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

Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

iea.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 248 posts

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#11

Post by Tepix »

umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

No, quite the contrary.

Just as an example, in Germany the search for the ultimate disposal place has just started over from scratch after decades of failed attempts.

In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific: https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/a-dome-holding-nuclear-waste-...

Here's another story from 12 days ago: "Years of mismanagement, delays at nuclear waste sites could pose risk, report says" https://www.wsbtv.com/news/2-investigates/years-of-mismanage...

Excerpt: "According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, cost estimates to clean up the legacy radioactive tank waste and contamination at the facilities increased $214 billion from 2011 through 2018. During that same period, DOE spent $45 billion on cleanup efforts. DOE spent $170 billion on cleanup since 1989, but the most challenging work remains. Estimates now stand at $377 billion to clean up the waste, but that amount does not include cost to clean sites where no feasible remedy exists."

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#12

Post by bilbo0s »

umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

In fairness, no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants. The problem is the renewables.

In Iowa, they are in the process of shuttering their nuclear plants. Now no one in Iowa was out protesting the plants or anything, but here's the issue. Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere. (Seriously, drive through Iowa sometime and you'll see what I mean.) Even relatively small investors can get together, slap up some windmills, and start making some money.

Now imagine you're in Iowa and deciding on which electric bill you want to pay. Do you want to pay the 2 to 3 cents per kWh for wind? Or do you want to pay the 5x cost for coal or nuclear? Not surprisingly, Iowans, who are more poor than most of you on the coasts, have switched to wind in a big way.

It's a money problem. If we want nuclear, we have to convince the government to subsidize it. You're not going to find a lot of people out there who will just agree to sign up and pay 5 to 10 times the electricity bill just for the pleasure of saying they're using carbon free nuclear.

It's like organic food. Sure, maybe it is better for them.

But a lot of the masses only see the price tag.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#13

Post by TheHypnotist »

throwanem wrote: post #5
ilaksh wrote: post #3

I grew up in San Diego. I have seen a very encouraging amount of solar deployment on houses there. But there is still a massive potential for more residential solar. When I visited my brother in Ft. Worth I saw almost no residential solar. I also noticed that there was a massive supply of wind blowing around the neighborhood. Is it really not feasible to harness solar and wind better? Maybe it requires moving to a mo…

Given the lead time required to bring new nuclear generation capacity online, it probably makes more sense the other way around: before you get too serious about letting the nuclear power industry die, you just really need to be sure it's feasible to replace it with solar and wind. (I don't love that nuclear reactors, as opposed to the turbines that generate electricity from the steam they produce, should be in the h…

I'd like to point out that nuclear generates power via steam that spins a turbine. It's how you create the steam that's different.

As far as for profit reactors vs. non-profit, do you have any examples of this? The ones I'm aware of (in the U.S.) are utility owned but tightly regulated.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#14

Post by gravy »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #8

So many people are grossly unaware of nuclear power and it's potential vs its risks. Many people in the USA live much closer to a nuclear power plant than they realize. It has huge potential but its scare factor keep it from widespread adoption.

This is kind of why I'm a little concerned with how well HBO's Chernobyl is being received...I really hope it doesn't lead to widespread fears of nuclear plants.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#15

Post by TheHypnotist »

ilaksh wrote: post #3

I grew up in San Diego. I have seen a very encouraging amount of solar deployment on houses there. But there is still a massive potential for more residential solar. When I visited my brother in Ft. Worth I saw almost no residential solar. I also noticed that there was a massive supply of wind blowing around the neighborhood. Is it really not feasible to harness solar and wind better? Maybe it requires moving to a mo…

The simple answer is that San Diego has a great amount of Sun exposure, not every state does.

Also, you may be on to something with smaller distributions of power generation, but know that a large amount of solar fields are owned by utilities and this may be happening already to some degree.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#16

Post by jjoonathan »

Tepix wrote: post #11
umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

No, quite the contrary. Just as an example, in Germany the search for the ultimate disposal place has just started over from scratch after decades of failed attempts. In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific: https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/a-dome-holding-nuclear-waste-... Here's another story from 12 days ago: "Years of mismanagement, delays at nuclear waste sites could pose risk, report says" htt…

Would this waste have been moved to Sequoia Mountain had Obama not torpedoed it to get support from Harry Reid?

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#17

Post by TheHypnotist »

ilaksh wrote: post #9
umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

What do they do with the little waste?

In many cases, store it in concrete casks on site.

Google the fuel pellets used and understand that the waste from refueling is actually quite small.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#18

Post by acidburnNSA »

bilbo0s wrote: post #12
umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

In fairness, no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants. The problem is the renewables. In Iowa, they are in the process of shuttering their nuclear plants. Now no one in Iowa was out protesting the plants or anything, but here's the issue. Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere. (Seriously, drive through I…

People do need to be convinced that nuclear is better than natural gas. In calm winter nights, nuclear is competing with natural gas, not wind. And because of fracking and horizontal drilling, the electricity prices have fallen in deregulated markets like the midwest, and electricity revenues have dropped precipitously. When you have a plant that's all capital and O&M with very low fuel cost (like a nuke), this unexpected drop in electricity price is hard to swallow and you shut down.

Having natural gas prices go back up because it emits greenhouse gas would have a lot better optics than subsidizing nuclear plants. But you're right that Iowans don't care about that. Shoot, even in Seattle we couldn't get a carbon tax passed.

The nuclear industry needs to get serious about reducing its costs. It's not very efficient. They've got a few hundred people at each plant doing regulatory compliance paperwork with some really inefficient and expensive process.

At least the nuclear industry is trying, a little: https://www.nei.org/resources/delivering-the-nuclear-promise

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#19

Post by mbell »

Tepix wrote: post #11
umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

No, quite the contrary. Just as an example, in Germany the search for the ultimate disposal place has just started over from scratch after decades of failed attempts. In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific: https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/a-dome-holding-nuclear-waste-... Here's another story from 12 days ago: "Years of mismanagement, delays at nuclear waste sites could pose risk, report says" htt…

> In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific

That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. This is the type of fear mongering that caused the current situation.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#20

Post by francisofascii »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #10
ilaksh wrote: post #3

I grew up in San Diego. I have seen a very encouraging amount of solar deployment on houses there. But there is still a massive potential for more residential solar. When I visited my brother in Ft. Worth I saw almost no residential solar. I also noticed that there was a massive supply of wind blowing around the neighborhood. Is it really not feasible to harness solar and wind better? Maybe it requires moving to a mo…

Ft Worth is fed by a massive supply of cheap wind energy from West Texas as well as natural gas and coal plants. Roof top solar isn't that viable here. Not many people want a $20-30k installation on top of a $200-400k house and the energy prices just aren't high enough to substantiate it.

Mostly right. Thought installation is more like $10-20K these days.
Post reply on HN