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

711–720 of 731 posts

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

#711

Post by pfdietz »

jki275 wrote: post #706
pfdietz wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they weren't going to use the plutonium immediately, reprocessing was stupid. Spending the money they didn't have to, in order to make Pu they didn't need, just to have the Pu sit around, made no economic sense. And no, it doesn't improve the economics of waste disposal. Understand where reprocessing came from. Way back then, the story was that nuclear was going to be dirt cheap, but would ultimately be limited by…

Again, the point isn't to save money. The point is to reduce waste.

No, the point is to minimize the cost of dealing with waste. Reprocessing doesn't do that.

But let's stipulate that they want to destroy the waste. What's the cheapest way to do that? If they wait to reprocess the fuel, and destroy the actinides in the future, it comes out cheaper than if they reprocess now. That's because reprocessing, and developing and building fast reactors, is quite expensive, and the net present value of that cost is minimized by moving it off into the future. Moreover, reprocessing becomes easier as the fuel cools off.

So, reprocessing NOW is a pointless waste of money, even if ultimately you want to do it. The ONLY reason you'd want to reprocess now was if you needed the actinides now for use in energy generation. And no one needs them for that.

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

#712

Post by kortilla »

peterashford wrote: post #644
kortilla wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Convenient to exclude hydro to make your argument where its what powers the existing the 100% renewable countries (either completely or nearly so).

Convenient to exclude the fact that hydro requires a specific geology and willingness to destroy river ecosystems for it to work.

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

#713

Post by kortilla »

Amygaz wrote: post #527
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…

If you are mainly looking at an energy source for the downtimes, then there is currently enough hydro being generated to do that.

No, there is absolutely not enough hydro for baseload. Where did you get that idea?

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

#714

Post by kortilla »

peterashford wrote: post #645
Amygaz wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are mainly looking at an energy source for the downtimes, then there is currently enough hydro being generated to do that.

There are countries which are 100% renewable right now using hydro to do so, so yes.

These countries do not exist. There is no county getting by without burning fossil fuels or using nuclear for baseload somewhere. The 100% you might be thinking of are countries that import fossil/nuclear baseload during lulls and export spare renewables during high generation times for a “net 100% renewable”. This is a start, but it’s marketing bullshit because it’s not actually sustainable for all countries to do that. Someone needs to provide baseload.

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

#715

Post by kortilla »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #379
kortilla wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t work unless you live in a place that has no weather (e.g. the Bay Area). People in Minneapolis aren’t going to turn off their heater at night when it’s 30 below 0 because the wind stopped and their battery went dead.

No, not true. Design of this sort used to be the norm. There are variations of it in all climates. Igloos: On the outside, temperatures may be as low as −45 °C (−49 °F), but on the inside the temperature may range from −7 °C (19 °F) to 16 °C (61 °F) when warmed by body heat alone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igloo I can't readily find a source with details, but traditional desert cities were located on high groun…

No, igloos were never the norm as far south as Minneapolis because the wide temperature swings make them untenable. Native Americans burned the fuck out of wood for heat and that’s terrible for the environment if we all do it.

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

#716

Post by jki275 »

pfdietz wrote: post #711
jki275 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the point isn't to save money. The point is to reduce waste.

No, the point is to minimize the cost of dealing with waste. Reprocessing doesn't do that. But let's stipulate that they want to destroy the waste. What's the cheapest way to do that? If they wait to reprocess the fuel, and destroy the actinides in the future, it comes out cheaper than if they reprocess now. That's because reprocessing, and developing and building fast reactors, is quite expensive, and the net presen…

No. You're missing the point of the entire discussion.

The point is to deal with the waste. The whole argument is that we can't go to nuclear power because "waste". So deal with it.

No one cares about the cost of it -- it's far cheaper to deal with it now than to manage it for a thousand years anyway -- especially in political capital with a bunch of nimbys who think nuclear power is scary.

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

#717

Post by elproxy »

peterashford wrote: post #644
kortilla wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Convenient to exclude hydro to make your argument where its what powers the existing the 100% renewable countries (either completely or nearly so).

Hydro is finite... When you've harnessed 80%~90% of the potential, that's about it.

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

#718

Post by jfnixon »

michaelmrose wrote: post #405
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.

Why are you arguing that the only options are the end of the planet or building nuclear reactors?

Not claiming those are the only options. I'm comparing the advantages with the risks. It just seems easier to watch a thousand tons of spent fuel than to dim the sun or remove a trillion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.

If you know of a baseload power source with similar carbon emissions to nuclear, I'm listening.

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

#719

Post by jfnixon »

peterashford wrote: post #646
jfnixon wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to tell China and India that.

China is extraordinarily bullish on renewables. From wikipedia: "China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity. ... In 2017, renewable energy comprised 36.6% of China's total installed electric power capacity, and 26.4% of total power generation, the vast majority from hydroelectric sources."

China's CO2 emissions are growing, not declining.

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

#720

Post by lispm »

pfdietz wrote: post #571
lispm wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wendelstein is an experiment, many decades away from a practical application. The ITER is expected to cost >20bn €

If ITER were augmented with a blanket and turbine to turn its gross fusion output into electrical power at 40% efficiency, the cost would be just ~$100/W(e), or two orders of magnitude higher than PV. Even adjusting for capacity factor (stipulating the fusion reactor at 100%), it would be ludicrously uncompetitive. Part of the reason for this is just how massive ITER is. The power density of the reactor is 0.05 MW/m^…

It's a really complex machine and it hasn't been designed to produce any electricity yet. So it's a fusion experiment and not a power plant. The hope is that this device leads to another one which might be able to sustain operation and produce electricity. But how much will that cost? Will one be able to mass produce such a machine at competitive costs? Will we see larger and smaller designs?
Post reply on HN