Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved • Hacker News Board

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#51

Post by WhompingWindows » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 1:38 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #37

realusername wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's what I got from the article. > Currently solar power only accounts for 0.01 per cent of total power generation capacity in Vietnam, but the government plans to increase the ratio to 3.3 per cent by 2030 and 20 per cent by 2050. This is not very impressive, they plan to add 3.3% solar in the next 12 years, I don't find that revolutionary at the moment.

I wonder how the math works out in terms of mass photovolatics and some sort of night power solution (sufficent wind, pumped storage, or other) vs an expensive nuclear plant at this point.

All nuclear plants are expensive at this point. Until you get modularized reactors that don't face political/public backlash, you'll not see many nuclear facilities built outside of China. Even the nuclear plants we have built in the USA, they are expensive to maintain but provide carbon-free energy, so some true climate hawks are for subsidizing them. As far as new-builds go, look at the absolutely terrible debacle in South Carolina, where the project will costs billions extra and all of the extra comes from the rate payers, not from those who ignorantly assumed they'd be able to pull off a cost-effective nuclear plant today.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#52

Post by phobosdeimos » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 1:38 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #33

pg_bot wrote: post #26

I think the greatest irony of our age is the progression of climate change due to environmentalists protesting against the development of nuclear power. While nuclear power admittedly has risks, the tradeoffs are clearly worth making if you look at emissions and deaths per megawatt hour. We didn't curtail energy demand, and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear.

Nuclear hasn’t suffered because of environmentalists protesting. Nuclear has suffered because it is expensive and uneconomical. The only way it is even feasible is by having laws that protect the owners from liabilities caused due to catastrophic failure. Blaming environmentalists gives them way more power than they possess. Environmentalists have struggled to even stop pipelines running through the US whose sole pur…

Western countries are desperately trying to keep 1960s and 1970s reactors open for as long as they can because the prospect of building new ones is a financial and political nightmare.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#53

Post by WhompingWindows » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 1:41 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #45

pjc50 wrote: post #15

The incremental roll-out possible with solar, and the simpler project management, give it a huge advantage. The coal roll-out is alarming but as soon as it was pointed out that Vietnam has large coal reserves it was unsurprising. This is where the richer nations need to step up and find a way to pay to leave resources in the ground rather than extracting them. It's the cheapest form of "carbon capture".

Do you mean like the United States or Germany which are increasing or fighting a reduction in coal? https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-is-set-to-roll-back-restric...

Coal jobs are this bizarre holy grail of right-wing politics in the USA and Germany. It really makes very little sense in a macro view, because renewables are cleaner for the local populace's air and water, and renewables add some 5X-10X more jobs than coal. Coal extraction and processing is increasingly automated, the ole' miner with his pick is a thing of the past - these jobs are stagnant or decreasing in numbers over time. It's an industry in a steady decline, and yet the electoral college, and the coalitions built for Angela Merkel's party in Germany, prop up coal.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#54

Post by syntaxing » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 1:41 PM UTC

phobosdeimos wrote: post #49

I never understood how a country like Vietnam could afford nuclear powerplants when in Europe costs of building new ones skyrocket to 10 billion euro.

Standards. Not to say that Vietnam is unable to maintain the same quality, but doing something "right" is tough and expensive. Every little thing needs to be thoroughly planned and inspected which costs money.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#55

Post by merpnderp » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #12

Nuclear is too expensive, and small nuclear is even more so, but one has to remember that nothing can replace atomic energy as the closest one to ideal, flawless power source.

We built profitable nuclear plants in the past. One might wonder how with mind bogglingly better designs and a much richer world, we can't afford to build them today. My money is that the blame lies between political reasons and that Nat-Gas is cheap, relatively clean, and wildly abundant energy source in N. America.

Right now in N. America you'd be a fool to build anything but a mid-sized Nat-Gas generator which can be spun up/down quickly and costs less to run than anything else, while gaining major political points for outputting far less pollution than coal.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#56

Post by WillPostForFood » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 1:52 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #33

pg_bot wrote: post #26

I think the greatest irony of our age is the progression of climate change due to environmentalists protesting against the development of nuclear power. While nuclear power admittedly has risks, the tradeoffs are clearly worth making if you look at emissions and deaths per megawatt hour. We didn't curtail energy demand, and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear.

Nuclear hasn’t suffered because of environmentalists protesting. Nuclear has suffered because it is expensive and uneconomical. The only way it is even feasible is by having laws that protect the owners from liabilities caused due to catastrophic failure. Blaming environmentalists gives them way more power than they possess. Environmentalists have struggled to even stop pipelines running through the US whose sole pur…

One of the reasons it is such a hot NIMBY issue is there has been so much fear mongering about nuclear power.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#57

Post by dxxvi » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 1:55 PM UTC

cageface wrote: post #39

realusername wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having them moved away from that nuclear power plant is a big relief for Vietnamese people already. Why so exactly? It would have massively reduced emissions to have that nuclear power plant, now instead you have a vague promise they put on 2050, purposely far enough that it does not bind the government to anything.

Vietnam doesn't have a good track record on public infrastructure projects. Due to corruption and cronyism they have a hard time even building roads to spec. The prospect of running a nuclear reactor in that environment is horrifying.

I'm a Vietnamese and your 2 words "corruption" and "cronyism" are 100% correct for Viet Nam.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#58

Post by selimthegrim » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #55

baybal2 wrote: post #12

Nuclear is too expensive, and small nuclear is even more so, but one has to remember that nothing can replace atomic energy as the closest one to ideal, flawless power source.

We built profitable nuclear plants in the past. One might wonder how with mind bogglingly better designs and a much richer world, we can't afford to build them today. My money is that the blame lies between political reasons and that Nat-Gas is cheap, relatively clean, and wildly abundant energy source in N. America. Right now in N. America you'd be a fool to build anything but a mid-sized Nat-Gas generator which can…

Well that’s interesting, because University of Minnesota ran simulations with MISO that stated batteries and solar would outperform a gas peaker on that grid financially in the next few years.

http://energytransition.umn.edu/modernizing-minnesotas-grid-...

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#59

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #45

pjc50 wrote: post #15

The incremental roll-out possible with solar, and the simpler project management, give it a huge advantage. The coal roll-out is alarming but as soon as it was pointed out that Vietnam has large coal reserves it was unsurprising. This is where the richer nations need to step up and find a way to pay to leave resources in the ground rather than extracting them. It's the cheapest form of "carbon capture".

Do you mean like the United States or Germany which are increasing or fighting a reduction in coal? https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-is-set-to-roll-back-restric...

Germany is still planning a phaseout: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-coal-regulator/ge...

The United States is currently under the control of the faction which does not believe in anthropogenic climate change, which is a big problem.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#60

Post by eeZah7Ux » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #22

pastullo wrote: post #16

i'm sad to see a decline of nuclear energy everywhere in the world. While renewables are the end goal, nuclear was gonna be the perfect transition source for the next decades, providing emission-free and continuous energy to the grid. I have the bad feeling that cancelling a nuclear power plant, means building coal/gas plants in its place. This article actually mention the renewaleble goal of Vietnam which are really…

Nuclear is good as long as it has very stable , secure and responsible local governance. You can't have political instability, people cutting corners, lack of oversight, lack of security or lack of resources ... or you have problems. To me that's the problem with Nuclear. Following specific rules and conventions, some nations will be fine, but so many ... it's iffy. If Vietnam gets a couple plants, Burma, Laos, Cambo…

> Nuclear is good as long as it has very stable, secure and responsible local governance.

...and no terrorist attacks. And no war.

And the governance remains stable and responsible for the next 100 years.