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

281–290 of 393 posts

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

#281

Post by mikekchar »

pippy wrote: post #136

I'm in the awkward position of supporting nuclear power in a country that has its anti-nuclear stance apart of its national identity. New Zealands Prime Minster David Lange famously argued against it at an Oxford Union debate, and ever since kiwis have viewed it as us standing against the 'big guy'. Some people I've spoken to view this as on par with not supporting the All Blacks. To top this off, they typically have…

As another commenter has mentioned, Japan is kind of a special case (although it would be great if it weren't). In 1600, when the shogun rose to power, there was a real threat of deforestation. Many laws were passed to stop the cutting of trees. Japanese people endured many hardships over the centuries because of these policies. However, there was an understanding that the forests were key to the ecological balance of the area (they control water run off, which helps the farmers and allows rivers to deliver nutrients to the sea which helps the fisheries). My understanding is that in the Edo period (from 1600 to the late 1800s) virtually everything was recycled and then when it couldn't be used any more, it was burned as fuel -- there just weren't resources available to do otherwise.

There is an ebook [1] extolling the virtues of Edo society, and while I think you have to take it with a grain of salt (it paints a very rosy picture), it is very interesting.

I noticed another book [2] which looks like it would be an interesting read, but I haven't done so yet.

One of these days I'd like to learn more about current forestry practices in Japan. I live in Shizuoka prefecture and I see some areas cleared occasionally for tea fields. Also, some of the cedar stands are threatened by invasion from bamboo and you can sometimes see them trying to clear the bamboo and replant cedar. But firewood is currently so cheap that you can often get it for free in my area, which worries me slightly.

[1] http://japanfs.org/en/edo/index.html

[2] http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520063129

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

#283

Post by anon1mous »

PolLambert wrote: post #162
anon1mous wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you burn it? Why is it than that every reactor I know of, in US, WE, Japan, stores tones of extremely dangerous waste on site?

Since regulations don't allow any other option e.g. the US doesn't allow reprocessing. Also: what better place to temporarily store nuclear waste in the exact same place where it is produced where safety and security measures are already in place?

Yeah, right next to a reactor, so that a meltdown causes 10x more damage.

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

#284

Post by anon1mous »

ansible wrote: post #125
anon1mous wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you burn it? Why is it than that every reactor I know of, in US, WE, Japan, stores tones of extremely dangerous waste on site?

I think brrt is talking about "burning" nuclear waste in a molten-salt reactor or similar. Some types of existing fission reactors can only utilize a small percentage of the uranium in their fuel rods, after which the rods must be removed. The rods must then be stored, and possibly reprocessed afterwards. MSR and other fission reactor types can utilize 100% of the fissionable material put into them, so this sort of l…

Yeah, so there is a solution to nuclear waste - in fantasy land.

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

#285

Post by anon1mous »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #128
anon1mous wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very simple - a few tones of Uranium or Plutonium, dispersed in air or water can kill the population of a continent.

Very simply, you're wrong. Badly wrong. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fuel-from-th... The ocean contains 4.5 billion tonnes of uranium already. 4.5. BILLION. TONNES. Dispersed in water. I haven't noticed any continents dying off because of this, have you?

Have you heard about that discovery called radioactivity? Different isotopes? Ocean water >>> fresh water?

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

#286

Post by anon1mous »

PolLambert wrote: post #131
anon1mous wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very simple - a few tones of Uranium or Plutonium, dispersed in air or water can kill the population of a continent.

Which is why you bury it.

Waste stays very radioactive for millions of years. Even after that remains extremely toxic. Earthquakes, volcanoes, diggers can trigger an apocalypse.

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

#287

Post by mixmastamyk »

pjc50 wrote: post #100

"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…

Molten sodium was at the heart of the Santa Susana nuclear disaster in southern California, which was covered up for fifty years. Needless to say, I'm skeptical.

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

#288

Post by switchbak »

geezer wrote: post #198
pippy wrote: post #136

I'm in the awkward position of supporting nuclear power in a country that has its anti-nuclear stance apart of its national identity. New Zealands Prime Minster David Lange famously argued against it at an Oxford Union debate, and ever since kiwis have viewed it as us standing against the 'big guy'. Some people I've spoken to view this as on par with not supporting the All Blacks. To top this off, they typically have…

> We have less forest coverage than Japan. Japan has forest coverage of 67%, which is very respectable. New Zealand has 31.87%. Next 3 countries after New Zealand are Germany, Canada and United States. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_ar...

Canada is funny though - with so much arctic and prairie land it throws off the calculations. That's not necessarily due to deforestation however (even though there is a ton of that going on).

http://www.biodivcanada.ca/380C93C6-737C-440D-BA5E-011787F42...

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

#289

Post by iaw »

beefman wrote: post #229
iaw wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're assuming a very particular kind of nuclear fission machine.

I am unaware of any kind of practical nuclear fission machine that doesn't require a high initial capital investment. Could you link some examples of commercially operating units? It has been a few years since I was in the field but I was unaware of any proven changes to the fundamental economics of the industry.

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

#290

Post by mixmastamyk »

chc wrote: post #215
beat wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Run the numbers on it. What's a reasonable expected area for a real-world nuclear power plant? (not the fantasy of the OP, but what real plants usually cover) Reasonable peak and median output long-term for that much solar panel? Throw in some batteries for storage to stabilize the output, and the numbers are pretty compelling. Then throw in the cost of covering, say, a square mile of land with solar panels versus th…

A sibling commenter already did run the numbers on it, and found nuclear ahead by a factor of 10: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503382

Considering that no one will want to live near it, and not allow it to be farmed either, such plants aren't as space efficient as they might seen.
Post reply on HN