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

531–540 of 666 posts

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

#531

Post by jcrawfordor »

spangry wrote: post #483
roryisok wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a thread about nuclear power on here during the year, and some commenter had crunched the numbers on how many nuclear power plants we'd need to fully power the planet. It was in the tens of thousands. Even in the best case scenario, at this density we'd be looking at a Fukushima style disasters occurring regularly, not just every 30 years. That's best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that it gets more…

I'm not an engineer so I've probably got this wrong (would appreciate a correction). The Westinghouse AP-1000 (a Gen3+ reactor) produces 1,117 MWe of power. Say we want to replace all coal plants with nuclear. 2013 world electrical energy generation was 23,322 TWh, with 41.3% being coal (so, 9,632TWh from coal). Presumably consumption was somewhat less (overproduction, transmission losses etc.), but let's just use th…

Nuclear plants require appreciable scheduled downtime for refueling and other maintenance operations. Not an order of magnitude difference or anything, but I would bump up your required nuclear plant count by at least 15% to account for this.

On the other hand, I would expect repeated installation of the same AP-1000 model to reduce in cost over time, so that will help out a bit - although R&D into more interesting plant designs may bring prices up as well.

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

#532

Post by thraway2016 »

EGreg wrote: post #74

I used to think that global warming was a slam dunk. But then I looked at the data... the carbon makeup of the atmosphere hasn't changed much at all, and we have already reached peak oil. If the carbon sinks (oceans etc.) can hold 2x the current amount they absorbed without much trouble then we are in the clear. Perhaps CFCs and Ozone Depleting Substances present a danger but we have largely reduced their use since t…

and we have already reached peak oil

I used to believe this too. Simmons, Tverberg, and Heinberg turned out to be charlatans, and it does looks like SA continues to enjoy high production rates outside of Ghawar, and the shale reserves are becoming increasingly economically recoverable.

At some point, peak oilers need to admit we were all wrong.

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

#533

Post by Chathamization »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #436
arviewer wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Existing nuclear power plants are old designs, much less safe than a new one would be.

Every design will be old after a few decades. If, when these old designs were being built, people were saying "they're not so safe, but in a few decades we'll have a much safer design" and are now saying that we have a safer design, then, it seems reliable. However, if people were saying a few decades ago, "These new designs are much safer than the old ones" and are now saying "Well, THESE new designs are much safer than the old ones" and in a few decades when these designs are old will be saying, "But really, THESE NEW designs are much safer than those old ones" than it's not surprising that there's so much fear and uncertainty from the general public.

Most people aren't experts in nuclear plant design and regulations. They rely on authorities, but when accidents that aren't supposed to happen end up happening, they (rightfully) start to distrust the ability of the authorities to provide them with proper risk assessment. If you tell someone that one Fukushima type disaster will happen every 30 years and that occurs, then they can at least judge the risk and decide whether or not it's worth it. If you tell someone there's little chance of that kind of disaster and then it happens, they're naturally going to be skeptical of your later pronouncements that "Of course that happened to THAT plant, but now there's REALLY little chance of that happening."

People might make a bad decision because of this, but the concern isn't irrational.

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

#535

Post by jcrawfordor »

spangry wrote: post #340
grzm wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless we develop viable (and affordable) grid-level battery technology Do you think grid-level energy storage needs to be batteries, as opposed to other forms? If so, why?

Not at all, and sorry I guess I misspoke. Whatever works: pumping water up hill, spinning flywheels etc. all sound fine to me. It's simply a question of whether it meets current energy demand, environmental impact, and cost. Come to think of it, I've only ever looked at the per KW hour cost of batteries (lead-acid seems to be the clear winner). You wouldn't happen to have references for other energy storage methods?

A company called ARES is working on a system that basically consists of automated electric trains carrying bricks uphill to store and then coasting back downhill with them to retrieve power. Basically pumped hydro but without a need for large quantities of water (and really ideal for installation in the desert, where there's a lot of open land with gentle slopes). They say efficiency near 80% with a first installation going in in Nevada in 2017.

This is comparable efficiency to batteries but less expensive and with significant reuse of well-established technologies and industries (e.g. most of the construction work can be done by existing rail contractors).

Although battery technology continues to advance, my suspicion is that large-scale electricity storage is going to tend to be mechanical for cost reasons.

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

#536

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Retric wrote: post #521
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No modern plant"

"No true Scotsman." There are recent powerplants built with similar designs that would have had similar failure modes. The core issue was the sea wall not the powerplant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant was closer to the quake but it's giant sea wall made a huge difference.

Foul! The Fukushima plants were among the oldest in service. They were indeed not modern in design by any definition.

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

#537

Post by JoeAltmaier »

natch wrote: post #525
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to assess that risk. No modern plant has had catastrophic failure like that. Essentially there's no data to extrapolate from.

TEPCO had a modern plan to fix the issue before it happened. They decided not to act. Nuclear power takes the decision out of your hands, and puts it in the hands of organizations like that. I prefer something like solar which keeps power in my own control, local, decentralized, not decided by some huge behemoth that is driven by money and actuarial charts.

Yet the topic is, will future nuclear plants be needed to slow global warming? Future plants (indeed all current plants) will include safety plans and devices. Such plants have not had catastrophic events.

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

#538

Post by thescriptkiddie »

hubert123 wrote: post #416
mseebach wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the train has indeed left the platform, but the inflection point for solar only happened this year. If the parties to Kyoto had gone home back then and created said regulatory environment for nuclear and gotten on with it, we'd be looking at a 80-90% carbon emissions free electrical grid across the entire western hemisphere today. Climate change would have been more or less solved, and yes, we knew that then,…

I prefer not having fukushima events and I'm happy to wait and use coal in the meantime

A coal power plant that is operating normally kills and injures more people, and releases vastly more radioactive particulates into the air, than the Fukushima disaster did.

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

#539

Post by lmm »

alphydan wrote: post #499
lmm wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is a failure of planning (or possibly of international diplomacy in the case of e.g. Japan). In terms of the engineering constraints, nuclear plants are a lot easier to build far away from people than any of the altern…

You need to revisit your facts. Solar plants with storage are currently in operation [1] [2]. They have been producing 370GWh per year. This is tiny compared to a mid-sized nuclear power plant, but the technology is there and is easy to scale up without hazards. [1] http://torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/valles.html?swlang=en [2] http://torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar.html?swlang=en

I think it's fair to characterize a 50MW plant as "experimental" or at least "not in full-scale production".

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

#540

Post by afterburner »

rvail2 wrote: post #422
arviewer wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You completely misunderstood me. I'm saying nuclear isn't going to get much better on the next thirty years, while solar has been and is already better, and is getting even better every year. Nuclear costs have been understated since they came out.
Post reply on HN