To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) • Hacker News Board

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#81

Post by m_mueller » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:32 AM UTC

ianai wrote: post #57

niels_olson wrote: post #3

My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…

Solar, afaik, requires a natural gas installation, too, for off hours.

Not with enough batteries or hydroelectric storage.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#82

Post by darkmarmot » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:32 AM UTC

iopq wrote: post #75

toomuchtodo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't. Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone. Its…

What happens to batteries that leak and no longer work?

Recycling batteries, especially large ones, is very cost effective.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#83

Post by shadykiller » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:33 AM UTC

Always been curious about this - wont nuclear plants increase thermal input of earth ? True for fossil fuels too which were never burnt in such vast quantity

These energy sources are outside of solar energy so how much more can they warm up the earth ?

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#84

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:33 AM UTC

iopq wrote: post #75

toomuchtodo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't. Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone. Its…

What happens to batteries that leak and no longer work?

What darkmont and mikeyouse said (Tesla warranties their batteries for 10 years).

And fires?

https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-saf...

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#85

Post by mikeyouse » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:33 AM UTC

iopq wrote: post #75

toomuchtodo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't. Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone. Its…

What happens to batteries that leak and no longer work?

You can recycle almost all of the Lithium and other metals in modern batteries.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#86

Post by jlj » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:34 AM UTC

Is it technically possible to have a global power grid, where solar generated on the sunny side of the earth can be used on the dark side, eliminating the need for energy storage?

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#87

Post by tehabe » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:34 AM UTC

aianus wrote: post #68

grzm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like this is something that's important to you. There were reasons why this is happening, regardless of whether you agree with them or that they're rational. If this is an issue you would like to be more active about, rather than remaining boggled, I encourage you to dig in to determine what those reasons are so you can effectively counteract them.

I don't know if you consider this an effective rebuttal but I live in a place (Ontario, Canada) that made the opposite move at the same time as Germany. All coal plants have been shut down and replaced with additional Nuclear, Hydro, and Natural Gas generation. We now have some of the cheapest electricity in the world (~$0.055 per kwh residential off peak vs. something crazy like $0.30 in Berlin) and haven't had a si…

The actual electricity is getting cheaper in Germany, what drives the prices are the grid usage costs and other elements. One thing which drives me nuts is a cost sharing scheme for renewable energy. Actually a good idea but it has a flaw.

Renewable energy actually decrease the price on the electricity exchange. So if more renewable energy is supplied the prices decreases even more. And the cost sharing scheme says, that the grid owners get the difference between the exchange price and the the fixed tariff for renewable energy. The result is: this part of the electricity price increases.

It is a flaw in the way the electricity market is designed and it should be fixed. But currently the political is missing to do so.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#88

Post by tehabe » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:36 AM UTC

jlj wrote: post #86

Is it technically possible to have a global power grid, where solar generated on the sunny side of the earth can be used on the dark side, eliminating the need for energy storage?

Possible maybe, there was a project called Desertec, but it is pointless. The advantage of renewable energy is the possibility of a decentralised energy supply.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#89

Post by ibejoeb » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:36 AM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #81

ianai wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar, afaik, requires a natural gas installation, too, for off hours.

Not with enough batteries or hydroelectric storage.

As I understand it, the batteries are dangerous also, being lithium or sodium. These are potentially city block-size Note 7s, right?

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#90

Post by fgpwd » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 4:37 AM UTC

The initial estimates for the cost to repair the damage caused by Fukushima were as far as I remember, around 50 billion dollars. According to a recent news article [1], the costs are now estimated at 250 billion dollars. They just keep on increasing. And then there is also the human/environmental damage to consider.

I have been excited about nuclear since my school days, but at this point the downside if something goes wrong is imo just not financially worth it. I would much rather pay 2x for a safer solar plant with similar output than invest something this high-risk. It's like selling uncovered options, with no way to set a stop-loss or to recover if anything goes wrong.

I think it is likely that at some point the global community will also realize that the cost considering the risks is just not worth it and begin to move away from nuclear fission. Especially if any another incident like Fukushima happens in the next decade or so; that could have big implications on nuclear policy.

[1]:http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-17/fukushima-nuclear-c...