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

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

#421

Post by douche » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:29 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #356

Animats wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That design seemed so promising. The first plant, in China, was supposed to come on line in 2013. Current date is mid-2017. The original structural design was revised for better earthquake resistance. Then there was some big problem with the coolant pump manufacturer.

I am a tradesman in the metal fabrication industry, and all these cost overruns and missed milestones makes me wonder... Have we lost something? Have tradespeople lost the ability to deliver these massive projects on time and on budget? Their managers? Which layer(s) is/are dropping the ball. The structural steel fabrication has become increasingly complex. Our workshop has become dependant on robots (a laser cutter…

I think the tolerance for imperfection has gone down considerably since, for instance, the 1930s and 40s, when we were throwing up skyscrapers in a few years and churning out entire Liberty ships in a week. We've traded some safety for an enormous increase in complexity of construction. Meanwhile, those old steel-frame skyscrapers are still standing...

I worked a few summers in a small, wood-burning power plant. A couple times a year, they would shut down for one or two weeks, and do some heavy maintenance on different systems. One of the times I was there, they replaced all of the tubes for making steam in the boiler. Every single weld joining together the panels of tubes had to be inspected, and xrayed to ensure that there were no gaps and sufficient penetration. Finding people that can weld to that standard is a more difficult task, because it's not easy, and takes skill, and training, and experience. Moreover, those people who have those skills can command higher rates.

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

#422

Post by rvail2 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:29 PM UTC

arviewer wrote: post #374

mseebach wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…

In 30 years, solar will have taken over. Using safe existing nuclear power plants is OK for me, building new ones seems stupid. For some countries, replacing an old unsafe one with a good new one seems plausible, but more seems a bad choice.

"In 30 years" lol, at least the amount of time claimed for the solution is becoming more realistic. 20 years ago, people claimed solar was going to take over in "10 years".

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

#423

Post by huxley » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:30 PM UTC

spangry wrote: post #398

mseebach wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…

Indeed. Production and use of solar and wind cause more deaths for GW/H than current nuclear fission (which is responsible for around 19.5% of the US' energy generation [0]). The problem is that deaths from nuclear generation are concentrated in very short, dramatic events. I mean, if you're looking for the biggest killer (by at least an order of magnitude), it's fossil fuels: boringly due to the reduction in air qua…

Apparently the "source" (a Forbes blogpost) of the number of deaths stretched quite far to find people who died from wind power:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/27/forbes-reaches-to-fi...

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

#424

Post by coldtea » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:31 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #341

coldtea wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors That's what they said for Chernobyl too.

It really isn't. Also, no one still builds reactors out of graphite, or without containment vessels. So there's that.

>Also, no one still builds reactors out of graphite, or without containment vessels. So there's that.

At the point they were built, Chernobyl, Fukushima etc were thought OK to be built in that way.

Which doesn't give much credence to "this time it's different, we've finally nailed this security thing", so there's that too.

Except in the sense that "technology always progress". Which while generally true, is a moot point for first-generation new approaches.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-safe-are-old-...

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/nuc...

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

#425

Post by kalleboo » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:34 PM UTC

jes5199 wrote: post #28

leodeid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best is today. Is nuclear any different? I am unaware of anything about nuclear energy that would have worked 20 years ago but is a bad idea to do today.

unlike 20 years ago, we're producing cheap solar panels faster than we can install them

We're not building grid-scale storage at that rate yet though

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

#426

Post by lispm » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:35 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #407

lispm wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone falls off a ladder, life goes on for the rest of us. If nuclear power plants have an accident like in Fukushima. then tens of thousands have lost their home for decades or forever and ten thousand workers will fight for three decades to clean up the mess under the worst possible circumstances with costs going into the hundred billion dollars. In middle Europe easily a few million people can be affected.

> If nuclear power plants have an accident like in Fukushima. then tens of thousands have lost their home for decades or forever and ten thousand workers will fight for three decades to clean up the mess under the worst possible circumstances with costs going into the hundred billion dollars. Sure. But again, compare the area of land rendered uninhabitable - and the homes and lives lost - per megawatt generated. If y…

> uninhabitable by hydroelectric dams

Nobody builds one where I live. But there are several nuclear power plants. But most of them are now history. They are not in some remote areas, but near populated areas with millions of people.

> If you're considering solar on its own then you're never going to be able to provide reliable baseline power.

Why would I 'consider solar on its own' as baseline power? These arguments were brought up twenty years ago and were boring then. Even though there are solar power plants which store heat.

The biggest achievement of the Energiewende is that it has broken up the big electricity monopolies of the nuclear- and fossil-based electricity companies. It has enabled two decades of exciting research into new technologies and enabled distributed energy production by much smaller players. It's a paradigm shift like it was from few Mainframe computers to the distributed nature of the modern Internet.

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

#427

Post by ams6110 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:39 PM UTC

spangry wrote: post #398

mseebach wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…

Indeed. Production and use of solar and wind cause more deaths for GW/H than current nuclear fission (which is responsible for around 19.5% of the US' energy generation [0]). The problem is that deaths from nuclear generation are concentrated in very short, dramatic events. I mean, if you're looking for the biggest killer (by at least an order of magnitude), it's fossil fuels: boringly due to the reduction in air qua…

> parcels of land totalling the area of Indiana

This to me is one of the biggest issue with solar (and wind) is you need huge amounts of land if you want to really try to replace what is being generated by fossil fuels. Sunlight just doesn't provide all that much energy per square foot. When we stand in the sun on a clear day, we feel comfortable warmth not searing heat.

Do all the cost estimates showing Solar is competitive include the land acquisition costs?

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

#428

Post by tomrod » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

Nuclear is only part of the solution. It doesn't scale up or down very quickly. Solar, wind, and energy capture mechanisms are still very much part of the solution. If we're efficient enough in the last three, we don't need the first.

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

#429

Post by spangry » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:43 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #408

spangry wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Production and use of solar and wind cause more deaths for GW/H than current nuclear fission (which is responsible for around 19.5% of the US' energy generation [0]). The problem is that deaths from nuclear generation are concentrated in very short, dramatic events. I mean, if you're looking for the biggest killer (by at least an order of magnitude), it's fossil fuels: boringly due to the reduction in air qua…

Except, he's missing quite a few facts. Like, that there's still unsolved engineering problems with finding naterials that survive the corrosive environment within of molten salt reactors. Like, that he didn't inckude waste storage at all. Like, that he calculated prices for renewables based on buying the most expensive panels, but for nuclear, based on the lowest estimates. In reality, the ROI level of renewables ha…

Your point about the materials challenge for MSRs is very true: for the designs I've seen the 'solution' is super corrosive. However, I don't think it's an insurmountable challenge, and its more a question of durability over time (and then subsequent maintenance costs). Our water plumbing systems will eventually succumb to the rigours of time; it will just be a very long time...

On waste storage, MSRs product much much less waste. A solid fuel, light water reactor achieves maybe 3% fuel efficiency, whereas it's somewhere north of 90% for the thorium MSR. In addition, the byproducts it does produce are mostly useless for nuclear weapons. Dr Carlo Rubbia (former director of CERN and 2016 Nobel Laureate) has stated one of the reasons funding for MSRs was cut by the US in the 70s was precisely because it's difficult to use them to produce nuclear weapons. There are even proposals for MSRs that are fuelled specifically by nuclear waste transuranics (e.g. http://www.transatomicpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/N...).

Honestly, I'm not so sure the ROI for renewables is anywhere close to 'winning', unless you ignore stuff like renewable intermittancy (meaning you need to build a crapload more highly expensive transmission infrastructure, or attach highly cost-effective batteries to the grid i.e. lead-acid batteries atm).

As for German nuclear, I suppose that won't be a problem once they've completely shut down all their nuclear reactors. Pity that the government official estimated cost of this is 55 billion Euros over the next decade. Although the (frankly more credible) 'unofficial' estimate puts the cost at 250 billion euros over the next decade. Not to mention the fact it's resulted in their co2 emissions increasing in both 2015 and 2016 (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhou...). Their own environment ministry now predicts they will probably not make their 2020 co2 reductions targets.

So other than the enormous cost and increase in co2 emissions, good policy.

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

#430

Post by GVIrish » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:47 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #363

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to know why you think that is what Fukishima taught us? A giant earthquake AND a tsunami hits the plant and not a single person is killed... For me it reinforced the fact that nuclear energy is one of the most tightly regulated industries in the world in terms of safety.

This comment taught me that 100,000 people still unable to return to their homes five years later is no big deal... And if you actually believe that "not a single person killed" bullshit, I got a bridge to sell you. Death from cancer is still death, even if it takes a year or two.

I think parent post is downplaying things a bit, but I'd take the risk of 100k people bring displaced by a nuclear accident over 100's of millions of people being displaced by climate change.