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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 666 posts

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

#231

Post by jsilence »

Twisell wrote: post #221
afterburner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

Except people also forget that renewables' are also highly subsidized. You can't use a double standard here. And cost should anyway be the least of concern as global warming costs will be higher no matter what if we fail to control it.

"renewables' are also highly subsidized"

Only this not true any more. Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyrbKBZ6SU

Even before that the subsidies for solar have been dwarfed by the subsidies that are in place for nuclear power. Recently in Germany the nuclear companies' lobbyists managed to get rif of the problem of end storage of nuclear waste by shifting that burden to the general public. Great job!

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

#232

Post by krzyk »

freehunter wrote: post #20
DrScump wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reducing consumption (and) population Those goals don't conflict with a shift to nuclear.

They don't, but if we met those goals we may be able to get away with not using nuclear. Nuclear produces a lot of power with relatively low side effects, but solar and wind produce a smaller amount of power with no side effects. If we can globally bring our power consumption down to that smaller amount that can be met by solar and wind, we could get rid of the economic and political arguments that keep nuclear from…

> solar and wind produce a smaller amount of power with no side effects

Without side effects? wind?

Have you by any chance seen what wind plants do to birds? Or have you had the opportunity to live in a house near a wind plant? The noise is very annoying.

Water plants looks much better than wind plants.

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

#233

Post by maxnevermind »

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…

"The downside of solar is approximately 0" Don't think only about electricity in your home, think about some steel mill which maybe located in places with no sun, consume huge ammount of energy and has to run 24/7.

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

#234

Post by philipkglass »

paulddraper wrote: post #224
afterburner wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't want a plant from the 60s, and I would wonder how costs were hidden back then, and how much subsequent safety overhauls cost.

> I wouldn't want a plant from the 60s Me neither. Unfortunately, that's all we have, since we're not building any more :(

There are 4 new AP1000 reactors under construction in the United States. Unfortunately, they're over budget and behind schedule. UCS is if anything charitable to estimate $8 billion for a new reactor.

http://www.enr.com/articles/41134-turnaround-eludes-nuclear-...

Last spring, at the Plant Vogtle construction site near Waynesboro, Ga., executives representing Georgia Power, its lead contractors and trades groups gathered to commit publicly to turning around the $16-billion nuclear power plant expansion. At least three years behind schedule and billions of dollars over its original budget, the massive effort—the first U.S. project of its kind in decades—is a closely watched bellwether of the country’s nuclear plans, which could fizzle if this project fails to deliver, many believe.

Executives with Westinghouse and Fluor, which represent the contracting team that took over on Jan. 1, publicly vowed to do what they already had contractually agreed to do: deliver the project according to schedule by achieving the in-service target dates of June 2019 and June 2020 for Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively.

Now, nearly a year into Westinghouse and Fluor’s Vogtle project takeover from former contractor CB&I, the site’s workforce has swelled, but productivity and schedule have actually slipped, say state construction monitors. In joint testimony, PSC analyst Stephen Roetger and construction monitor William Jacobs noted, “The contractor has failed to achieve the project’s critical milestones in accordance with the January 2016 Integrated Project Schedule, which reconfirmed the June 2019 and June 2020 Commercial Operation Dates.” Jacobs, the state’s construction monitor, holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering and has more than 12 years of nuclear-plant construction and start-up experience.

AP1000s are also behind schedule in China. Whatever problems are causing the schedule/budget misses, they seem to be coming from inside the nuclear industry itself.

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

#236

Post by jolux »

The math just doesn't add up, unfortunately. It seems like a harsh reality that liberals are unwilling to confront for hippy-dippy tree hugger reasons but even economically speaking nuclear is just a bad idea: http://crookedtimber.org/2016/07/20/nuclear-math-doesnt-add-...

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

#237

Post by Marazan »

Spooky23 wrote: post #143
Turing_Machine wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We've got these things you know, batteries." Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective. "Nuclear lost. Its never coming back." There are currently 55 new power reactors under construction and scheduled to be in operation by 2020. China alone has 20 in active construction, with many more planned. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and...

Nuclear is a mess. You either are left with a waste problem that doesn't go away or a proliferation risk. The US government or successors will be subsidizing 20th century waste for hundreds of years. Energy storage is a problem, but a transient problem that can be addressed with a variety of storage techniques and backed up by natural gas.

Bingo, renewables plus natural gas is the (current) answer.

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

#238

Post by robryk »

jsilence wrote: post #231
Twisell wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except people also forget that renewables' are also highly subsidized. You can't use a double standard here. And cost should anyway be the least of concern as global warming costs will be higher no matter what if we fail to control it.

"renewables' are also highly subsidized" Only this not true any more. Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyrbKBZ6SU Even before that the subsidies for solar have been dwarfed by the subsidies that are in place for nuclear power. Recently in Germany the nuclear companies' lobbyists managed to get rif of the problem of end storage of nuclear waste by…

> Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies (...)

// I haven't watched the video. Would love to see a text version thereof if it exists.

Is it per unit of power that can be produced under optimal conditions or per unit of power averaged over a year? Note that half of the time in a year it's dark, so in order to produce the same amount of energy in a year you need a solar power plant with at least 2x power rating of a power plant that can operate continuously.

Does this include the cost (monetary (capital) and in additional energy that has to be generated due to storage losses) of storing the energy over periods of darkness and inclement weather?

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

#239

Post by tonyedgecombe »

philipkglass wrote: post #220

Third generation reactor designs like the AP1000 and EPR were, prior to actual construction, promoted as increasing safety and reducing construction costs/time via standardization and simpler passive safety features, compared to older Generation II/II+ reactors that currently make up most of the world's operating reactors. Now that they're actually under construction these reactor designs too are terribly over-budget…

The UK government just made a big commitment to a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C, largely funded by a high guaranteed cost per unit of electricity.

I'm doubtful it will ever go live though.

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

#240

Post by sintaxi »

aamederen wrote: post #214

The thing I worry about nuclear power is that, with the latest events in 2015 and 2016, once again we saw that, we are still pretty bad at preventing terrorist attacks and I cannot think about how a terrorist attack to a nuclear plant end up? I am even surprised that no big attack has been made to such a dangerous facility.

Agreed. The security budget for a modern day nuclear power plant would be astronomical and forever growing.
Post reply on HN