Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#351

Post by doikor » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:30 AM UTC

BluSyn wrote: post #292

wiggler00m wrote: post #207

Renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear, or will be imminently. Proponents of nuclear tend to ignore the long-run costs associated with nuclear (eg. waste transport and storage), and the potential for cost blowouts due to acute disasters like Fukushima (estimated cost to taxpayers: USD $100 Billion). The fact tax money is going towards Fukushima highlights another problem with nuclear power: the agency problem. The…

Somebody gets it! It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Even if you could guarantee 10 year build time at a fixed cost today (which you can't), by the time it is operational solar+storage will be even more economical than it is today. The cost curves are simply too favorable for any private market to favor nuclear over solar currently. Everyone in this thread keeps talking about the technology,…

It really depends on the location if nuclear makes sense. For example to fully go solar here in Finland you would need enough storage to basically store 2 or 3 months of winter usage of power as the efficiency of the panels goes down to less then 5% of peak during winter as the sun just isn’t up and when it is it at such a low angle that it produces next nothing.

So basically one would need a lot of overcapacity to be able to produce and store enough power during the summer to last over the winter. But in places like California sure go full solar as it actually works all year around.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#352

Post by realusername » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:31 AM UTC

morsch wrote: post #314

realusername wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> New build nuclear is not cost competitive with new build wind and solar (even when you account for firming costs), and the cost of wind and solar is still falling at an astonishing rate. The future will tell, as it is now, Germany already spent more on renewable than the total French nuclear industry, even when you add decommissioning and with the bad results we know. Maybe countries should learn on the German mist…

Germany already spent more on renewable than the total French nuclear industry Source? What does that even mean? Where'd you find an honest assessment of the regulatory and construction costs for France's nuclear power plants, much less a sensible estimate for decommissioning plants that are still running? Does it include research and development in either case? Does it include maintenance, personnel, fuel, cleanup,…

Germany spent around around 250 billions euros since 2005 on renewables [1]. The french nuclear energy (total) had a cost of 228 billions euros [2]. Renewables are not nearly as cheap as people make you believe, they do have a lot of external costs.

[1] CPI - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303286860_Policy_an... - page 6 in pdf pages or 1 with their numbers.

[2] Cour des comptes - http://cpdp.debatpublic.fr/cpdp-cigeo/docs/docs-complementai... - page 265 pdf / page 270 with their page numbers

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#353

Post by jplayer01 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:32 AM UTC

The biggest problem with nuclear power is how unacceptable mistakes or failures are for anybody who's the slightest bit anti-nuclear. It means that failures are concealed and not dealt with adequately and safety culture as would be necessary isn't sufficiently implemented. The process of improvement is stifled by this cultural need to cry "shut it all down" the moment an accident happens. Imagine if people reacted the same way to aviation - it never would have become as safe as it is now (and yet still hundreds of people died this year alone, 3 months in). Nuclear power can't become safer (and it already is pretty damn safe) in modern cultural contexts. That's not the fault of the technology, it's the fault of everybody here, the media and everybody claiming how unsafe nuclear is and how we should stop using it (and screw the consequences of not using and refining such an amazing technology).

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#354

Post by BluSyn » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:36 AM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #322

BluSyn wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody gets it! It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Even if you could guarantee 10 year build time at a fixed cost today (which you can't), by the time it is operational solar+storage will be even more economical than it is today. The cost curves are simply too favorable for any private market to favor nuclear over solar currently. Everyone in this thread keeps talking about the technology,…

Is storage a solved problem yet? Afaik, dams are the only viable option, and not universally available. I thought batteries just weren't there yet. Especially if you take wear cycles into account.

Batteries are much farther along than most realize, and decreasing in cost rapidly. 2019 will see the first GWh-scale battery installations (plural, as in multiple of them). Grid-scale lithium-ion battery storage is at the beginning of an exponential growth curve.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#355

Post by BluSyn » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:40 AM UTC

antt wrote: post #331

BluSyn wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody gets it! It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Even if you could guarantee 10 year build time at a fixed cost today (which you can't), by the time it is operational solar+storage will be even more economical than it is today. The cost curves are simply too favorable for any private market to favor nuclear over solar currently. Everyone in this thread keeps talking about the technology,…

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png One should add wind and solar, both at around 0.5MJ/h per m2.

Energy density and cost have almost no correlation. Gasoline is less dense, but I can package a gas generator into a small box for very little cost. Uranium requires a giant reactor the size of a small town and costs billions.

$/MWh is the only real metric that matters.

Edit: http://solarcellcentral.com/images/avg_cost_of_energy.jpg

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#356

Post by capsulecorp » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:40 AM UTC

option wrote: post #175

capsulecorp wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be rude but that seems like a silly qualification to be speaking on a matter. I grew up next to a Lockheed factory and my father worked for NASA, but I fail to see how that qualifies me to comment on what a "realistic" solution for interstellar travel would be.

Yes, this is anecdotal evidence. But having grew up there I obviously read up about it a lot and this is why I am speaking my opinion on this matter. Also, in my opinion, what I saw written about it in the US media is fear mongering or outright lies about death tolls, radiation levels in nearby areas, cancer rates, etc. To give you an example. Did you know that CNPP was profitably working until 2000 while the disaste…

>But having grew up there I obviously read up about it a lot

I disagree, what you read isn't obvious and still doesn't qualify you to speak on the matter unless it was legitimate and vetted information. Reading a bunch of infowars doesn't make me a legitimate political commentator.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#357

Post by BluSyn » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:41 AM UTC

antt wrote: post #333

rocqua wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"magine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the extent that France did in the 60s and 70s - how many trillions of tons of CO2 would NOT have been emitted into the atmosphere? " I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late. As for the intermittent issues of power. I think there's a lot to gain from long distance transportation combined with reliable…

Don't build this trillion dollar proven technology, build this unproven trillion dollar technology instead!

Both technologies are proven. One has proven to be cheaper than the other.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#358

Post by roenxi » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:43 AM UTC

antpls wrote: post #295

nwallin wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in Fukushima Dai-ichi's case, for some reason (possibly financial?), it was decided that the tsunami barrier was sufficient (it wasn't) for the job, Plate tectonics was not understood or scientifically described until 65-67. It was not a widely accepted theory until later, at least the 70s. By that point, Fukushima had already been permitted and built. Without plate tectonics to create the plate shift earthquake wh…

> When later scientific theory showed that larger tsunamis were not just possible, but inevitable, the plant was not retrofitted to deal with the new reality. You are saying the process of risk assessment and mitigation was not regularly actualized with new scientific knowledge. How is that possible ? Is there communication issue between different fields ? For our information, does someone know : As soon as the engin…

You typically don't have a design engineer actively monitoring safety features that are permitted by the regulator, built and maintained to standard. In a dynamic environment where the situation changes regularly there is a little more defense for catching that type of thing. In a static environment like fixed plant it could well be they just weren't ready for that sort of change.

That style of hazard, where existing controls passed through a rigorous system but become insufficient with time, are really insidious. It is certainly easy to understand why they would have missed it; even though it isn't an acceptable outcome. Especially given that communication in the 70s/80s involved a lot more talking to people and reading the right journals.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#359

Post by kmlx » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:43 AM UTC

antt wrote: post #337

adventured wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if the US was totally committed, and decided to build a brand new reactor right now, how long would it take? A decade? Totally committed? You sure? Ok. The US could bring at least two dozen new nuclear power plants online per year. It could do that with only modest impact on its massive economy. National security declaration (probably numerous). Bypass all environmental building concerns and impact reviews. Pu…

I always find it odd how the people talking about climate change being an extinction level event aren't even prepared to execute a few dozen CEOs of large fossil fuel companies. If the fate of the world is in question then Ted Kaczynski is a rational individual who reacted with restraint.

one small correction: the fate of the world isn’t in question. it’s the fate of humans that is. meaning: the planet has seen several extinction events. it will survive anything we throw at it. but humans need to start building rockets and space stations asap if they want to survive.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#360

Post by antt » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:46 AM UTC

BluSyn wrote: post #357

antt wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't build this trillion dollar proven technology, build this unproven trillion dollar technology instead!

Both technologies are proven. One has proven to be cheaper than the other.

I'm from Australia, the only thing that a grid without nuclear or coal has proven is that it can't deal with sustained demand. This year we came perilously close to having to choose which hospitals to cut power to when the there were two 40C days in a row.

If we have a week of that weather Mad Max will be a become a documentary.