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

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

#441

Post by mirimir » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:02 PM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #187

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…

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…

I'd be OK with nuclear power if they could get adequate insurance on the open market, accepting all risk. It's my understanding that nuclear power plants are not insurable, unless government assumes risk, agrees to handle waste, etc.

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

#442

Post by mason240 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

patall wrote: post #375

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…

It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant.…

I would prefer to live near a nuclear plant than within sight of a wind farm.

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

#443

Post by Meegul » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

Twisell wrote: post #243

jsilence wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Thanks for the ressource I'll definitely have a look. However the fact that it's price competitive still don't imply that it's enough to counter climate change. In a worst case scenario, if we go full solar, but are unable to slow a climat change that induce more cloudy weather (because more global evaporation) we are actually solving nothing. Nuclear have a lots of cons, but the one of the pro is that we know them,…

Clouds are not the disaster that you might think them to be. Yes, they have a fantastically effective greenhouse effect, but they are also very good at reflecting sunlight. I'm not sure about the net result of both phenomena, but that should be kept in mind.

Renewables being tested at scale isn't really a concern. There are now multiple cases of islands being 100% renewable, with energy storage in the form of pumped hydro, or as is becoming increasingly common, lithium-ion battery storage. I live on a college campus that's in the middle of a massive wind-farm, and is almost entirely renewable most days. And this isn't some small wind-farm; it has a peak output of over a GW.

Scale, isn't the problem with renewables - it's storage. However, with the current cost reductions that we're seeing with batteries, I think it'll be a solved conundrum within the decade. It won't be too long before solar with batteries is cost-competitive, as both technologies are getting cheaper exponentially.

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

#444

Post by adrianN » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

mkandes wrote: post #213

We will probably have no better production-ready, scalable, (minimally) carbon-free option for energy production to combat climate change in our lifetimes. If you don't believe me and you haven't seen a real scientist explain the scale of the energy problem in a cogent way, you should watch Nathan Lewis: 2005: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKqx2uk-Gs 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IQhTiN6OI If he cannot s…

I'm not that old. I believe that I'll see a fusion reactor connected to the grid.

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

#445

Post by mason240 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #396

witty_username wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any such decrease in property value is precisely because of the irrational fear of nuclear power. > So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows. Government should not fund or provide any guarantees to such projects; we should tax carbon and let people decide what to do (in which case, we wouldn't even need to argue which is cheaper and we can…

It's completely rational to reduce property values when there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. If the risk is say 0.3% over the next hundred years paying every homeowner ~20,000$ within 40 miles when the plant is built to offset that risk is completely rational, but would make nuclear Even less viable.

>there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions.

Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility?

My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.

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

#446

Post by spangry » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #427

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…

> 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 com…

This is a good question. I suspect the answer is no, given most of the exuberant headlines about renewable costs don't even factor in the renewable intermittancy problem (which massively increases the total cost of generation and transmission/storage).

It's the same problem when people propose building giant solar arrays in the desert. Unfortunately, our large population centres tend to be concentrated in coastal areas, and transmission infrastructure isn't free (it's actually super expensive).

EDIT: Just to be clear, I have nothing against renewable energy (I suspect I'm coming off as a little negative here). I just hope that people aren't misled when costs aren't properly factored in (or overstated, in other cases). I actually think there's something rather special about solar PV: it's one of the few forms of electricity generation that isn't just another method of making heat to spin a turbine. Hell, despite its sophistication, fission is just a fancy way of boiling water...

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

#447

Post by norea-armozel » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:14 PM UTC

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…

I think nuclear should be used to replace peak load plants where battery technology can't fill the same role. But I agree that base load should come from renewables. Especially since wind works well in states like Kansas. I just wonder why so many people are still against renewables.

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

#448

Post by freehunter » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #110

freehunter wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but many people have instinctual desires to produce children as well. Ever heard of the phrase "my biological clock is ticking"?

I said the desire was independent, not non-existent. Did anybody here even read what I wrote?

I read it, I'm just not sure what the point was.

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

#449

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #396

witty_username wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any such decrease in property value is precisely because of the irrational fear of nuclear power. > So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows. Government should not fund or provide any guarantees to such projects; we should tax carbon and let people decide what to do (in which case, we wouldn't even need to argue which is cheaper and we can…

It's completely rational to reduce property values when there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. If the risk is say 0.3% over the next hundred years paying every homeowner ~20,000$ within 40 miles when the plant is built to offset that risk is completely rational, but would make nuclear Even less viable.

Assuming each homeowner near the power plant has a $1M cost to move, that works out to a $3,000/person cost ($1,900 after time discounting at a 1% discount rate). Assuming there are 100,000 people within 40 miles of the plant, that's $190M, or 5-20% of the cost of a plant.

This hardly seems like an insurmountable barrier.

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

#450

Post by mcv » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #344

mcv wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what Fukushima taught us, is that profit-driven companies will always be looking for ways to cut costs. Nuclear, like oil, requires extremely tight regulation to keep the companies involved from cutting corners and creating unreasonable safety problems. Also, doesn't nuclear also still have a storage problem? Storing electricity is mostly a solved issue: batteries. We just need to do it cheaper and on a large…

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.

Well before the disaster, there was a report that stated that the backup generators would be flooded by a powerful tsunami, and recommended improvements to fix that. TEPCO chose to ignore that report.