Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Nuclear Option

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 187 posts

Re: The Nuclear Option

#31

Post by rurounijones »

skybrian wrote: post #28
rurounijones wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can get the "We cannot build them in time" part but the whole "It is not economical to build them" strikes me as a pretty crazy position to take. Uneconomical compared to the massive disruption that climate change will bring to our civilization? Are we fighting to save our future or not? Discarding a proven technology that will massively reduce our carbon emission for an unproven "We still have problems to solve ar…

That's not the right metric. The question is whether you can sell electricity for a lower price than the competition or will end up selling electricity at a loss, resulting in "stranded costs" for rate payers. To do that comparison, you need to predict prices in the electricity market for many decades. Predicting the future is hard, but the trend for solar and wind costs is pretty clear and it seems foolish to bet ag…

> That's not the right metric.

I guess that opinion comes down to whether you think Climate Change is an existential threat to our civilisation or not.

If you are of the opinion that it is then costs be damned and build everything: Renewables, Storage, Nuclear.

If we end up with more power than we need then we can shutdown excess or funnel that into powering carbon capture technologies if we ever get there.

If you are not of the opinion then current economics, as you have described, rule the day.

Re: The Nuclear Option

#32

Post by rurounijones »

rtpg wrote: post #30
rurounijones wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can get the "We cannot build them in time" part but the whole "It is not economical to build them" strikes me as a pretty crazy position to take. Uneconomical compared to the massive disruption that climate change will bring to our civilization? Are we fighting to save our future or not? Discarding a proven technology that will massively reduce our carbon emission for an unproven "We still have problems to solve ar…

It's not that nuclear is unproven, it's that _renewables at this point are proven_. You can build huge (or tiny! it's super scalable) fleets of renewable energy sources pretty economically, with a ~0% chance of making surrounding areas uninhabitable for 20 years if there's a failure. Yeah sure a truckload of uranium goes a long way but building the plants is really hard even when you look past the regulatory issues.

Someone said roughly the same thing in another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19167849

But as far as I know there is no proven large-scale storage system, which is a criticla part of renewables. The other commenter mentioned building batteries and then it is just a matter of scale which seems like an over-simplification to me but I cannot find much useful info on it.

Personally I would love a 100% renewable setup but I would not bet the future of our civilization on it when nuclear is another option.

Re: The Nuclear Option

#33

Post by MapleWalnut »

gotocake wrote: post #8
trimbo wrote: post #5

Sigh. I've been arguing this for so long, and gave up about 5 years ago. I can't think of a more scalable way than fission to combat carbon, yet it won't happen for so many reasons. * There are too many solar and wind success stories to point to. "Why can't NYC be like Scotland with wind power?!" You start to list the reasons and the response is "we can accomplish it if we put our minds to it!". It's an endless cycle…

The overall incredible ignorance around nuclear is staggering. If you ask the average person how many people have died as a result of the Chernobyl incident, they’re usually going to estimate high by orders of magnitude. In general what people don’t understand about radiation is effectively everything about it, and worse, they don’t want to know. Meanwhile trying to explain how many million die each and every year fr…

Nuclear power is cost prohibitive. Additionally, it's hard to predict and account for that one-in-a-million catastrophe that creates a nuclear wasteland. The sample size is too small.

Re: The Nuclear Option

#34

Post by MapleWalnut »

rurounijones wrote: post #31
skybrian wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the right metric. The question is whether you can sell electricity for a lower price than the competition or will end up selling electricity at a loss, resulting in "stranded costs" for rate payers. To do that comparison, you need to predict prices in the electricity market for many decades. Predicting the future is hard, but the trend for solar and wind costs is pretty clear and it seems foolish to bet ag…

> That's not the right metric. I guess that opinion comes down to whether you think Climate Change is an existential threat to our civilisation or not. If you are of the opinion that it is then costs be damned and build everything: Renewables, Storage, Nuclear. If we end up with more power than we need then we can shutdown excess or funnel that into powering carbon capture technologies if we ever get there. If you ar…

It's always going to be a matter of economics.

Re: The Nuclear Option

#35

Post by gotocake »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #23
gotocake wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of your points, however: most of the accidents have more to do with flaws in regulations than mistakes from the nuclear engineers. Chernobyl, which is arguably the worst and most iconic nuclear disaster of all times was mostly caused by a severe violation of procedures. When you take into account he amount of energy that has been produced by nuclear power since the 50s, I'd say we have a pretty good…

IIRC the control rods were also bizarre and had graphite bottoms, so the first part of a trip (scram) was adding reactivity. Prompt critical is prompt.

I believe the rods were graphite, just like the moderators. Of course the problem with that was that by the time they were inserted the reactor was already out of control. All the graphite rods did was burn, which certainly didn’t help matters! Worse, after a while the blocks of graphite used as the moderator also burned, and was difficult to extinguish. What they needed (other than better reactor design) was a ready store of neutron poisons that would have flooded the reactor vessel before rod insertion. Unfortunately, by the time they were using neutron poisons the explosion and fire had already destroyed anything like containment.

Re: The Nuclear Option

#36

Post by gotocake »

MapleWalnut wrote: post #33
gotocake wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overall incredible ignorance around nuclear is staggering. If you ask the average person how many people have died as a result of the Chernobyl incident, they’re usually going to estimate high by orders of magnitude. In general what people don’t understand about radiation is effectively everything about it, and worse, they don’t want to know. Meanwhile trying to explain how many million die each and every year fr…

Nuclear power is cost prohibitive. Additionally, it's hard to predict and account for that one-in-a-million catastrophe that creates a nuclear wasteland. The sample size is too small.

Nuclear power is cost prohibitive.

Really, because it’s widely employed around the world. If you have some evidence that it’s “cost prohibitive” though I’d love to see it. Evidence mind you, not flat declarations devoid of substance.

Additionally, it's hard to predict and account for that one-in-a-million catastrophe that creates a nuclear wasteland. The sample size is too small.

Many decades and thousands of reactors on land and naval applications with only a few notable disasters beg to differ. I’m also curious where this “wasteland” comment is coming from. The worst nuclear disaster, one singular in its extremity, has led to something far from a wasteland, although quite a few people had to be relocated.

Either way, trading in the known mass casualtiesin the millions per annum, and environmental catastrophe of burning hydrocarbons, for scaremongering “what if’s” so profoundly out of touch with reality as yours is the falsest of dilemmas. The total death toll from everything nuclear, including weapons can’t match a year of deaths and illness from burning coal. Never mind mining coal, drilling for oil and transporting it and the associated sociopolitical disaster of the Middle East, the environmental harm of fracking, and the sheer stupidity of not addressing climate change now.

Re: The Nuclear Option

#37

Post by ianai »

seiferteric wrote: post #16
gotocake wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overall incredible ignorance around nuclear is staggering. If you ask the average person how many people have died as a result of the Chernobyl incident, they’re usually going to estimate high by orders of magnitude. In general what people don’t understand about radiation is effectively everything about it, and worse, they don’t want to know. Meanwhile trying to explain how many million die each and every year fr…

Maybe this is an issue that could garner bipartisan support, even if for different motivations? Instead of trying to bring back coal, we should be trying to reinvigorate the nuclear power industry. Maybe even turn some of those coal miners in to Uranium miners :)

More like uranium refiners. Uranium occurs at a relatively common rate at or near the surface (forget the specifics). Yes, it’s absolutely the energy we should be using. But our first use of nuclear blew up two cities. It will forever be marred by its first impression.

Re: The Nuclear Option

#39

Post by dev_tty01 »

MapleWalnut wrote: post #33
gotocake wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overall incredible ignorance around nuclear is staggering. If you ask the average person how many people have died as a result of the Chernobyl incident, they’re usually going to estimate high by orders of magnitude. In general what people don’t understand about radiation is effectively everything about it, and worse, they don’t want to know. Meanwhile trying to explain how many million die each and every year fr…

Nuclear power is cost prohibitive. Additionally, it's hard to predict and account for that one-in-a-million catastrophe that creates a nuclear wasteland. The sample size is too small.

This won't be the case with modern reactor designs. Previous designs were based on an approach that is fundamentally unstable and thus requires a huge investment in safety critical systems to keep things in line.

Newer designs are fundamentally stable and fail in an inherently safe manner. Much, much less surrounding infrastructure and a greatly reduced need for system level fixes to problems since the catastrophic issues have been designed out.

It will take some time to turn the ship, but it is our best chance for producing 24 hour scalable power that is also carbon safe. Just search "modern nuclear reactor design" and start honestly reading the literature with an open mind.

A couple of random articles (plenty more available): https://www.technologyreview.com/s/512321/safer-nuclear-powe... http://science.time.com/2013/08/05/amidst-economic-and-safet...

Plenty of great information out there for anyone interested in letting go of their preconceived ideas and exploring the amazing work that is happening now.

Re: The Nuclear Option

#40

Post by agumonkey »

Zealotux wrote: post #9
trimbo wrote: post #5

Sigh. I've been arguing this for so long, and gave up about 5 years ago. I can't think of a more scalable way than fission to combat carbon, yet it won't happen for so many reasons. * There are too many solar and wind success stories to point to. "Why can't NYC be like Scotland with wind power?!" You start to list the reasons and the response is "we can accomplish it if we put our minds to it!". It's an endless cycle…

I agree with most of your points, however: most of the accidents have more to do with flaws in regulations than mistakes from the nuclear engineers. Chernobyl, which is arguably the worst and most iconic nuclear disaster of all times was mostly caused by a severe violation of procedures. When you take into account he amount of energy that has been produced by nuclear power since the 50s, I'd say we have a pretty good…

also not helped by the fact that recent plant construction wasn't superbly handled.. delay, additional cost, failure of quality control for main parts..

Sadly I think nuclear energy needs a branding motive. Something that pushes everybody to make it clear, fast, precise and shiny. To instill trust in the eyes of people (that would require 10 years to educate on the physics)

Post reply on HN