costs are computed on that base. Some old gen reactors in the us are looking to extend their lifespan to 80 years. It’s extremely likely the new - safer - reactors will be able go beyond that, reducing the MW costs compared to current estimates.

We are slowly re-learning to build reactors, and mastering a new technology at the same time. The more reactors we build based on that experience the more that initial cost will be distributed.

There is nothing underwhelming in what was delivered; the process to get there was, but we will get better at that.

natmaka · 2 months ago
> the power plants are delivering precisely what was planned

No. The load factor of the pair of EPRs built in China (5 years late and 60% above the budget) at Taishan is quite bad (.55 and .76).

In France the EPR isn't even producing electricity, while it was to be delivered in 2012 (budget 3.3 billions €, real cost > 23.7 billions €)

> delay and cost overruns caused by local political opposition and lack of vision

Source? An official report (dubbed the "Folz report") explains why the EPR project in France (Flamanville) was a failure, I cannot find "local political opposition" among the causes.

French ahead: https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme...

> In France all historical reactors worked so well that we did not feel the need to build more.

The context was quite different: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl... ... and the real total cost of this "nuclearization" is already huge.

> This lead to talented engineers going to retirement without having a chance to pass on their knowledge and experience

The Civaux-2 reactor was delivered in 1999.

In 2000 the French nuclear sector (at the time "Areva") was trying to sell EPRs (even in France).

In 2003 Finland ordered an EPR and work began in 2005.

How exactly are we supposed to believe that all knowledge vanished, without anyone in the industry to act accordingly, especially while the existing French fleet of reactors (56 at the time) had to be maintained?

> our decision to put it aside for a while

Cause: oil counter-shock (~1985), which (sadly) reducing electricity competitivity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation?ta...

Even EDF, as early as 1986, considered the nuclear fleet too large: "We will have two to four too many nuclear reactors by 1990," ( https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1986/01/17/nous-auro... ) and this was confirmed by the 1989 Rouvillois-Guillaume-Pellat report. The reason is well known: after the oil price shock, hydrocarbon prices had fallen significantly and sustainably, and they were competing with electricity.

However, reactors were built until the end of the 1990s. Three of them were started after 1985, and four were built in the 1990s. Some were ready to go in 1999 but did only diverge the generate electricity in 2002...

> certified for a lifespan of 60 years

Subject to a successful technical in-depth inspection every 10 years.

natmaka commented on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.   spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/rbanffy
kibwen · 2 months ago
In addition to what the sibling commenter said, at the scale of human civilization, 10,000 years is forever.
natmaka · 2 months ago
Even simply finding some adequate way to warn is a challenge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
natmaka commented on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.   spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/rbanffy
cameldrv · 2 months ago
The strange part psychologically is that saying it lasts 10,000 years somehow seems worse and more unmanageable than say cadmium or arsenic which last forever.
natmaka · 2 months ago
Other threats cannot compensate: defects and turpitudes of some (for example of certain waste of chemistry) do not form attenuating circumstance for others (nuclear waste).

An accused defends himself badly by declaring to the judge "I am not the only culprit of homicide!".

natmaka commented on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.   spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/rbanffy
throw0101a · 2 months ago
> And then eventually, water seeps in.

Not if it's below non-porous rock…

* https://www.nwmo.ca/who-we-are/how-were-governed/peer-review...

* https://www.nwmo.ca/Site-selection/Steps-in-the-site-selecti...

…below the water table…

* https://www.nwmo.ca/canadas-plan/canadas-deep-geological-rep...

…packed in non-porous soil/clay:

* https://www.nwmo.ca/-/media/Reports-MASTER/Technical-reports...

* https://www.nwmo.ca/Canadas-plan/Multiple-barrier-system

> When and how would nuclear waste become a problem.

Never. If there is ever "too much" of it we reprocess it as per OP article to remove the "non-usable" stuff and burn up the rest. It seems that there's an order of magnitude reduce by recycling (96% is usable fuel, so 4% is left over):

* https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio...

natmaka · 2 months ago
Among specialists the consensus is that "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...

Plate tectonic and sismotectonic are also sources of concern: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10706-005-1148-4https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971...

natmaka commented on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Gains Momentum in the U.S.   spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/rbanffy
philipkglass · 2 months ago
Recycling plutonium from spent power reactor fuel into mixed-oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel has been economically unattractive everywhere it has been implemented. Natural uranium isn't very expensive and separating the plutonium from spent fuel doesn't save much on waste disposal costs either. The US canceled a new MOX plant just 7 years ago due to cost and schedule problems:

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-MOX-facility-cont...

Work started on the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) in 2007, with a 2016 start-up envisaged. Although based on France's Melox MOX facility, the US project has presented many first-of-a-kind challenges and in 2012 the US Government Accountability Office suggested it would likely not start up before 2019 and cost at least USD7.7 billion, far above original estimate of USD4.9 billion.

The most interesting "recycling" effort right now is the laser enrichment process of Silex/Global Laser Enrichment:

https://www.wkms.org/energy/2025-07-02/company-developing-pa...

The company plans to re-enrich old depleted uranium tails from the obsolete gas diffusion enrichment process back up to natural uranium levels of 0.7% U-235. That uranium in turn would be processed by existing commercial centrifuge enrichment to upgrade it to power reactor fuel.

natmaka · 2 months ago
> The US canceled a new MOX plant

For nations devoid of uranium reserves and not absolutely sure to always be able to secure uranium supply (i.e. not a superpower) recycling is an interesting way.

Case in point: France.

u/natmaka

KarmaCake day1436June 18, 2007
About
meet.hn/city/cn-Shanghai

Interests: Startups, Open Source, Mentorship, Martial Arts, Entrepreneurship, Technology

---

View Original