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

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

#151

Post by Turing_Machine » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

acrefoot wrote: post #124

Eeko wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was studying, we had an active (research) reactor running on the campus under thousands of student dorms. Less than 10km from the center of the capital (Helsinki) too. Most people do not even know it's there. Most people don't know that a lot of hospitals on densely populated areas also house running reactors. The power plants generally are pretty dull industrial sites. I don't blame for people not wanting the…

MIT has a nuclear reactor on campus right on Massachusetts Ave, between Harvard and Boston. (It's not a power-generating reactor.) There is also a cogeneration plant that produces electricity, steam heat, chilled water, and compressed air. I've never heard anyone complain about either. Most people don't know or care except if it's super obvious (generating tons of obvious smoke/steam). However, they will raise all so…

Sure. UIUC had one for many years, also Rolla, and no doubt many other engineering-oriented universities. My office was literally in the next building over from the UIUC reactor for a while, and I never worried about it. That's about as "in my backyard" as you can get. :-)

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

#152

Post by nl » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:16 PM UTC

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.

It doesn't invalidate their findings, it means they understated their case - thought I think that is what you are saying too.

(Also, http://www.theretheyretheir.com/. Not usually a grammar Nazi, but that's pretty hard to read)

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

#153

Post by PeCaN » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:21 PM UTC

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.

I can't imagine there are many people who would want to live near a coal mine or coal power plant, either.

Frankly any energy production other than solar is rather undesirable to live near.

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

#154

Post by PolLambert » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:22 PM UTC

bluthru wrote: post #110

Great points as to why nuclear isn't our best option: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk

Not great points:

1. Isn't a business POV or about deadends and it applies to any shift in energy production.

2. I think some geologists are going to want to have a word with him concerning tectonics. Also just because US can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. E.g. Finland is doing it.

3. The production cost of nuclear based electricity is very weakly dependent on the price of natural uranium. A doubling of the cost in U-nat results in a cost increase of a few %. Also backstop technologies (U from seawater or Th or bomb deconstruction) are available and technologically viable (though not economically viable with oil below $150)

4. No terrorist is going to build a Pu-bomb. It's orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive than a U-bomb. Moreover, no terrorists is going to 'build' a bomb. Also, reactor grade Pu is unusable for a bomb due to its isotopic composition.

5. I'm calling BS. Freshwater consumption for energy generation is typically a few % if cooling towers are involved. As for coastal NPP's: Fukushima Daini is located 12km from Fukushima Daichi one the same coast yet nothing happened there.

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

#155

Post by thomasahle » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:23 PM UTC

bluthru wrote: post #110

Great points as to why nuclear isn't our best option: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk

> 40% of the freshwater in France is used on cooling nuclear power plants.

Wow, I never heard this. And apparently salt water plants are much harder, and part of what made Fukushima go down.

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

#156

Post by kuschku » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:24 PM UTC

ju-st wrote: post #96

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…

The reason for this is that Germany had developed and build 2 prototype thorium reactors, and had its fair share of issues with them.

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

#157

Post by kuschku » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:26 PM UTC

Eeko wrote: post #51

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?"

Dumping it to the ocean is pretty safe. Seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... However, since people don't easily believe water's a very effective radiation shielding (even if there's an xkcd of it https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ ) and that heavier than water metals kind of tend to stay put at the bottom of the ocean, other means of disposal might be more realistic. Recycling in breed…

Actually, Britain did that. They dumped most of their waste in the channel.

Result, 20 years later: The waste did not dilute, the radiation in the channel is damaging the local animals.

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

#158

Post by jhayward » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:27 PM UTC

jerven wrote: post #117

Its a nice write up but I don't believe it. It focusses to much on capacity factor, which is an interesting easy measure. But not nearly as important as one might expect. The key measure is actually dispatch-ability. i.e. how quick can you turn it on and off again. In markets with energy trading this is key for profitability. The CSP plants with molten salt storage do really well on the market because they can turn o…

This is a robust and cogent analysis of the case for nuclear. Advocates, often motivated by global warming concern, do not look at the "grid that will be", and rather look at "the grid today" or "the grid of the past". That nuclear gets more expensive (lower capacity factor) the more of it there is should really give people pause.

Thanks for such a good note.

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

#159

Post by bsder » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:27 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #132

vonmoltke wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is going to be allowed to live in those areas for a very long time. That doesn't mean it isn't safe to live there. It means an overcautious government won't let people live there. You even said yourself the highest levels outside the plant grounds are only approaching the levels of increased cancer incidence. So, what other than abundance of caution and paranoia about radiation is keeping people from returning…

Are you honestly arguing that dozens of mSv of radiation annually are safe? That big bad government is preventing people from doing what they want? 50mSv is approaching the level of guaranteed higher incidence of cancer -- If you lived in the exclusion zone, you'd be receiving that every single year for the rest of your, and your childrens' lives. Canada did a survey a few years ago of all their nuclear workers, at m…

> Canada did a survey a few years ago of all their nuclear workers, at much lower levels of lifetime radiation (However, this holds for practically every worker near industrial equipment. Steelworker cancer rates used to be off the charts--the old saw at Bethlehem Steel was "nobody ever retires from the car shop"--you wound up dead before retirement. (car shop being a place where they made railroad cars).

IBM used to remove (probably still does) pregnant women from their semiconductor fabrication jobs because IBM had data about birth defects. Remember, most fabrication line tools are completely sealed, and the air is some of the most filtered stuff on earth. So, is it the presence of something causing the problem or the absence of something causing the problem? Nobody knows, and the company is sure not going to take any risk to find out.

So, you not only have to show higher rates but also show that it was due to the radiation and not something else. That's a very tall order.

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

#160

Post by satori99 » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 10:27 PM UTC

wycx wrote: post #11

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 would live next to a warehouse full of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

It frustrates me as an Australian, that our government scientists invented Synroc, and we have vast amounts of uranium, and probably the most geologically stable continent on earth, but no energy creating reactors.