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

The New Atomic Age We Need

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 211 posts

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#121

Post by chadgeidel »

thebmax wrote: post #108
T-A wrote: post #8

> We already know that today’s energy sources cannot sustain a future we want to live in. Is this really true? In Lazard's 2014 comparison of total cost per MWh, both wind and solar beat coal and nuclear [1]. Costs have fallen so much that it's becoming hard to justify continued subsidies [2]. [1] http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-ene... [2] http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/us-energy-…

These cost comparisons don't take into account reliability. Power is almost useless if it's not reliable. A large part of your monthly bill goes towards reliablility and transport of power, not just the power itself. A 100% wind or solar grid would require an equal amount of backup gas or coal power in order to provide reliability which essentially doubles these cost estimates. Even now most wind and solar is conside…

I don't disagree with your fundamental premise, but "would require an equal amount of backup power" sounds like hyperbole. I haven't read any proposal for "100% replacement" that doesn't take into account energy storage solutions.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question those solutions, but an equal amount of traditional power generation as backup seems excessive.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#122

Post by mohawk »

ori_b wrote: post #93
mohawk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analysis uses solar panels with 10% efficiency in its calculations...

10% efficiency is about right for low cost solar cells that have been out in open air for a while. 20% is about right for affordable single crystal cells, and the theoretical maximum efficiency for silicon is 33%. Getting significantly better than 10% is very expensive. Getting beyond about 25% is currently well beyond feasible for large scale power generation.

Most new panels announced these days top 20% efficiency[1]. Output is guaranteed to 90% after 10 years, 80% after 20, real world often better[2].

[1] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Is-SolarCitys-N...

[2] http://sroeco.com/solar/solar-efficiency-losses-over-time/

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#123

Post by chadgeidel »

pdonis wrote: post #80
legulere wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the big fear of nuclear power is because we don't know how to handle catastrophic risks. With coal power you will have a few dead mine workers. It's only mine workers that are affected and they have a definite risk in front of their eyes. You can rise the worker protection regulations for making this safer. You have the problem of air pollution through fine particles and sulfur. You can solve this with filter…

> With coal power you will have a few dead mine workers. Actually, most of the risk of coal power is soot in the air, causing respiratory problems. This has killed far more people than coal mining. But most people don't know that, as your comment illustrates. So part of the problem is that the risks of other power sources are not accurately represented. (Also, btw, there is radioactivity in coal ash--more than in som…

Do you have sources for radioactivity in coal ash? It's not that I believe you (I do!) I would just like info to share with others.

Unrelated - I'm sorry I downvoted you - stupid tiny hit box on mobile. I meant to upvote.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#124

Post by ScottBurson »

I'm in the middle of reading a great book on geoengineering, Oliver Morton's The Planet Remade. Engagingly written and comprehensive; I recommend it highly. From the introduction:

If the world had the capacity to deliver one of the largest nuclear power plants ever built once a week, week in and week out, it would take 20 years to replace the current stock of coal-fired plants (at present, the world builds about three or four nuclear power plants a year, and retires old ones almost as quickly).

Morton goes on to make the case for considering geoengineering, and for ramping up research on it. I don't know that I can do justice to the argument in a short summary, but one key point is the extent to which we're already doing it in an unplanned way. We all know about all the carbon dioxide we're putting in the air, along with other greenhouse gases -- nitrous oxide, for example -- but there's also the massive amount of reactive nitrogen we're creating, mostly for fertilizer. We all know about the massive local environmental effects of burning coal, but there's also some evidence that coal smoke has a cooling effect; changing from coal to nuclear may actually worsen warming in the short run.

I was favorably disposed toward geoengineering before I got the book, so I can't claim to have been won over, but there was an awful lot I didn't know about it -- for example, how the various approaches would affect different regions of the globe differently, and how those effects could be adjusted to some extent, though not optimized for everyone simultaneously.

Again, I highly recommend it.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#125

Post by CamperBob2 »

ScottBurson wrote: post #124

I'm in the middle of reading a great book on geoengineering, Oliver Morton's The Planet Remade . Engagingly written and comprehensive; I recommend it highly. From the introduction: If the world had the capacity to deliver one of the largest nuclear power plants ever built once a week, week in and week out, it would take 20 years to replace the current stock of coal-fired plants (at present, the world builds about thr…

If the world had the capacity to deliver one of the largest nuclear power plants ever built once a week, week in and week out, it would take 20 years to replace the current stock of coal-fired plants (at present, the world builds about three or four nuclear power plants a year, and retires old ones almost as quickly).

That's extremely hard to believe. Does he show the math?

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#126

Post by Amorymeltzer »

chadgeidel wrote: post #123
pdonis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With coal power you will have a few dead mine workers. Actually, most of the risk of coal power is soot in the air, causing respiratory problems. This has killed far more people than coal mining. But most people don't know that, as your comment illustrates. So part of the problem is that the risks of other power sources are not accurately represented. (Also, btw, there is radioactivity in coal ash--more than in som…

Do you have sources for radioactivity in coal ash? It's not that I believe you (I do!) I would just like info to share with others. Unrelated - I'm sorry I downvoted you - stupid tiny hit box on mobile. I meant to upvote.

Here are three quick links, from 2007, 2015, and 1997, respectively:

>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r...

>https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/radioactive-contaminants-foun...

>http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#127

Post by chefkoch »

pdonis wrote: post #74
jpdus wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! In my opinion Thiel does not think far enough and doesn't talk about the real question: Is fission even (economically) competitive? In my opinion (and from what I've read on this subject), it is not and won't be in the foreseeable future. I will quote myself [1]: >People always forget about indirect costs when talking about cheap nuclear energy (risk factors aside). Nobody has ever built a profitable nuclear po…

> Is fission even (economically) competitive? Remember that he's talking about a new generation of reactor designs. Also remember that a key driver of the high cost of nuclear energy is lawsuits based on irrational overestimates of the risk of nuclear energy compared to other energy sources. Coal has killed orders of magnitude more people than nuclear, yet nobody ever brings a NIMBY lawsuit to prevent a coal plant fr…

> Also remember that a key driver of the high cost of nuclear energy is lawsuits based on irrational overestimates of the risk of nuclear energy compared to other energy sources.

Do you have a source for this as the new EPR reactor in finland is aboud three times as expensive as planned?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#128

Post by tokipin »

thebmax wrote: post #108
T-A wrote: post #8

> We already know that today’s energy sources cannot sustain a future we want to live in. Is this really true? In Lazard's 2014 comparison of total cost per MWh, both wind and solar beat coal and nuclear [1]. Costs have fallen so much that it's becoming hard to justify continued subsidies [2]. [1] http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-ene... [2] http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/us-energy-…

These cost comparisons don't take into account reliability. Power is almost useless if it's not reliable. A large part of your monthly bill goes towards reliablility and transport of power, not just the power itself. A 100% wind or solar grid would require an equal amount of backup gas or coal power in order to provide reliability which essentially doubles these cost estimates. Even now most wind and solar is conside…

the obvious solution is batteries, which improve all sources of power generation including traditional ones by serving as support during peak times. in principle you only need stored per house during night time, which may be a much lower bar than it sounds. if the utilities serve a role later it may just be them acting as high-volume energy storage facilities, but even that might not really be necessary if individuals can make money by investing in extra batteries.

i think once solar crosses a certain cultural/economic threshold it will just take over everything. it's just way, way too good. there's no other power source that even compares to the potential it already has.

what's interesting is not whether it's going to take over everything, but what kind of economy/world you will have when electricity is orders of magnitude cheaper than it currently is.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#129

Post by vlehto »

cbr wrote: post #115
pilom wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is scale. Here is a really good analysis of renewable resources in the UK: http://www.withouthotair.com/ Conclusion: The UK doesn't receive enough sunlight or have enough wind/waves/tidal pools/land to grow food, power cars (of any kind) and meet other energy needs. The UK can never get all of their energy carbon free without nuclear or importing power. The US is in a better place because of solar in the…

What's wrong with importing power?

Britain is in very good spot from renewable energy generation point of view. It has lots of wind, tidal and some solar energy too. Countries next to it have worse situation considering renewables and have just as high population density. Importing works if you accept producing electricity for Britain with nuclear power plants located in France or Belgium.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#130

Post by ScottBurson »

chadgeidel wrote: post #123
pdonis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With coal power you will have a few dead mine workers. Actually, most of the risk of coal power is soot in the air, causing respiratory problems. This has killed far more people than coal mining. But most people don't know that, as your comment illustrates. So part of the problem is that the risks of other power sources are not accurately represented. (Also, btw, there is radioactivity in coal ash--more than in som…

Do you have sources for radioactivity in coal ash? It's not that I believe you (I do!) I would just like info to share with others. Unrelated - I'm sorry I downvoted you - stupid tiny hit box on mobile. I meant to upvote.

There's this SciAm article, but the title is sensationalized and highly misleading; be sure to read the whole article, including the editor's note at the end.

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r...

Post reply on HN