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

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#51

Post by merpnderp »

ajross wrote: post #26
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…

> 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.

Solar produces something like 90% of all the power it will generate in just 4 hours per day. Wind is intermittent and hard to predict. I live in one of the biggest per capita wind power states in the US, and on some days the nat-gas/coal plants are taking almost the entire load. If we relied only upon renewables, we'd either have people dying due to the brownouts or dying because they can't afford electricity.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#52

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.

Really? I actually grew up near Chernobyl and my parents still work on the plant (e.g. have been going there e every day for more than 30 years)

Don’t believe everything you see on HBO shows. And no, radiation isn’t contagious and can’t (and did not) bring down the helicopter

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#53

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

ajross wrote: post #23

> “But we can’t make a serious dent in slowing the warming trend in the world without investment in nuclear power.” That's... not really true. Cost to build out nuclear power capacity remains much (seriously, MUCH) higher than for solar or wind. It's true that nuclear is carbon free, really quite safe, and very useful. You certainly don't want to be deliberately decomissioning reactors in a world where we're still tr…

It's expensive because Nuclear is over-regulated. It can be cheaper, and the more you build, the cheaper it is.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#55

Post by davidf18 »

mdorazio wrote: post #27
adventured wrote: post #5

> Diablo generates 9% of California’s electricity and 20% of its clean, carbon-free electricity. It's remarkable that one nuclear plant generates 9% of the electricity for the entire state of California, and that they would have ever considered closing it (unless absolutely necessary). Build a few more of those over time and California has no power concerns for the next 50-60 years combined with the expansion of othe…

The problem is multi-fold. 1) A good size chunk of California is seismically active, which is generally a bad idea for nuclear power plant placement. 2) Nuclear power plants require large water sources nearby for cooling. Large chunks of California where power is actually needed are essentially deserts without lakes or reservoirs that can be easily used for this without environmental concerns. You could place them on…

[dead]

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#56

Post by BurningFrog »

dbspin wrote: post #24
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…

This is what I'd describe as a 'narrowly rational view'. All other things being equal, x leads to y. In this case - political, economic and social conditions remaining in roughly the same range as they have since the post war period. This is quite frankly a wildly unsupported assumption - when compared to the span of human history, or even taking the 20th century into account (rather than merely the post war period).…

Nuclear power plants do not "become deadly (and indeed irreparable) under conditions of economic collapse etc" outside of comic books.

The power source that might apply to is hydro electric dams. Those dams won't stand forever without active maintenance, and the flood wave can sweep away entire cities.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#57

Post by eloff »

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…

Nuclear fanboys (and I'm one) need to make peace with the fact that we've regulated them out of existence. Building a new nuclear plant takes more time, costs more per MWh, and involves more risk than current solar + batteries. I think nuclear had great potential, and if we'd been innovating on it for the last 70 years like we have in other fields it would be competitive. But we didn't and it's not, and it's probably late to change the momentum on that. Batteries are now advancing rapidly and I expect the future to be solar and wind with energy storage as the bulk of our energy production.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#58

Post by simmanian »

I get that nuclear is effective, but the worst case scenario for nuclear seems vastly worse than the worst case for any other method of generating energy. Fukushima plant has gathered 1 million tons of radioactive water they now plan on just dumping into the ocean, and has rendered a pretty sizable area uninhabitable. We still don't know the long term health effects of living in areas that had been evacuated. Coupling this with all the radioactive waste we may never know what to do with makes me personally feel that fission is a bandaid more than a permanent solution.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#59

Post by rconti »

mdorazio wrote: post #27
adventured wrote: post #5

> Diablo generates 9% of California’s electricity and 20% of its clean, carbon-free electricity. It's remarkable that one nuclear plant generates 9% of the electricity for the entire state of California, and that they would have ever considered closing it (unless absolutely necessary). Build a few more of those over time and California has no power concerns for the next 50-60 years combined with the expansion of othe…

The problem is multi-fold. 1) A good size chunk of California is seismically active, which is generally a bad idea for nuclear power plant placement. 2) Nuclear power plants require large water sources nearby for cooling. Large chunks of California where power is actually needed are essentially deserts without lakes or reservoirs that can be easily used for this without environmental concerns. You could place them on…

2. Power is already shipped across the state and to neighboring states. I'm not familiar with the capabilities to carry X amount of power between Y and Z regions, but, in the main, this is not a major issue, unless you're speaking of a specific limitation I'm not aware of.

5. Power requirements per capita in CA are dropping, full stop. I don't think homeowners installing their own supplemental power systems come into this (much). The power generated on my roof is still power I consume, and it's accounted for that way. Frankly, rooftop solar is a big arbitrage scheme rather than anything like self-sufficiency. Even most home solar+battery systems can't work in a grid disconnect scenario.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#60

Post by makomk »

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.

"Baseline power" isn't all that useful. What we need to complement renewables is a reliable source of dispatchable power that can be turned on and off, preferably quickly. Nuclear ain't it. While it's possible to somewhat increase or decrease the output of a nuclear power plant, it's slow, operationally complex, and increases the already formidable costs of nuclear power. It's also not terribly common in the US due to licensing restrictions.
Post reply on HN