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

101–110 of 393 posts

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

#101

Post by PolLambert »

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?"

Being very familiar with nuclear waste, I can say that, from a technical pov, it's a solved problem: just put it deep enough to comply with whatever safety level is required. The problem with nuclear waste is political not technical and not economical.

Reprocessing or transmutation are alternatives to handle nuclear waste but they have in common that they're more expensive and even less acceptable to society.

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

#102

Post by brrt »

Retric wrote: post #71
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.

They also assume a wide grid and overcapacity, which balances it out. And their storage capacity is minor, and they assume relatively cheap backup power. Like I said, there are plenty of things wrong with it, but it's nothing like what is wrong with the OP.

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

#103

Post by iaw »

beefman wrote: post #95
iaw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a 5-10 year lead time between digging the first hole and opening the plant. That's >$100 million in capital investment for 5-10 years without any return, so the plant has to have a present lifetime value >$140 million the day it opens.

This ignores various risk cases associated with building a plant that drive the return on capital further up.

Source: used to value these types of investments professionally.

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

#104

Post by somebehemoth »

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 are still areas that are evacuated with no plan for humans to return in the near future:

http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclea...

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

#105

Post by skybrian »

DrScump wrote: post #77
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.

Of course they should add the cost of those to the spreadsheet as well.

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

#106

Post by toomuchtodo »

Roodgorf wrote: post #97
toomuchtodo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nameplate capacity is the number registered with authorities for classifying the power output of a power station usually expressed in megawatts (MW). Power plants with an output consistently near their nameplate capacity have a high capacity factor.

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

#107

Post by maxerickson »

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...

800 of 4900 turbines are shutting down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass_Wind_Farm

It's not clear from that what the other operators are doing, but there seems to be some work put into replacing smaller turbines with larger ones that are less disruptive to birds.

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

#108

Post by NolF »

beefman wrote: post #95
iaw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The design and safe construction does.

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

#109

Post by [deleted] »

Roodgorf wrote: post #97
toomuchtodo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN