Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

energyrealityproject.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 393 posts

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

#91

Post by DrScump »

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...

The longest-lived "proven" wind project in CA is shutting down. http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_29048836/altam...

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

#92

Post by vonmoltke »

mikeyouse wrote: post #75
Nimitz14 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Nor does the existence of an exclusion zone mean it isn't.

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

#93

Post by DrScump »

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?"

Even ignoring modern reactor designs that can use waste isotopes as fuel, we had a perfect storage solution in Nevada... until Harry Reid sabotaged it, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

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

#94

Post by lojack »

voidlogic wrote: post #26
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?"

By not hiding it away, but using warehouses that are actively staffed just like the plant that made the waste. Of course these facilities should be secure installations. But the root of the problem is not wanted to actively take ownership responsibility for the waste. I imagine every major city having its secure storage installation. Consider the scale of waste generated as well. All the waste used to power a life of…

> All the waste used to power a life of electrical usage creates was the size of a pea.

Source on this?

Best I could find shows that 3 cubic meters of waste is generated per year for a "typical 1000 MWe light water reactor" after reprocessing and all (which isn't always done). [1]

With 99 plants in the US (not counting the plants with multiple reactors) that leads to 297m^3 of waste.

With a population of 318 million, that's about 9.3x10-7, or approximately 4-5 peas per year or 367 peas over the course of a lifetime.

[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear...

EDIT: Forgot that we only get about 20% of our power from nuclear energy, so it's actually closer to 1835 peas.

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

#95

Post by beefman »

iaw wrote: post #90
lumberjack wrote: post #62

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…

The startup capital required for nuclear fission is so immense that it doesn't make sense from an economic time-value perspective. The problem with most renewables (excl. thermal and hydro) is that they are incapable of meeting 100% of electricity demands by their nature without better storage technology. The economics are pushing towards renewables but I feel that nuclear makes more sense for our society in the near…

Nothing about nuclear fission requires startup capital to be large.

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

#96

Post by ju-st »

The German wikipedia does have some interesting references to reports on thorium reactors from the British National Nuclear Laboratories [1][2]:

> In the foreseeable future (up to the next 20 years), the only realistic prospect for deploying thorium fuels on a commercial basis would be in existing and new build LWRs (e.g., AP1000 and EPR) or PHWRs (e.g., Candu reactors). Thorium fuel concepts which require first the construction of new reactor types (such as High Temperature Reactor (HTR), fast reactors and Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS)) are regarded as viable only in the much longer term (of the order of 40+ years minimum) as this is the length of time before these reactors are expected to be designed, built and reach commercial maturity.

1: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fl%C3%BCssigsalzreaktor#Kritis... 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20130126205622/http://www.nnl.co...

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

#97

Post by Roodgorf »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #55
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.

Wind and solar can be built MW project by MW project, and turned up in weeks or months. You'll take years just to get a nuclear reactor approved. EDIT: What's that Bezos quote? "Your margin is my opportunity?" Same for renewables. Your delays are my opportunity.

I'm unfamiliar with the term "MW project", could you please clarify?

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

#98

Post by iaw »

mtgx wrote: post #84

It seems to me that the recent few articles on fusion have inspired a lot of people - who now seem to be thinking "hey you know what would be great? If we moved back to fission reactors!" I'm not talking about people writing these articles. I'm sure there's one appearing on the Web every week. I'm talking about people who are suddenly upvoting these articles. But to me that doesn't make any sense. Fusion, I get. It's…

One thing I want to point out that a lot of the recent articles seem to ignore. With fusion reactors there is absolutely no risk of runaway reactions like those observed at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island but there is a huge potential (and likelihood) for local material being radioactively contaminated due to neutron bombardment over long periods of time (this is the principle material science challenge faced in attempting to make fusion practical).

Fission reactors operating in this country are all over 40-year old designs. The newer designs actually have substantially improved safety capabilities over the old models, but political and economic challenges have prevented the adoption of new plants.

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

#99

Post by toomuchtodo »

DrScump wrote: post #91
toomuchtodo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The longest-lived "proven" wind project in CA is shutting down . http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_29048836/altam...

Not worried: http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059

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

#100

Post by pjc50 »

"We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as a secondary fuel."

This is not a production-ready technology, though. I believe there are lingering problems with corrosion. And the claim that the MSR doesn't require secondary water cooling is odd: what's the turbine working fluid heat dump supposed to be?

I really object to phrasing energy policy as either/or. Build out renewables, now, because that's ready. Let's give the MSR a fair go at getting to production-ready, see if the problems can be worked out.

Let's not build a nuclear plant whose output is subsidized to twice the normal wholesale cost: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22772441

Post reply on HN