Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment • Hacker News Board

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#61

Post by merpnderp » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

peckrob wrote: post #39

Alupis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't nearly as dangerous as the popular opinion would have you believe. There has been only a single incident that I'm aware of (Chernobyl), all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). In fact, the technology and safety has come a long way since the 60's. Most US Navy ships are nuclear powered, and have not had incidents (and these are designed to go to war and survive). Japan was hit by…

> all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...

The same scale as Chernobyl? Chernobyl irradiated whole countries and caused thousands of deaths. Fukushima isn't even within a couple of magnitudes of irradiation.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#62

Post by lumberjack » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

The article looks at the cost of energy over the lifetime of the nuclear power plant. There is no argument that energy generated through fission is very cheap when looked at that way. However that totally ignores the enormous startup costs.

The great thing about wind and solar is that you don't have to build a whole farm. You can start small and keep adding as you come across more capital.

In any case I don't see why one needs to make it a dichotomy. The entities who invest in alternative energy are probably not the same ones who could invest in a nuclear power plant because of the above mentioned startup costs.

It's not clear to me whether fission will come back any time soon but wind and solar will keep gaining in market share.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#63

Post by zbyte64 » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

mbil wrote: post #19

I don't know anything about nuclear energy, but a friend who works in nuclear tech told me that the reason thorium as an energy source hasn't been embraced is because its byproduct can be used for weapons. That doesn't look to be exactly accurate (based on a few minutes of googling), but there might be some truth to it. http://phys.org/news/2012-12-thorium-proliferation-nuclear-w...

We have used thorium reactors in the past but having radioactive molten salt is pretty rough on the components and drastically diminishes the life of the reactor.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#64

Post by aexaey » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

ksenzee wrote: post #22

garyclarke27 wrote: post #18

1 cm3 of water weighs a lot more than 1 gram ?? From a quick skim through, many of his calcs seem to be based on this i.e. major error.

The weight of one cubic centimeter of water is in fact one gram. By definition.

One cubic centimetre of water at 4 degrees Celsius used to define one gram (or more precisely one litre -> one kilogram, which comes out to be the exact same thing) [1], [2].

Although 1 cm^3 of water is still pretty damn close to 1g.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_%28unit%29

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y (around 1:50, and actually the whole video is excellent)

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#65

Post by lappa » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:10 PM UTC

brrt wrote: post #45

Actually, renewable energy is, when you actually run the numbers in a sensible way, pretty cost effective: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312... - this finds that with 90% solar/wind and modest amounts of storage, electricity would be cheaper in 2030 than it is today, and that the cheapest option is actually a vast overcapacity. There are plenty of flaws with that article, but still less tha…

Just to be clear, the article is saying that using solar power technology from 2030 would be more cost effective 90% of the time, not that using 90% solar energy today would be cheaper by the time we reach 2030.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#66

Post by Nimitz14 » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

peckrob wrote: post #39

Alupis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't nearly as dangerous as the popular opinion would have you believe. There has been only a single incident that I'm aware of (Chernobyl), all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). In fact, the technology and safety has come a long way since the 60's. Most US Navy ships are nuclear powered, and have not had incidents (and these are designed to go to war and survive). Japan was hit by…

> all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...

> It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1].

Which is a fucking scandal and really pisses anybody who knows anything about radiation off.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#67

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

martinald wrote: post #48

bradleyjg wrote: post #30

The biggest problem with nuclear is making the numbers work. You end up paying something like 80% of the cost 1 GW/year * 50 years before you get your first cent in revenue. That's a very tough thing to finance. Cost and especially time overruns during construction can easily tank the project financially. About the only way to make it work is to be a regulated utility that has a long term captured audience for its po…

That doesn't make any sense. Wind and Solar PV have to be financed for probably 99% of the upfront cost. All power generation is like that - very capital intensive.

If you can raise $1B/year for 10 years for an energy project, to build nuclear, you'd have to wait roughly 5 years to accumulate enough capital to start construction and then it'd be at very least 5 more years before you got a dime in revenue. If you wanted to deploy solar, you could buy $1B/year off a manufacturing line, start earning revenue from day 1, and start making payments to your investors.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#68

Post by merpnderp » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #46

merpnderp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do wind and solar provide a solid baseline power. And China builds nuclear plants a lot faster and cheaper than we do, and no known accidents. Maybe we can learn something from them. Plus the whole 90% of a nuclear plant's cost is servicing the debt. Once completed the operational costs are a rounding error.

> How do wind and solar provide a solid baseline power. Properly built and managed distribution networks, along with utility scale battery storage. > And China builds nuclear plants a lot faster and cheaper than we do, and no known accidents. Yet. China still gets more power from wind than nuclear, and they're building out wind generation capacity far faster than nuclear: http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2…

utility scale battery storage seems highly improbable to ever be cheaper than nuclear. If we figure a pretty generous 50% loss of energy, that means you need twice as much power production to service the nights and windless days.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#69

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #67

martinald wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense. Wind and Solar PV have to be financed for probably 99% of the upfront cost. All power generation is like that - very capital intensive.

If you can raise $1B/year for 10 years for an energy project, to build nuclear, you'd have to wait roughly 5 years to accumulate enough capital to start construction and then it'd be at very least 5 more years before you got a dime in revenue. If you wanted to deploy solar, you could buy $1B/year off a manufacturing line, start earning revenue from day 1, and start making payments to your investors.

> If you wanted to deploy solar, you could buy $1B/year off a manufacturing line, start earning revenue from day 1, and start making payments to your investors.

IE What SolarCity is doing with their SolarBonds and the solar panel factory they bought in upstate NY.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#70

Post by lighthawk » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #53

lighthawk wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that no nuclear plants are going to be built because of the threat of renewable energy sources becoming cheaper or perhaps other tech like fusion?: http://www.geek.com/science/germany-is-ready-to-switch-on-it...

Are you comparing an experimental technology like Germany's fusion reactor to proven wind generation that is driving commercial reactors out of business? http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/05/01/exelon-we-have-to-ha...

I'm saying that > 50 years is a long time and a lot can happen.

I could have also pointed at Google's Sunroof project as an example of a large company betting that solar can compete:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/212363-google-is-launchin...

I couldn't guess what energy producing and distribution technologies will be most prevalent in 100 years.

Advancements could just as easily be made relating to fission reactors, so I don't think it's fair to say that large power companies shouldn't invest in more reactors. But, I agree there is probably risk in investing in them.