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

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

#71

Post by Retric » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:12 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…

They assumed electrochemical storage which is really expensive and invalidates there findings, renewables would be significantly cheaper than there suggesting.

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

#72

Post by DDub » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:13 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...

From what I understand it is the opposite, that because it was much easier to turn uranium byproducts into nuclear warheads it was the technology that won out over thorium.

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

#73

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #68

toomuchtodo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Lithium batteries are in no way going to be so inefficient as to have a 50% loss of energy. They're already cost competitive in Hawaii for utility scale storage:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaii-co-op-solarcity-ink-d...

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

#74

Post by sjwright » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #35

tomcam wrote: post #21

I am not reflexively anti-nuclear. However, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the simple question: "How do we store nuclear waste safely?"

Bury it deep enough? Somehow everybody freaks out about nuclear waste and says stuff like "But after 20,000 years it will still retain half of its radiation!" Well, our industrial waste also contain mercury and other heavy metals. We usually just bury them. Somehow nobody freaks out and says "But after 20,000 years it will still retain ALL of its toxicity!" I can't fathom why.

And what they also don't appreciate is that nuclear material with a 20,000 year half-life has, by definition, very very low radioactivity.

It's like any other fuel -- the faster it burns, the shorter it lives. And vice versa.

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

#75

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

Nimitz14 wrote: post #66

peckrob wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The Fukushima exclusion zone is still dozens of square miles where upwards of 100,000 people have had to abandon their homes and businesses.. That's a decent approximation to what happened in Chernobyl. Clearly there was much more radiation released in Ukraine but that doesn't mean the area around Fukushima is safe..

Here's a map; http://i.imgur.com/EBEnCUa.jpg

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

#76

Post by zbyte64 » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #20

vanessapu wrote: post #3

I absolutely agree that nuclear is our best option as long as the reactor and the waste is located in your backyard.

I'd be happy for it all to be in my backyard. I don't know how small those Toshiba[1] mini reactors are, but I'd happily have one of those in my garden if it fits. Or any modern design right next door to me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

Was curious how long the reactor is designed to last, seems the answer is 30 years:

https://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-...

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

#77

Post by DrScump » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #5

I skimmed, but I think this is missing the value of the land that people won't be able to use in case of an accident. A semi-permanent mass evacuation isn't cheap.

contrast, however, with the results of a tanker spill or oil-drilling disaster like Deepwater Horizon.

Also note that more nuclear waste enters the atmosphere every DAY from coal burning than in the entire history of nuclear power generation excluding Chernobyl.

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

#78

Post by hansjorg » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:15 PM UTC

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #9

peoii wrote: post #2

It's the sad truth that people seem very for nuclear, but no one wants to live near it. Of course, I've seen articles regarding people who don't want to live near wind turbines, so maybe people are just far to fickle.

Nobody wants to live by garbage dumps either, but I'm not aware of that ever being a problem. I mean, the fallout radius of a garbage dump is smaller but it seems like that's basically a non-issue with modern reactors as well. I feel like the crux of the problem, as usual, is education (and likely trust). If you're not aware of modern reactor tech, or you don't believe those telling you, then you're probably just exp…

I think more nuclear power is the way to go, but I don't want (heavily subsidized) privately owned nuclear plants in my back yard.

For how long did TEPCO fake their safety records? Private capital is far too single minded and powerful to be responsible for nuclear power plant safety.

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

#79

Post by darkmighty » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:16 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #17

This article is pretty terrible. The bias is just ridiculous. When discussing wind and solar the author constantly makes assumptions that favor worst cases, and makes questionable comparisons. For example; stating that "more Americans" died from installing rooftop solar than have died from construction or use of nuclear power, cherry picking the most dangerous possible activity related to solar power (some guy up on…

Large countries run their electrical grid on mostly renewables (e.g. Brazil, Iceland), and large countries run their grid on mostly nuclear (e.g. France, Belgium). Centuries of development aren't necessary to achieve it, it's mostly political will.

Nuclear power has actually a fantastic track record with regards to mortality and statistical risk. The main problem is it suffers from the "Airplane effect" -- the few failures take over the media an the population's imagination, even if the overall safety is great. We can and we should scale both wind/solar and nuclear power, right now, not in a century.

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

#80

Post by peckrob » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 9:16 PM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #50

peckrob wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

> I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." I called it a "near incident" because there was no meltdown, and the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Essentially they got it under control, and given the circumstances it took to get the plant into that situation in the first place, I'd say it's a flagship example of how far Nuclear safety has come. Today Japan…

> there was no meltdown

Except that there totally was a meltdown.

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

* http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm...

* http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/09/29/fukushima-watc...

> the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant.

Except for the 20 mile exclusion zone that is still in place.

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

* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1...

I'm not an anti-nuclear person by any means, but let's not sugarcoat this disaster. It was bad.