核能为何突然卷土重来？

 
 
In the 2010s, US nuclear plants were struggling to compete against cheap natural gas and renewable energy sources. But the intensifying threat of climate change and the rise of AI have changed the conversation. To bridge the gap to a carbon-free future, America is debating whether or not to build out its atomic power industry.
 
在2010年代，美国核电站难以与廉价的天然气和可再生能源竞争，但气候变化威胁的加剧以及人工智能的兴起改变了讨论的焦点。为了迈向无碳未来，美国正在激烈争论是否应该大力发展核能产业。
 
 
@meganhutchinson6435
We never should have given up on nuclear in the first place
 
我们当初压根就不该放弃核能。
 
@TheGrindcorps
It says a lot when some of the biggest supporters of the anti-nuclear movement have been fossil fuel companies. It’s sad because the arguments against nuclear generally don’t hold water anymore like safety concerns, or exist primarily because of decades of anti-nuclear policies. Cost would fall into the latter category.
You see a company like Germany go back to coal, meanwhile Russia and China have done a ton to master modern commercial nuclear power.
 
反核运动的最大支持者竟然是化石燃料公司，这说明了很多问题。真的挺悲哀的，因为反对核能的理由，比如安全问题，现在大多站不住脚，或者主要是因为几十年的反核政策导致的。成本问题就属于后者。
你看看像德国这样的国家又开始烧煤了，而与此同时，俄罗斯和中国在现代商用核能技术上已经投入巨大并取得了不少突破。
 
@rockets4kids
There was a time when people thought nuclear would be "too cheap to meter" but that is not at all how the economics turned out. Nuclear needs to be cheaper than the alternatives for it to gain traction again.
 
曾经有人觉得核能会“便宜到不用计量”，但经济账完全不是这么算的。核能要想重新站稳脚跟，其成本必须比其他替代能源更低。
 
@marcoz6801
Germany Go back to coal? No, Germanys use of coal was 2023 the lowest in history since 1959.
 
德国又开始烧煤了？不，2023年德国的煤炭使用量是1959年以来最低的。
 
@TheGrindcorps
They had to reopen some coal plants because they turned off nuclear but don’t have enough natural gas or renewables.
 
他们不得不重启一些煤电厂，因为他们关了核电站，但天然气和可再生能源又不够用。
 
@marcoz6801
In 2022, some coal mines were taken out of reserve because half of France's nuclear power plants were out of operation, meaning that Germany had to supply a lot of electricity to France. In 2023, historically low coal was used to generate electricity.
 
2022年，一些煤矿被从储备中启用，因为法国一半的核电站停运，德国不得不向法国供应大量电力。2023年，发电用煤量达到了历史最低。
 
@TheGrindcorps
Germany has some of the worst electricity prices in the world and their industry is moving as much of their infrastructure as they can out of Germany because of it. Realistically it is either coal or deindustrializing at this point. How is that a success? Adequate nuclear power would have created a drastically different situation and not made them reliant on Russian gas.
 
德国的电价在全球算是最贵的了，他们的企业正尽可能把基础设施搬出德国。现实点说，现在要么烧煤，要么去工业化。这算哪门子成功？如果有足够的核能，情况会完全不同，他们也不会那么依赖俄罗斯的天然气。
 
@okoljskoinzinirstvo9353
I disagree with the last part, fusion should not be tossed in the same bag as fision.
 
我不同意最后那部分，核聚变不该跟核裂变混为一谈。
 
@Buran01
Fussion is mostly a research project, leaded by the ITER. But the ITER is a reserach facility, and even if reaches its goals will never have a practical aplitation before the second half of this century, so is not part of the solution to the climate crisis.
 
核聚变主要还是个研究项目，由国际热核聚变实验堆（ITER）主导。但ITER只是个研究设施，即便达到了目标，也得等到本世纪下半叶才能实际应用，所以它不是解决气候危机的办法。
 
@yensteel
They briefly generated more energy than injected in 2022. The problem now is achieving the same with energy collection, then lowering down the costs. Maybe in 100+ years it's developed enough to be practical.
 
2022年，他们短暂实现了输出能量超过输入能量。现在的问题是怎么在能量收集上做到同样的效果，然后再把成本降下来。可能得100多年后，技术才够成熟到能实际应用。
 
@stickynorth
Only in the USA does it take decades to build nuclear. In S Korea I believe the average is 4.5 years. They are built with standardized off-the-shelf designs which is 100% the opposite of the USA... And the delays are what make nuclear uneconomical right now and that's probably by design much the same way extra red tape purposefully dooms solar and wind in Oil Cuntry...
 
只有在美国建核电站要花几十年。在韩国，我觉得平均只要4.5年。他们用的是标准化的现成设计，跟美国完全相反……现在的延误让核能变得不划算，这很可能是有意为之，就像在石油国家里，额外的官僚程序故意拖垮太阳能和风能一样。
 
@skierpage
Nope, huge delays and cost overruns in the one and only nuclear plant built recently in the UK, Finland, France.
 
不，最近在英国、芬兰、法国建的唯一的核电站也面临巨大的延误和成本超支。
 
@_september_4799
Specialized labor and experience same issue with chip manufacturing experienced engineers will be coming over for 3 years to get new engineers ready after a 2 year oversees training program already.
 
专业劳动力和经验问题跟芯片制造一样，经验丰富的工程师得过来三年，才能让新工程师准备好，这还是在他们已经接受了两年海外培训之后。
 
@TheBooban
because its just one. They keep stopping and forgetting how to build the next! Its the same for any large project now. Hey keep hiring slick talking bs managers and then workers who never built such a thing before.
 
因为就建了一个。他们总是停下来，忘了怎么建下一个！现在所有大型项目都这样。他们老是雇些花言巧语的废话经理，再加上从没干过这活儿的工人。
 
@skierpage
sure. But no country, and certainly no private utility, is going to commit $50+? billion to build 10 nuclear plants in a row of the same design. Not when a dozen liquid salt molten sodium thorium graphite blah blah SMR designs threaten to obsolete the conventional design, while wind and solar increasingly backed by storage get ever cheaper.
 
确实。但没有哪个国家，更别提私营公用事业公司，会砸500多亿美元一口气建10个相同设计的核电站。尤其是在有十几种液态盐、熔融钠、钍石墨之类的小型模块化反应堆设计威胁要淘汰传统设计，而风能和太阳能加上储能还在变得越来越便宜的情况下。
 
@yensteel
China lowered costs by mass producing the same parts and reusing the same designs. 5th generation nuclear is also safer. They even achieved meltdown proofness without any external or internal power. So Fukushima won't happen with that design.
 
中国通过大规模生产相同的部件和重复使用相同的设计降低了成本。第五代核能技术也更安全。他们甚至实现了无需外部或内部电源的防熔毁设计，所以福岛那样的灾难不会发生。
 
@andrewjoy7044
The last 3 reactors completed in South Korea took abouy 10 years each to complete. Each of the reactors built by the South Koreans for the UAE took about 8 years each. Even in China, which has built more reactors than any other country this century has taken beteen 5 to 8 years to build each reactor.
 
韩国最近完成的3座反应堆每座花了大约10年。韩国人为阿联酋建的每座反应堆花了大约8年。即使是这个世纪建了最多反应堆的国家中国，其建设每座反应堆也需要5到8年。
 
@plessis2023
Maybe governments will get their heads out their bums and start funding meaningful research on nuclear power generation and other future fulels and storage for modern world.
 
或许政府能清醒过来，开始为核能发电、其他未来燃料和现代世界的储能技术投入有意义的研究经费。
 
@AstroGremlinAmerican
What's in it for the politicians? Planning for more than their next term in office is not their thing.
 
政客们能从中得到啥？他们的计划周期从来不会超过下一次选举。
 
@xspager
We NEED nuclear power and solar, we can't avoid the worse of climate change without them.
 
我们必须要有核能和太阳能，没有它们，我们没法避免气候变化的最坏后果。
 
@beyondfossil
Yes, solar we need, but nuclear we don't. Every dollar and staff hour spent on nuclear instead of renewables just slows down the global energy transition.
Solar + grid-scale storage will dominate the global grids by 2035. Wind turbines as well but to a lesser degree.
 
对，我们需要太阳能，但核能就不必了。每花一美元或一个人力小时在核能上而不是可再生能源上都会减缓全球能源转型的步伐。
到2035年，太阳能加上电网级储能将主导全球电网。风力涡轮机也是，但影响力稍小。
 
@skierpage
No, we need low-carbon electricity. It will only come from nuclear if it's cheaper than alternatives. Solar wind + storage get cheaper every year.
 
不，我们需要的是低碳电力。只有当核能比其他替代能源更便宜时，它才会有用。太阳能、风能加上储能的成本每年都在下降。
 
@mattmccallum2007
Imagine a car from the 1970s, and a car from the 2020s. Now try to do the same with a technical process like a nuclear power plant.
 
想象一下1970年代的车和2020年代的车，现在试着把这个对比用到核电站这样的技术流程上。
 
@frua97
Countries with less public phobia, like France or South Korea, still face high costs but manage them better through standardized designs and streamlined approvals. France’s nuclear fleet, built in the ’70s and ’80s, came in at $1-2 billion per reactor (adjusted for inflation), far below today’s U.S. figures. Less paranoia helps, but so does consistency—America’s bespoke plants and litigious delays (thanks, in part, to activist lawsuits) jack up expenses.
 
公众对核能恐惧较少的国家，像法国或韩国，成本虽然高，但通过标准化设计和简化的审批流程管理得更好。法国在上世纪70、80年代建的核电站，每座反应堆的成本（按通胀调整）在10到20亿美元，远低于现在美国的数据。少点恐慌当然有帮助，但一致性也很重要——美国定制化的核电站和诉讼拖延（部分归咎于激进分子的官司）大大推高了成本。
 
@EVANERV
I think the new driving force for nuclear energy will likely come from tech companies.
These AI, big data companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, OpenAI or even Tesla will need stable continuous power delivery.
Unlike utilities, these tech companies are flushed with cash, what better investment to make than to secure their own energy needs for the next few decades years?
On average nuclear power plants become a net gain on investment after 25 years. So even if AI doesn't pan out, these tech companies could simply start selling excess electricity to the grid.
 
我认为核能的新推动力很可能会来自科技公司。
像亚马逊、微软、脸书、苹果、OpenAI甚至特斯拉这样的人工智能和大数据公司需要稳定持续的电力供应。
跟公用事业公司不同，这些科技公司现金充裕，还有什么比确保未来几十年能源需求更好的投资？
平均来看，核电站25年后就能实现投资净收益。所以即便没搞成人工智能，这些科技公司也可以把多余的电卖给电网。
 
@bige8549
I think we need to combine technologies to get the most out of investments, e.g. utilizing the steam to generate extra energy or storing the waste heat for later or installing solar panels around the stacks.
 
我认为我们得结合多种技术来最大化投资回报，比如利用蒸汽产生额外的能量，或者储存余热供以后使用，或者在核电站周围安装太阳能板。
 
@InformedKiwi
The U.S. is still caught up in 1960s PWR technology, building, operating and costly decommissioning. The latest tech is so much more advanced. The development of Thorium reactors ceased back in the 1960s. There has been lots of talk in recent times but little to no action. In the meantime the Chinese have developed an operational Thorium reactors and will bring the tech to scale manufacturing of Thorium SMRs for their own use and to sell to the world.
 
美国还停留在1960年代的压水堆技术上，建造、运营和昂贵的退役成本都甩不掉。最新的技术已经先进得多。钍反应堆的开发早在1960年代就停了。最近虽然讨论很多，但几乎没啥行动。与此同时，中国已经开发出可运行的钍反应堆，还将实现钍基小型模块化反应堆的规模化生产，供自己使用并卖给全世界。
 
@dougsheldon5560
I still can't see how they can get the cost down to fields of solar panels.
 
我还是看不出他们怎么能把成本降到跟太阳能板一样低。
 
@WinterXR7
A nuclear power plant takes up less space and produces and incredible amount of energy. Oh also they run 24/7 for a decade straight.
For solar you need to take up large swaths of land which could have been used for farming, housing, manufacturing, ect. There is literally no way of wiggling your way around it.
 
核电站占地少，产能量却惊人。哦，对了，它们还能24小时不间断运行十几年。
太阳能发电厂得占用大片土地，那些地本来可以用来种田、盖房、建厂啥的。根本没法绕过去。
 
@mutantryeff
Radiactive waste? Just recycle it instead of treating it like the head of an ostrich buried in the sand.
 
放射性废料？直接回收利用就行了，别像鸵鸟把头埋在沙子里。
 
@spacemanspiff1
"just recycle it" said the random youtuber who watched a 15minute videon Thorium SMRs. Recycling waste is not simple nor economical.
 
“直接回收呗”，某个看了15分钟钍基小型模块化反应堆视频的油管网友这么说道。废料回收可没那么简单，也不划算。
 
@mutantryeff
Look at the history of why radioactive waste isn't recycled in the USA. The US simply wanted to protect the miners from the competition of secondary supply. Congress had a major discussion about this situation about 8 or 9 years ago to repeal that law. I know more about this subject that you are projecting.
 
看看美国为什么不回收放射性废料的历史吧，美国只是想保护矿商免受二次供应的竞争。大约8、9年前，国会还就废除那条法律展开过激烈的讨论。我对这个话题的了解比你想的要多。
 
@adrianthoroughgood1191
Reprocessing nuclear waste is very hard and expensive. The UK used to do it but has shut down that plant now because it's cheaper to store the waste and mine new uranium.
 
再处理核废料非常困难，成本也高。英国以前干过这事儿，但现在已经关了那家工厂，因为储存废料和开采新铀矿更便宜。
 
@Ripsticker45
Why are Nuclear using molten salt?
ChatGPT said:
Molten salt is being used in some new nuclear reactor designs because it offers several significant advantages over traditional reactor coolants and fuels. These benefits can improve reactor safety, efficiency, and flexibility. Here’s why molten salt is becoming a popular choice:
Higher Operating Temperatures Benefit: Molten salt can operate at much higher temperatures (up to 700–900°C) compared to water-cooled reactors, which are typically limited to ~300°C. Advantage: Higher temperatures improve thermal efficiency, allowing reactors to generate more electricity per unit of fuel. This also makes molten salt reactors suitable for industrial processes requiring high-temperature heat, such as hydrogen production and desalination.
Inherent Safety Features Low Pressure: Molten salts operate at or near atmospheric pressure, unlike water-cooled reactors that require high-pressure systems to prevent boiling. This reduces the risk of catastrophic leaks or explosions. Passive Safety: In the event of overheating, molten salt reactors are designed to drain the liquid fuel or coolant into a passive cooling tank, where the reaction stops naturally.
 
为什么核能用熔盐？
ChatGPT说：
一些新型核反应堆会在设计中使用熔盐，因为它相对于传统的反应堆冷却剂和燃料有几个显著的优势，这些优势能提升反应堆的安全性、效率和灵活性。以下是熔盐成为热门选择的原因：
 
更高的运行温度
优点：熔盐可运行在高达700–900°C的温度，相比之下，水冷反应堆通常被限制在约300°C。
优势：更高的温度提升了热效率，让每单位燃料产生更多电能。这也让熔盐反应堆适合需要高温热的工业过程，比如制氢和海水淡化。
 
固有的安全特性
低压：熔盐在接近常压下运行，不像水冷反应堆需要高压系统来防止沸腾。这降低了灾难性泄漏或爆炸的风险。
被动安全：如果发生过热，熔盐反应堆设计会让液态燃料或冷却剂排入被动冷却池，反应会自然停止。
 
@lenphil9875
Cut to the chase, it's not. With most reactors now nearing their end of life and only a few being built, the nuclear age is over.
 
直白点说，根本没有卷土重来。大多数反应堆现在都接近使用寿命的尽头，新建的也没几个，核能时代已经结束了。
 
@varun2250
I'm sorry, it's coming back in some parts of the world. All other major countries have never stopped using atomic power and were only increasing over every decade!
 
抱歉，核能在世界上某些地方确实在复苏。其他主要的国家从没停止使用核能，而且每十年都在增加！
 
@Fabian-bx5pm
Not true! Germany has phased out nuclear power plants, the number of nuclear power plants that go offline is still higher than the number of planned nuclear power plants. The iconic nuclear projects in the UK and France have become a lot more expensive than anticipated and lag behind schedule big time!
 
不是这样！德国已经逐步淘汰了核电站，退役的核电站数量仍然比计划新建的多。英国和法国的标志性核能项目成本比预期高得多，进度也严重滞后！
 
@Truth-of-the-matter
Ideally we would have a vast diversification of energy generation from nuclear, solar, wind and burning trash. Ideally there should be redundancies to protect from large grid failure.
 
在理想的情况下，我们应该有多种能源生产方式，包括核能、太阳能、风能和垃圾焚烧。最好还有冗余设计以防止电网发生大面积故障。
 
@blue_beephang-glider5417
Solar wind and battery power can do it, In China a solar and wind plant has a 20 Gigawatt output.
In Australia Singapore is building a 70 Gigawatt one in 5 years for $3.5 billion. You talk about one Reactor $25 Billion that would make a 500 Gigawatt renewable Plant...
Wind solar and battery tech is getting cheaper and cheaper every year. Nuclear has always had ballooning crippling costs.
All nuclear power-plants produce Plutonium waste that is used to make atomic bombs.
 
太阳能、风能和电池储能就能搞定。在中国，一座太阳能和风能电站的输出功率有20吉瓦。
在澳大利亚，新加坡正在建设一座70吉瓦的电站，5年完工，成本35亿美元。你说一座核反应堆要250亿美元，那都能建一座500吉瓦的可再生能源电站了……
风能、太阳能和电池技术每年都在变得越来越便宜，而核能的成本却一直膨胀得吓人。
所有核电站都会产生可用于制造原子弹的钚废料。
 
@mokpoly
It's not the matter of the maximum output. It's whether how consistent the energy source can be. Solar and wind power are very much dependent on weather conditions which makes them unreliable energy sources.
 
关键不在于最大输出，而在于能源的稳定性。太阳能和风能太依赖天气条件了，实在不是可靠的能源。
 
@martinzihlmann822
solar and nuclear serve a completely different purpose. It's like saying electric cars will replace our long-haul trucks. For sure, electric is better than ice, on a per mile basis they're cheaper too, but for freight they're simply useless, for that you need to run trains. nuclear replaces coal, not solar and wind. Germany proves that point.
 
太阳能和核能的用途完全不同，这就像说电动汽车能取代长途卡车。当然，电动汽车比内燃机车更好，每英里使用成本也更低，但运货它们根本没用，得靠火车。核能是用来取代煤炭而不是太阳能和风能的。德国就是个证明。
 
@fajarcahyono3693
Nuclear : Cheap, Reliable and Clean
Fossil Fuel : Cheap, Reliable but Dirty
Wind & Solar : Energy Source is Clean but Unreliable, Expensive and Materials needed to build is taken from very Dirty mining conditions
 
核能：便宜、可靠、清洁
化石燃料：便宜、可靠但脏
风能与太阳能：能源本身清洁但不可靠、昂贵，建造所需的材料来自污染严重的采矿条件
 
@andrewjoy7044
The amount of nuclear generation added worldwide was about 10 GW (About 15 GW new added and 5 GW old shut down). The total worldwide generation capacity of nuclear is about 400 GW. There are about 64 new nuclear power stations under construction for about 80 GW. In 2022, 340 GW of new renewables were added for a total 0f 3372 GW. In 2023 about 560 GW was added for a total of 3865 GW. This year about 666 GW has been added for a total of 4530 GW. New BESS (Batteryenergy storage systems) increased by 27 GWh in 2022, 74 GWh in 2023 and in 2024 about 100 GWh. By 2030 it is expected that BESS will have reached over 400 GWh.
The World Nuclear Association expect a tripling of nuclear be 2050 to about 1200 GW. The International Energy Agency expects a 4.5 times in crease in renewables to about 20 000 GW.
I hope it is clear from these figures that, while nuclear will be around, it will still ony provide about 10% of world electricity demand in 25 years time. Nuclear is just too expensive and takes far too long to build.
 
全球新增核能发电量大约是10吉瓦（新增约15吉瓦，退役约5吉瓦）。全球核能总发电容量大约是400吉瓦。目前有大约64座新核电站正在建设，总计约80吉瓦。2022年，新增可再生能源340吉瓦，总计3372吉瓦。2023年新增约560吉瓦，总计3865吉瓦。今年新增约666吉瓦，总计4530吉瓦。新型电池储能系统（BESS）在2022年增加27吉瓦时，2023年增加74吉瓦时，2024年约100吉瓦时。到2030年，预计BESS将超过400吉瓦时。
世界核能协会预计到2050年核能将增长三倍，达到约1200吉瓦。国际能源署预计可再生能源将增长4.5倍，达到约2万吉瓦。
希望这些数据能清楚说明虽然核能还会存在，但25年后它也只能满足全球电力需求的10%左右。核能实在是太贵，建起来也太慢了。
 
@inigoromon1937
Nuclear IS much better than gas, coal and even hydro power. I would keep them as long as possible. I would only build New technology ones, not clone the old ones.
So renewables as the main source and nuclear as a backup.
 
核能确实比天然气、煤炭甚至水电好得多，我会尽可能保留核电站，但我只会建设新型技术的核电站而不是照抄老的。
所以，我们可以用可再生能源做主力，核能做后备。
 
@9ineth
I think the most important thing to consider is how to manage the nuclear waste, radioactive waste is not something to toil with. The contamination goes to the air we breathe & to the water underground....this is just a vast topic, imagine those waste being alive till a thousand years...that's much trouble for a little fun...The solar batteries will also be an issue in the future cos of how the waste is managed....cases of hazardous waste will soon become a factor...Think about the challenges of lithium batteries in flight I think tech is really stealing our freedom somehow.
 
我认为最重要的问题是怎么处理核废料，放射性废料可不是闹着玩的。污染会进入我们呼吸的空气和地下的水……这个话题太大了，想想那些废料能“活”上千年……为了点短暂的好处惹这么多麻烦。太阳能电池未来也会是个问题，因为废料处理的方式……危险废料的案例很快会变成一个大因素……想想飞机上锂电池的挑战，我觉得技术不知不觉在偷走我们的自由。
 
@alancapes5644
Transformational technologies are the ones that are scalable and competitively priced. For the foreseeable future, nuclear is neither. Repeatability, time to deliver and Total Cost of Ownership make no sense.
 
变革性技术得是可扩展且价格方面有竞争力的。在可预见的未来，核能两者都不是，其可重复性、交付时间和总拥有成本都完全不合理。