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

661–666 of 666 posts

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

#661

Post by lkbm »

f_allwein wrote: post #260

Nuclear power also leaves behind waste that is hazardous for between 10.000 and 1.000.000 years ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste ), i.e. has t be stored safely for that amount of time. Most countries using nuclear power haven't even found a site to store waste permanently (e. g. Germany), let alone figured out how to tell future generations to stay away.

This sounds crass(?) to ask, but if we already have some, does more make it much worse?

At this point we HAVE some nuclear waste already. Safely storing nuclear waste is an extremely difficult problem, and one we have yet to fully solve.

But if I have X tons to store for 10k+ years, what's the marginal cost of increasing X by a factor of two, or ten, or a hundred? (And what sort of increase in X would we be looking at?)

If someone told me to figure out how to affordably and safely store five megatons of nuclear waste (rough number from a quick Google search), I'd spend a lot of time with lots of experts figuring something out. If partway through you came back and said "oops, make that ten megatons", I might say "oh snap, our current site/plan doesn't scale", but I feel like it's more likely that I'd say "well, the bulk of the solution scales just fine". (Maybe the site wouldn't scale and the political NIMBY part would have to be redone, though, which is not a small problem.)

But I don't know! The fact that we haven't figured out the problem means maybe we should put some effort into that, but we if we're going to scale up nuclear, we should probably do it soon. Probably twenty years ago or so.

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

#662

Post by GVIrish »

mcv wrote: post #647
GVIrish wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I totally agree. But when we have the option to not displace anyone, I prefer that. Nuclear technology is to me at best a transitional technology to fill the gap until solar is ready to take over. And it seems solar kind of is already. I'm not arguing for taking nuclear reactors offline, but it's not clear to me why we should build new ones if solar is cheaper and cleaner. Of course large scale electricity storage is…

If we can get there with mostly solar, I'd be all for it. I just hope we don't get into a situation of perfection paralysis where we wait so long for the perfect solution that the adequate solution doesn't get implemented and we end up with worse consequences.

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

#663

Post by smaddox »

DennisP wrote: post #414
smaddox wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France was able to run at 80% fission because they were selling excess production at low domestic demand times to adjacent territories. If you want to use nuclear for more than base load, you run into similar storage/transmission issues to solar/wind. Either way, we need a larger and more capable grid, so that production and demand can be balanced over larger areas.

Modern nuclear plants are able to load follow [1]. The main reason we use them for base load is that nuclear's cost is mainly fixed, so it makes economic sense to run them at full capacity and follow demand with fossil, which has lower fixed costs and higher variable costs. Molten salt reactors would be quite good at load following, because the reaction rate slows down so much as the fuel temperature increases. If yo…

IMSR looks like promising technology, but it's not yet proven. I'm hopeful Terrestrial Energy succeeds in commercializing it and competing with existing energy sources (without subsidies). Even if they do, it will not be a one size fits all solution, though.

In contrast, we know with near certitude that investment in basic infrastructure, such as a capable and robust power grid, will promote a plurality of solutions and pay for itself over time.

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

#664

Post by alphydan »

lmm wrote: post #539
alphydan wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You will agree then that a 10kW residential solar installation on a roof is "experimental" and "not in full-scale production".

What about the 1 million residential solar installations done in 2016? Is that "experimental"? When you add 20 100MW plants, you reach the scale of a nuclear plant. That is precisely the beauty of solar. That it can grow incrementally without high capital costs (unlike borrowing $4bn and a huge insurance at once with nuclear).

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

#665

Post by r1k »

Iv wrote: post #660
r1k wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (No, uranium is not a fossil resource) Could you elaborate?

First, and mostly irrelevant, is a definition thing: a fossil resource comes from organic decay. Oil and coal mostly come from ancient prehistoric forests. As far as we know, you can't find these outside earth and even the most optimistic projections do not expect oil to last more than one more century (pessimistic projections are surprised it did not stop yesterday. Without shale oil we would be past peak oil.) It h…

Thanks.

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

#666

Post by lmm »

alphydan wrote: post #664
lmm wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You will agree then that a 10kW residential solar installation on a roof is "experimental" and "not in full-scale production". What about the 1 million residential solar installations done in 2016? Is that "experimental"? When you add 20 100MW plants, you reach the scale of a nuclear plant. That is precisely the beauty of solar. That it can grow incrementally without high capital costs (unlike borrowing $4bn and a hu…

Whether PV solar is in full-scale production is irrelevant, because PV can't supply baseline power.
Post reply on HN