<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>nine_k</author><text>Also, reprocessing &amp;quot;nuclear waste&amp;quot; from nuclear power stations yields a lot of pretty good fuel for &amp;quot;fast breeder&amp;quot; reactors [1]. This also mostly solves the problem of storing the highly active nuclear waste: you may need like 5% of the current storage capacity if you burn the current &amp;quot;nuclear waste&amp;quot; stockpiles.&lt;p&gt;Yes, the process involves production of Pu-239, which is weapon-grade and may raise proliferation concerns. But for the US, or France, or UK, or India, or China (and a bunch of others) this should not be a concern, since they officially have nuclear weapons.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s mostly the political will, and the public opinion (which are interlinked) that limit a nuclear renaissance. If you talk about subsidies, please remember how &lt;i&gt;huge&lt;/i&gt; were the subsidies that kickstarted the current solar and wind booms; early panels and wind towers were completely uneconomical by today&amp;#x27;s standards, and R&amp;amp;D costs were colossal. But now, with the technology streamlined and the economies of scale kicking in, solar is competitive even without subsidies.&lt;p&gt;The same could happen to a new crop of nuclear technology, much cleaner and more efficient than the kind we&amp;#x27;ve inherited from 1970s.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Breeder_reactor&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Breeder_reactor&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>philwelch</author><text>&amp;gt; ... I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind&amp;#x2F;solar&amp;#x2F;storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.&lt;p&gt;Sure, if you handwave the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage and make a series of generous assumptions about future technology, that&amp;#x27;s probably true. Nuclear technology has been up to the task for the past fifty years.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Another factor that this article should have mentioned is the reliability of the global uranium ore -&amp;gt; fuel rods supply chain.&lt;p&gt;Seawater extraction is an option if that&amp;#x27;s ever a real concern, as is using breeder reactors to reprocess spent fuel. And the exact same issues apply to storage.</text></item><item><author>photochemsyn</author><text>Funny article in that it doesn&amp;#x27;t discuss lifecycle costs.  A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind&amp;#x2F;solar&amp;#x2F;storage is what I&amp;#x27;d expect to see from a &amp;#x27;paper of record&amp;#x27; like the NYTimes.&lt;p&gt;Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind&amp;#x2F;solar&amp;#x2F;storage.  Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.&lt;p&gt;Much of the discussion of energy in the American media is pretty poor these days.  For example, the solar tariff issue on China sourced PV - there are simply no US companies making panels of comparable quality (monocrystalline Si lasts longer and is more efficient).  Concepts like requiring Chinese manufacturers to open factories in the USA if they want to sell in US markets would make sense but probably would violate some trade provision or other.&lt;p&gt;Another factor that this article should have mentioned is the reliability of the global uranium ore -&amp;gt; fuel rods supply chain.  Costs vary significantly based on the purity of the ore (18% is the top, 0.1% is the economically viable limit) and like oil, uranium ore is not globally distributed (unlike sunlight and wind).&lt;p&gt;As far as Russia&amp;#x2F;Ukraine, the real agenda the US government seems to be pushing there is using that conflict to rapidly increase LNG exports to Europe from the US West&amp;#x2F;South coast, even though energy prices are spiking due to inflation (and plausibly due to exports of crude oil from the USA, allowed under that 2015 bill lifting that restriction).  A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap, meaning no need for fossil fuel imports from any party.  Yes, that&amp;#x27;s technologically possible, but would require massive economic investment.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Nuclear is back on the table for a green future</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/business/dealbook-dc-climate-task-force.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>photochemsyn</author><text>&amp;#x27;handwave the unsolved-at-scale&amp;#x27; ?  All you have to do is look at Australia:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pv-magazine.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;08&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;worlds-largest-grid-forming-battery-to-begin-construction-in-australia&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pv-magazine.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;08&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;worlds-largest-grid-f...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Battery rollout:  &amp;quot;AGL Energy has committed to build 850 MW of battery-based assets by 2024. To that end, Torrens Island marks the first project to be constructed at the site of a fossil-fuel power plant. It won’t be the last, however, as big batteries are planned for New South Wale’s Liddell coal plant and Victoria’s Loy Yang facility. In January, AGL Energy revealed that it had  secured both Wärtsilä and Fluence under non-exclusive framework agreements to supply up to 1 GW of large-scale battery storage.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;So, would it make more economic sense for this 1GW battery-storage system to be replaced by a nuclear power plant?  Australia after all is one of the places with the most high-grade uranium ore, being among the top three exporters.&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;#x27;s an example of more reliable analysis:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &amp;quot;To illustrate this point, the 2,430 MW Vogtle nuclear plant could be expected to generate 21 million MWh per year. That is enough to power about 1.75 million residential households. Meanwhile, a hypothetical 3,500 MW solar power plant would be able to produce just under 6 million MWh of electricity per year. This number is enough to power only 500,000 homes, which is considerably less than nuclear power. For solar to produce as much electricity as is generated by a nuclear power plant, it would require about 13,000 MW of utility-scale solar capacity, which about four times as much as built in the existing plants. However, the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.solarfeeds.com&amp;#x2F;mag&amp;#x2F;solar-power-vs-nuclear-power&amp;#x2F;#Comparing_and_Contrasting&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.solarfeeds.com&amp;#x2F;mag&amp;#x2F;solar-power-vs-nuclear-power&amp;#x2F;...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>philwelch</author><text>&amp;gt; ... I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind&amp;#x2F;solar&amp;#x2F;storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.&lt;p&gt;Sure, if you handwave the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage and make a series of generous assumptions about future technology, that&amp;#x27;s probably true. Nuclear technology has been up to the task for the past fifty years.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Another factor that this article should have mentioned is the reliability of the global uranium ore -&amp;gt; fuel rods supply chain.&lt;p&gt;Seawater extraction is an option if that&amp;#x27;s ever a real concern, as is using breeder reactors to reprocess spent fuel. And the exact same issues apply to storage.</text></item><item><author>photochemsyn</author><text>Funny article in that it doesn&amp;#x27;t discuss lifecycle costs.  A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind&amp;#x2F;solar&amp;#x2F;storage is what I&amp;#x27;d expect to see from a &amp;#x27;paper of record&amp;#x27; like the NYTimes.&lt;p&gt;Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind&amp;#x2F;solar&amp;#x2F;storage.  Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.&lt;p&gt;Much of the discussion of energy in the American media is pretty poor these days.  For example, the solar tariff issue on China sourced PV - there are simply no US companies making panels of comparable quality (monocrystalline Si lasts longer and is more efficient).  Concepts like requiring Chinese manufacturers to open factories in the USA if they want to sell in US markets would make sense but probably would violate some trade provision or other.&lt;p&gt;Another factor that this article should have mentioned is the reliability of the global uranium ore -&amp;gt; fuel rods supply chain.  Costs vary significantly based on the purity of the ore (18% is the top, 0.1% is the economically viable limit) and like oil, uranium ore is not globally distributed (unlike sunlight and wind).&lt;p&gt;As far as Russia&amp;#x2F;Ukraine, the real agenda the US government seems to be pushing there is using that conflict to rapidly increase LNG exports to Europe from the US West&amp;#x2F;South coast, even though energy prices are spiking due to inflation (and plausibly due to exports of crude oil from the USA, allowed under that 2015 bill lifting that restriction).  A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap, meaning no need for fossil fuel imports from any party.  Yes, that&amp;#x27;s technologically possible, but would require massive economic investment.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Nuclear is back on the table for a green future</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/business/dealbook-dc-climate-task-force.html</url></story>