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

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#71

Post by Reedx »

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.

Here, Bill Gates has done the math: https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=520

TLDW: Batteries are several orders of magnitude too expensive to solve the reliability problem or make things like steel and concrete.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#72

Post by overcast »

danschumann wrote: post #32
overcast wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, until that rocket fails, distributing nuclear waste over a large area.

Mitigate risks while emphasising benefits. What if we could make it safe? What if it was better than anything we could make otherwise?

There is nothing safe about controlled explosions, ever. Burying waste in a mountain sounds like a much more controlled disposal plan.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#73

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #19
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #3

I hope they dont put it in a seismically active area, Fukushima used to be in one.

Diablo Canyon is in an area that's moderately seismically active. It's easy to see the only lesson from Fukushima the meltdown of the Daichi reactors, but that was due to not being designed for the tsunami (or rather, the combination of earthquake and tsunami). The earthquake protections of other reactors (Fukushima Daini) worked as designed. Modern reactors are safer than older reactors.

Still, it took 2000 people some four days to get all four reactors at Fukushima Daini to cold shutdown.

In July 2019 a decision was made to decommission Fukushima Daini in response to local demands for a decision. It will take more than 40 years to decommission the plant.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#74

Post by thatcat »

ajross wrote: post #44
dev_dull wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 remot…

Look at the cost of energy in France where 75% of energy is produced from nuclear, it is 26% lower than the EU average. Everyone agrees it is much safer to pursue zero carbon solutions in the long term. If carbon emission goals are going to ever be met nuclear will be a big part of it because it is the only replacement to coal/gas that can fill the same role without restructuring infrastructure. Solar/wind do not fill the same role, their lower price reflects the uncertainty of production and can only reduce demand for nuclear to some.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#76

Post by imgabe »

telchar wrote: post #61
imgabe wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The assumption that baseline power is necessary seem like an unwarranted assumption to me, an idea that is unquestioned because that's the way things are done now. Maybe adequate provisioning of sufficiently uncorrelated, variable power sources combined with some storage is enough to replace all baseline and peak power sources. Maybe this can be done with less expense than nuclear + peaker plants. I haven't seen any…

We know that having a fairly constant source of baseline power works because that is what we are currently doing. The onus to prove that some combination of wind solar and batteries costs less and will deliver sufficient power across all use cases should be on the wind / solar advocates. We know nuclear plants work because they're currently in use all over the world.

Why demand numbers from others when you can't provide any yourself?

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#77

Post by bryanlarsen »

MBCook wrote: post #29
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…

Windmills can’t provide steady base load power all the time. They need to be paired with some sort of storage technology.

> Windmills can’t provide steady base load power all the time. They need to be paired with some sort of storage technology.

Nuclear can't provide power that adapts to changing load demands. They need to be paired with storage or peaker plants.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#78

Post by ajross »

thatcat wrote: post #74
ajross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 remot…

Look at the cost of energy in France where 75% of energy is produced from nuclear, it is 26% lower than the EU average. Everyone agrees it is much safer to pursue zero carbon solutions in the long term. If carbon emission goals are going to ever be met nuclear will be a big part of it because it is the only replacement to coal/gas that can fill the same role without restructuring infrastructure. Solar/wind do not fil…

I absolutely guarantee you that number you're showing is the cost to operate the reactors, not to build them. We're talking about building new reactors, not shutting any down.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#79

Post by dole »

Krasnol wrote: post #39
ashleyn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were practically PR disasters for the nuclear industry and all within ten years.

It doesn't stop. Recently we had a guy hooking up his Bitcoin mining rig, whatever happened in Russia, constant under-reporting in Europe, ...

The submarine incidences frighten me enough, nevermind Skyfall.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#80

Post by mdorazio »

rconti wrote: post #59
mdorazio wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The article is referring to why CA might want to go nuclear, not why neighboring states might want to do so. My points reflect that specifically. Also, power transmission across 500+ miles to get it from a neighboring state with nuclear-suitable sites is not insignificant (typically in the range of 1-2% per 100mi).

What data are you basing your second point off of? All the stats I've ever seen are using electricity sales to estimate their per-capita numbers. For example, [1]. Rooftop solar would be accounted for only as a general dip in sales, not as a specific reduction in per-capita consumption if that makes sense (we might be saying the same thing). This quote from [1] is relevant here:

"Rapid growth in the adoption of small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in states such as Hawaii and California has contributed to the recent decline in some states’ retail electricity sales. Small-scale solar PV systems, often installed on residential rooftops, offset the amount of electricity that consumers need to buy from the electric grid. In 2016, residential distributed PV generation was equivalent to 15% of electricity consumption in the residential sector in Hawaii, 6% in California, and 3% in Arizona."

That 6% number for CA has grown in the last 3 years as well and continues to do so. It's a bigger offset than most people think.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212

Post reply on HN