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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 731 posts

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

#671

Post by Brakenshire »

jokoon wrote: post #563
Brakenshire wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is cheap if governments back the loans (all the cost is up front so a 2% or 5% interest rate has a massive impact on final project cost), and if the projects can be delivered consistently on budget (conspicuously not the case for any of the most recent designs with passive safety features).

Not cheap, but probably still cheaper than renewables, per kWh. Also the problem with renewables is the power output curve, which are unpredictable because of sunlight and wind fluctuations, which will be compensated with coal/gas energy. Less of a problem with nuclear.

In the UK solar and onshore wind are about 5p/kWh, offshore wind about 7p/kWh, nuclear about 7-10p/kWh, depending on generation of reactor and scale of order, so more expensive per kWh. But you’re right that clearly once you include the cost of grid integration, taking wind or solar above 30-50% will incur significantly higher costs. I think in the UK it’s about 20p/kWh now for solar or wind with four hours of battery firming for example. But the difference is those costs are continually falling each year, whereas nuclear has stayed the same or risen. I would still renew nuclear personally, to provide maybe 15-25% of the grid, but it’s not enormously obvious. I think by the time the nuclear stations are built renewables will probably be cheaper, I just favour it as a hedge. Although in the UK we’ve had some nuclear development companies pull out and ask for more money even after agreeing to build at 10p/kWh, so that may not work out in reality.

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

#672

Post by nwallin »

agumonkey wrote: post #325
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…

Also, wasn't fukushima tsunami the 'biggest' in recent centuries ?

The tsunami which hit Fukushima was 43-49 feet tall. For seismic originated tsunamis, this is near the upper limit.

Not all tsunamis are caused by earthquakes though. On July 9th, 1958, there was a rockfall in Lituya Bay, Alaska. A cliff face broke off, and fell 3000 feet into the ocean. This resulting in a tsunami which stripped vegetation at up to 1720 feet in the surrounding areas.

https://geology.com/records/biggest-tsunami.shtml

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

#673

Post by jki275 »

pfdietz wrote: post #583
jki275 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s little need to store nuclear waste. Reprocess it and use the remaining fuel.

This does nothing to the fission products. And reprocessing only lets you destroy the actinides if you burn them in a fast reactor. Fast reactors have, so far, been even more expensive than thermal reactors.

That's only because the US stopped all R&D on them under Carter.

Again, the only reason we're not all nuclear today is because of politics.

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

#674

Post by pfdietz »

ftr45 wrote: post #665
pfdietz wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should try living in 2019, rather than 2012 or 2015.

maybe 4 years aren't so relevant,maybe you should bring proof's of what you say

Solar costs have fallen very rapidly. Four years is forever for this subject. You should acquaint yourself with the basics of the situation.

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

#675

Post by pfdietz »

ftr45 wrote: post #664
pfdietz wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your report is from 2015. Given how rapidly PV costs have continued to decline (and how major nuclear efforts collapsed with cost explosions since then), that's useless.

> Your report is from 2015 so ? >Given how rapidly PV costs have continued to decline (and how major nuclear efforts collapsed with cost explosions since then), that's useless. you say so, but the one with evidence is me not you

https://www.pv-magazine.com/features/investors/module-price-...

Compare 2015 prices to current prices.

Anyone with even cursory knowledge of this area would have know how fast PV prices have fallen.

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

#676

Post by pfdietz »

jki275 wrote: post #673
pfdietz wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does nothing to the fission products. And reprocessing only lets you destroy the actinides if you burn them in a fast reactor. Fast reactors have, so far, been even more expensive than thermal reactors.

That's only because the US stopped all R&D on them under Carter. Again, the only reason we're not all nuclear today is because of politics.

Fast reactors have been disappointing all over the world. The harder neutron spectrum is more damaging to materials, and liquid sodium has serious drawbacks. Fabrication of fuel elements with mixed actinides is also difficult. Fast reactors also require a higher density of fuel (due to the lower fission cross section at high neutron energy), which presents safety issues.

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

#677

Post by throwanem »

dirkt wrote: post #582
shanemhansen wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it's bad to talk about safety of nuclear without comparing it to another option. What's the safety of fossil fuels? What bar would have to be met for nuclear to save lives when compared to alternatives? For the most part nuclear falls victim to the same human reasoning flaws that make us more worried about flying on a plane than driving even though driving is way riskier. For more info: https://en.wikiped…

Seeing the number of "nuclear energy is our saviour, and will solve all our problems, and is the only option" posts on the Internet, yes, the first step is to talk about the safety of nuclear without comparing it to other options. And no, the comparison to plane vs. car is not appropriate: In both kinds of accidents, a number of people get injured or killed. In case of a nuclear accident, a sizeable area becomes inha…

Dang, I’m going to have to remember “if we can all agree with my thesis, we’ve made progress in the discussion” for my next argument! That’s a great and intellectually valid way to participate in a debate, for sure.

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

#678

Post by jki275 »

pfdietz wrote: post #676
jki275 wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only because the US stopped all R&D on them under Carter. Again, the only reason we're not all nuclear today is because of politics.

Fast reactors have been disappointing all over the world. The harder neutron spectrum is more damaging to materials, and liquid sodium has serious drawbacks. Fabrication of fuel elements with mixed actinides is also difficult. Fast reactors also require a higher density of fuel (due to the lower fission cross section at high neutron energy), which presents safety issues.

The French reprocess all their fuel as I understand it. We could do the same, we choose not to.

That's probably the wrong choice.

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

#679

Post by DoreenMichele »

ftr45 wrote: post #663
DoreenMichele wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passive solar design as a requirement for new construction would help reduce how much energy buildings require. It also makes them more comfortable, not less. Design cities for pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. This will help reduce heat island effect, thereby reducing the need for AC. I slept in a tent for nearly six years. I plugged in at the library during the day. I got by on battery power in the evening…

>It's really not a given that we must use high levels of electricity to maintain a high quality of life this is just an intellectual dishonest excuse to ignore nuclear energy

More like first-hand testimony from someone who gave up their car more than a decade ago while working a corporate job.

I'm an environmental studies major whose dream job would be urban planning or similar. I've been looking for real solutions to such problems for a lot of years.

One conclusion I've drawn is that passive solar really needs a lot more attention than it gets. It's an elegant solution with no real downside.

Nuclear has a couple of big downsides. 1. When things go wrong, it's really bad, a la Chernobyl. 2. Even if nothing goes wrong, safely storing the spent fuel is a significant issue and goes on "forevy."

Everyone knows about those two issues. It's precisely why nuclear is controversial.

It's also possible for someone to be pro nuclear power and also pro conservation. There is no need to set this up as an either-or thing. People could be pro passive solar while being pro nuclear power.

I'm not pro nuclear power. I'm also not strongly against it. I'm just trying to let people know that passive solar exists and can play a role in solving these issues.

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

#680

Post by pfdietz »

jki275 wrote: post #678
pfdietz wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fast reactors have been disappointing all over the world. The harder neutron spectrum is more damaging to materials, and liquid sodium has serious drawbacks. Fabrication of fuel elements with mixed actinides is also difficult. Fast reactors also require a higher density of fuel (due to the lower fission cross section at high neutron energy), which presents safety issues.

The French reprocess all their fuel as I understand it. We could do the same, we choose not to. That's probably the wrong choice.

The french choice was clearly the wrong one. It's a net economic loss for them. It was predicated on the use of the separated Pu in fast reactors, but their experience with fast reactors was dismal.
Post reply on HN