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

#611

Post by pytester » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

Gondolin wrote: post #604

lispm wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you miss my point, it is not about nuclear vs renewable, but nuclear vs fossils as a complement to renewable. I don't miss your point, I just don't think nuclear is a viable complement to renewable in Germany. > Why didn't Germany close its coal plants first? Because it wanted to get rid of nuclear first and as fast as possible. The reasons for that is all known and a little research can explain it to you - bey…

> Because it wanted to get rid of nuclear first and as fast as possible. And this killed a few thousand persons and rejected MegaTons of CO2 in the atmosphere that could have been avoided. > The next two decades will bring the end of coal-based electricity. This is 30 years later than could have been, and gas instead of coal is not the solution either. Will Germany have 100% renewable in 20 years? > When do you stop…

>Will Germany have 100% renewable in 20 years?

Probably yes. They seem to be poised to get there quicker than anybody else.

The inhibition to us achieving this goal earlier wasn't a lack of faith in nuclear power - it was a lack of belief in the importance of dealing with climate change at all.

Moreover (and this is the critical part), it's not like nuclear power is going to get us to 100% renewables any quicker than solar/wind will at this point - not since they broke the cost barrier in 2014.

In the 1980s nuclear was the only way to go zero carbon. 10 years it would have helped us get there quicker. Since 2014, there's no real point to building out nuclear capacity any more - new nuclear can't compete on cost only rickety old plants can.

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

#612

Post by lispm » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

ElBarto wrote: post #606

lispm wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Germany is emitting heavily because most of its electricity comes from fossil fuel and it decided to kill nuclear power of purely ideological reasons It does because it is a relatively industrialized country. CO2 emissions fell last year by 4.5%. These are actual numbers for electricity production in Germany: from 2017 to 2018: 5.6% more wind electricity, 6.3% more solar electricity. 2.7% less coal/lignite, 6% less…

> It does because it is a relatively industrialized country. No, it does because its electricity comes from fossil fuels. You are completely avoiding the point of my comment. Germany could have much, much lower emissions with nuclear but it has decided to continue emitting for political reasons, while trying to claim that they are 'green'...

We could also be much much less habitated with one Fukushima or Chernobyl scale event.

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

#613

Post by lispm » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

Gondolin wrote: post #604

lispm wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you miss my point, it is not about nuclear vs renewable, but nuclear vs fossils as a complement to renewable. I don't miss your point, I just don't think nuclear is a viable complement to renewable in Germany. > Why didn't Germany close its coal plants first? Because it wanted to get rid of nuclear first and as fast as possible. The reasons for that is all known and a little research can explain it to you - bey…

> Because it wanted to get rid of nuclear first and as fast as possible. And this killed a few thousand persons and rejected MegaTons of CO2 in the atmosphere that could have been avoided. > The next two decades will bring the end of coal-based electricity. This is 30 years later than could have been, and gas instead of coal is not the solution either. Will Germany have 100% renewable in 20 years? > When do you stop…

> Again, the drawbacks of nuclear power are nothing compared to the drawback of climate change

One Fukushima or Chernobyl scale event in a densely populated country like Germany on a densely populated continent like Europe? Having reactors with molten cores near my home town with a 5 mill people metro area?

Japan had massive luck that the wind wasn't blowing in the direction of Tokyo.

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

#614

Post by kortilla » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #383

kortilla wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but that's exactly what nuclear energy proponents said in the 70s. And how many plants failed that were built after the 70s? >The consequences of a disaster are too great Even with the disasters, it kills fewer people than coal even without taking into account the damage from global warming. It’s like refusing to fly because plane crashes stick out in memory and then choosing to drive instead, despite how much more…

No, it's nothing like that - although it might be like refusing to fly in a 737 MAX. First, any coal analogy is out of date. Only the coal lobby wants to continue burning coal. Everyone else is like "No, that's stupid and self-harming, let's just not." Secondly, plane crashes don't make entire areas uninhabitable for long periods. Third, the problem with nuclear isn't the engineering, it's the management. The nuclear…

>The nuclear industry has proven time and time again that it can't be trusted with nuclear technology.

You can count these events on your hands. The same can’t be said for aviation accidents caused by incompetence. Thousands of deaths have been caused by bad management/bad engineering/bad operations/bad pilots and yet we still fly more and more every day.

>Fifth, if you remove all subsidies and include end-to-end clean-up costs, nuke power is actually uneconomic, and becoming more and more so.

Only if you make up arbitrary numbers for cleanup costs. See what happens to solar if you remove all of the subsidies for the panels as well as the required storage batteries as well as the cleanup costs for the mines providing all of the materials and it won’t be “economic” either.

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

#615

Post by ElBarto » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

lispm wrote: post #612

ElBarto wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does because it is a relatively industrialized country. No, it does because its electricity comes from fossil fuels. You are completely avoiding the point of my comment. Germany could have much, much lower emissions with nuclear but it has decided to continue emitting for political reasons, while trying to claim that they are 'green'...

We could also be much much less habitated with one Fukushima or Chernobyl scale event.

We know how to make nuclear power safe. Nuclear power is safe.

It's not helpful to try to kill the discussion by stroking irrational fears.

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

#616

Post by kortilla » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

pytester wrote: post #519

belorn wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only the coal lobby wants to continue burning coal. Everyone else is like "No, that's stupid and self-harming, let's just not." How I wish that was true. What they actually do is preferring to not burn coal, but when the choice is between blackouts or burning coal for power even the most environmentalist governments in Europe prefer burning coal. As an example, when the choice is between being cold in Stockholm (Sw…

>How I wish that was true. >What they actually do is preferring to not burn coal, but when the choice is between blackouts or burning coal for power even the most environmentalist governments in Europe prefer burning coal. It is true. Germany has already built its last coal fired power plant and has already mandated the closure of all 84 plants by 2020. Germany is already shifting to generating by renewables, demand…

Germany will just continue to cheat and import from France during lulls. Either that or they will just burn natural gas. Renewables (excluding dams because they aren’t supported by zealots) for base load are a complete fantasy. Pumped storage and batteries are so inefficient that we can’t switch without quintupling electricity costs for everyone.

>It'll happen eventually. Nuclear is in no position to make it happen any quicker than renewables are though.

Renewables are not competitive with nuclear for base load, at all. That’s why “environmentalists” conveniently allow the burning of coal and gas for the base load while they sit around waiting on a miracle for storage. Nuclear is a solution that works now. Hoping for storage tech 50 years from now is just stoking the fossil fuel burn.

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

#617

Post by kortilla » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

Amygaz wrote: post #530

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's nothing like that - although it might be like refusing to fly in a 737 MAX. First, any coal analogy is out of date. Only the coal lobby wants to continue burning coal. Everyone else is like "No, that's stupid and self-harming, let's just not." Secondly, plane crashes don't make entire areas uninhabitable for long periods. Third, the problem with nuclear isn't the engineering, it's the management. The nuclear…

And here is the wiki page to answer how many since the 70’s (hint, it’s a lot): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accide...

I count 18 after the 70s. Do you realize how irrelevant that is given the millions per year coal is killing?

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

#618

Post by MertsA » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

dirkt wrote: post #278

scarygliders wrote: post #128

Can we just get something straight about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant? Although it was a 1960's design, the reason it failed the way it did was because of one design flaw... Its backup generators were not placed up on the hills above it. Rather, the backup generators were situated below sea level underneath the reactor buildings. DERP. Fukushima Dai-ichi survived the Magnitude 9 earthquake. It did not s…

> My point is that nuclear power is safe, as long as all disaster scenarios are taken into account I don't know if you are old enough to remember it, but that's exactly what nuclear energy proponents said in the 70s. Since then, actual experience showed that about every 20 years, there has been a big incident with global impact, and it will take decades if not centuries until the affected area is usable again. And th…

>but that's exactly what nuclear energy proponents said in the 70s.

And they broke ground at Fukushima in the 60s. We've come a long way in reactor design in 50 years.

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

#619

Post by kortilla » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #398

jfnixon wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter risk is having the entire planet rendered uninhabitable for human life, right? Let's see, some area rendered uninhabitable versus the planet rendered uninhabitable... I'm going with A.

The worst of the lies about nuclear is that it can somehow help create a carbon-neutral economy. Of course it wouldn't. Designing a carbon-neutral economy is a much bigger problem that requires much broader strategic thinking. The levelized cost of renewables is already cheaper than the equivalent for nuclear power, with much smaller capital costs, much faster start-up and build costs, and no concerns about long-live…

>The levelized cost of renewables is already cheaper than the equivalent for nuclear power,

Not if you want electricity when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. If renewables were competitive for providing constant load, nobody would be having this fucking conversation.

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

#620

Post by logifail » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

joss82 wrote: post #562

pytester wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Calculate how many wind generators you need to guarantee the same production as Hinkley point Hinkley Point = 3200 MW Average wind turbine generates = 3 MW That's about 1,100 wind turbines at current tech. GE is working on a 12 MW wind turbine - it would take 270 of them would replace Hinkley point.

3MW is the peak power when the wind is blowing constantly at the maximum speed the wind turbine was designed to operate (and not over, at which point the turbine enters safe mode and stops to prevent damage). Load factors for wind turbines are rarely over 40%. Nuclear's is 80%. So you'd need 2200 turbines to replace one Hinkley point. And all the gas power plants to make the energy when the wind is not blowing...

> Nuclear's is 80%

Why is that?

I'm sure we're all broadly in favour of free markets. Do electricity consumers buy nuclear because it's good value?[0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...