Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by jessaustin » Tue, May 28, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

dclowd9901 wrote: post #43

jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

Going from 5-580 is much easier than going from 580->2500. Just ask anyone how hard it was to make their first 100,000, million, billion, etc. Using multiples is actually oversimplifying the issue (i.e. "to make a hundred dollars, you just have to make $10 10 times, so making $1000 from $100 should be just as easy")

Not that I would necessarily know, but I always heard that the first million was the hardest? You seem to be arguing in support of my point? That is, switch out "first million dollars" for "first 580 gigawatts".

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

#52

Post by tim333 » Tue, May 28, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

NotPaidToPost wrote: post #41

jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

Err, they say production grew by 580 GW in the past 20 years and that it must grow by another 5x580=2,900 GW in the next 5 years. Nothing misleading and indeed an unprecedented production increase. It's not the ratio that is hard, it's the raw amount.

Depends if you are looking at it as growing linearly or exponentially. You can make an argument solar is growing exponentially, doubling ever so often, at the moment.

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

#53

Post by ambicapter » Tue, May 28, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

gravy wrote: post #29

arethuza wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HBO's Chernobyl really is very good, but the writer made an execellent point: "The lesson of Chernobyl isn't that modern nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that lying, arrogance and suppression of criticism is dangerous. The flaws that led to Chernobyl are the same flaws shown by climate change deniers today." https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/1115135743045718016?lang=... Edit: Purely by coincidence I read "C…

That's exactly true. That's the lesson I'm getting out of the series.

Its just as forbidding for the future of nuclear though. If there's one thing you can count on, is that people don't change.

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

#54

Post by rndgermandude » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

dclowd9901 wrote: post #43

jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

Going from 5-580 is much easier than going from 580->2500. Just ask anyone how hard it was to make their first 100,000, million, billion, etc. Using multiples is actually oversimplifying the issue (i.e. "to make a hundred dollars, you just have to make $10 10 times, so making $1000 from $100 should be just as easy")

No, that's not how it works.

It's hard in the beginning, because of research and development. After that, you got the technology side covered, you got the processes side covered, all you need is to build and install.

Making the first mobile phones was hard. Making another million mobile phones today: not that hard. Especially if you make a million more of an established model.

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

#55

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #51

dclowd9901 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going from 5-580 is much easier than going from 580->2500. Just ask anyone how hard it was to make their first 100,000, million, billion, etc. Using multiples is actually oversimplifying the issue (i.e. "to make a hundred dollars, you just have to make $10 10 times, so making $1000 from $100 should be just as easy")

Not that I would necessarily know, but I always heard that the first million was the hardest? You seem to be arguing in support of my point? That is, switch out "first million dollars" for "first 580 gigawatts".

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by tim333 » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

dclowd9901 wrote: post #43

jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

Going from 5-580 is much easier than going from 580->2500. Just ask anyone how hard it was to make their first 100,000, million, billion, etc. Using multiples is actually oversimplifying the issue (i.e. "to make a hundred dollars, you just have to make $10 10 times, so making $1000 from $100 should be just as easy")

Oversimplifying maybe but renewables are passing the tipping point of being the cheapest energy source without needing subsidies which will make things easier.

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

#57

Post by abalone » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

Yes and it's interesting to quote the rest of that paragraph, which ends up arguing that clean energy transitions "would end up hurting consumers through higher electricity bills."[1]

The use of the term "hurting" here is a tell. Yeah, you know, maybe fixing the planet will require a mobilization on the scale of going to war and result in higher prices. That's not hurting people; that's helping our children live on a planet free of nuclear waste and climate disaster.

[1] "Such a drastic increase in renewable power generation would create serious challenges in integrating the new sources into the broader energy system. Clean energy transitions in advanced economies would also require $1.6 trillion in additional investment over the same period, which would end up hurting consumers through higher electricity bills."

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

#58

Post by sh-run » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

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.

I've been a Fort Worth resident for nearly 4 years.

Anecdotal, but my old neighborhood (far south - near Crowley) had tons of residential solar (relatively speaking - probably 1/6 of the homes). It was a new development with no mature trees. TXU actually has a pretty attractive [residential solar program](https://www.txu.com/savings-solutions/renewable-energy/solar...) that lots of my neighbors took advantage of.

I've since bought a house built in the 60s. My new neighborhood (Ridglea) has lots of mature trees. There is no way solar would work here. My roof only gets sunlight for a couple of hours a day.

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

#59

Post by NotPaidToPost » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #52

NotPaidToPost wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, they say production grew by 580 GW in the past 20 years and that it must grow by another 5x580=2,900 GW in the next 5 years. Nothing misleading and indeed an unprecedented production increase. It's not the ratio that is hard, it's the raw amount.

Depends if you are looking at it as growing linearly or exponentially. You can make an argument solar is growing exponentially, doubling ever so often, at the moment.

The point remains.

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

#60

Post by Valgrim » Tue, May 28, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

mbell wrote: post #19

Tepix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Long term, large scale containment of radioactive waste is an unsolved problem. Nuclear advocates have two answers to this problem:

A) We'll solve it later (we should research fuel reprocessing, we have an urgency to act, etc.)

B) It's not really a problem (people don't actually die from radioactive waste, most nuclear plants have proven themselves safely managed, etc.)

Both answer sound like sweeping the dust under the rug. What happens when (not if) a catastrophe occurs? If a war breaks out, how can you guarantee the safety of all nuclear power plants around the world? If a country economy collapses, how will nuclear engineers get paid? If an epidemic of a deadly disease spreads worldwide, how many people can die before there is not enough people to safely operate a nuclear plant?

We cannot sweep this under the rug. Nuclear energy may be theorically cheap to implement, but the potential cost of an uncontrollable failure is too great.