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

Why California May Go Nuclear

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#41

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Krasnol wrote: post #34
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And more plants could have meant decommissioning dangerous older plants, sooner. Could have saved accidents.

You could still decommission them for safety reasons and not just go on ignoring or hiding it. Maybe that would give back some of the lost faith in the technology. Meanwhile humans doing stupid stuff are still a problem with nuclear. Recently we had this guy with his Bitcoin mining rig and whatever happened in Russia.

You can't take any power generator offline for any length of time, without tremendous political backlash. People need their air conditioners!

But new ones often dwarf the previous ones, and when they come online, then you can take an old, small one offline.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#42

Post by bonestamp2 »

ixtli wrote: post #10

Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio. This is difficult for people because it requires engaging in politics because these things are only as safe as they are well maintained. But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear plants running rather well, and we should be…

> these things are only as safe as they are well maintained

If safety is the main concern that people have, we could also use a design like the Candu reactor that doesn't need enriched fuel sources.

Of course, the other environmental concern is storing spent fuel. But, that seems like an acceptable problem to manage considering the impact of climate change itself.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#43

Post by JackPoach »

Highly unlikely. US is no longer able to build nuclear plans on time or within budget. California has difficult geology and climate is highly favorable toward other renewable sources. Why do something that's more difficult and expensive?

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#44

Post by ajross »

dev_dull wrote: post #40
ajross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conservationists need to [...] Nuclear boosters need to start showing numbers proving this point instead of taking potshots on HN. Nuclear needs to be worthwhile on a balance sheet before anyone is going to take it seriously. Even now, it's cheaper to build out wind and solar. And the new technologies are rapidly getting cheaper. Show numbers.

These technologies aren’t exclusive. You need wind, solar, and nuclear for a carbon-free replacement for our grid. Nat gas is still one of the “cheapest” forms of energy, but you wouldn’t hold that against carbon-free alternatives right?

And once more, that "and" is just an assertion on your part. It needs analysis to be true.

Compare: "For a balanced diet, you need grains, fruits, and beluga caviar." That's insane, because you're not looking at the whole space of solutions.

Again, find a balance sheet where someone tallies up cost per megawatt-hour of various technologies given existing tradeoffs. This stuff has been done. Nuclear doesn't even remotely come close, which is why the industry is trying to sneak around with legislation and steal government dollars that should be going to more effective solutions instead.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#45

Post by dev_dull »

I’ve really come around to nuclear power. I’d like to invite other HN readers to check out the comments of acid urnNSA[1] who describes himself as “Nuclear reactor physicist in Seattle”

> Recall that the beauty of nuclear energy is energy density: there is 2 million times more energy in a uranium nucleus than in any chemical's electron shell. An average american can get 100% of their total primary energy for an entire 88 year lifetime and only use 300 grams of nuclear fuel. At that kind of fuel/waste footprint, it's relatively easy to have a low carbon footprint. And the data is in. The number is 12 gCO2-eq/kWh.”

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=acidburnNSA

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#46

Post by option »

sprafa wrote: post #31
option wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely need nuclear energy. 1) Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation (measured in death/per mwatt) 2) Once operational it is always on and will substitute for solar/wind when those are unavailable 3) Energy conservation long term is not an option - quality of life correlates with amount of energy consumed 4) imagine, what if, energy were so cheap that desalination is profitable in CA.

Someone pointed out recently that nuclear is only as safe as its operator - the Us Navy has never had a reactor accident for instance. Still the dangers are Chernobyl and Fukushima - uninhabitable areas where no one can go for generations.

that is not true. read about thorium reactor scenario with malicious operator - someone has an excellent Quora answer on this

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#48

Post by simmanian »

imgabe wrote: post #36
ajross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conservationists need to [...] Nuclear boosters need to start showing numbers proving this point instead of taking potshots on HN. Nuclear needs to be worthwhile on a balance sheet before anyone is going to take it seriously. Even now, it's cheaper to build out wind and solar. And the new technologies are rapidly getting cheaper. Show numbers.

Wind and solar, no matter how cheap, are never going to be reliable sources of baseline power. They fluctuate, and something needs to keep producing power when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

Can't you build batteries to account for fluctuations?

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#49

Post by saalweachter »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #42
ixtli wrote: post #10

Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio. This is difficult for people because it requires engaging in politics because these things are only as safe as they are well maintained. But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear plants running rather well, and we should be…

> these things are only as safe as they are well maintained If safety is the main concern that people have, we could also use a design like the Candu reactor that doesn't need enriched fuel sources. Of course, the other environmental concern is storing spent fuel. But, that seems like an acceptable problem to manage considering the impact of climate change itself.

I mean, we're currently generating 37.1 billion tons per year of toxic waste[0] from our fossil fuel plants which is presently threatening life on Earth.

[0] It's linguistically odd that CO2 is both "toxic" and a "waste product" but not really considered "toxic waste".

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#50

Post by rconti »

> As for California’s climate and environmental record, it is not nearly as strong as it appears. Much of the state's emissions reductions owe to a switch from coal to natural gas in the electricity the state imports, and from keeping population low by blocking new home building, a problem which has worsened under the governor.

Well, this is the first time I've seen it suggested that blocking new home building is "keeping population low" (or, keeping population growth in check) in the Golden State.

Post reply on HN