Why California May Go Nuclear • Hacker News Board

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#81

Post by makomk » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

Isinlor wrote: post #70

BurningFrog wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. The best example is Banqiao Dam failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam Its failure in 1975 caused as many as 230,000 deaths. The death toll of this disaster was considered a state secret until 2005 when it was declassified.[4] According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province[13] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidem…

It's the example nuclear proponents always cite, but it's a terrible example. Banqiao Dam was a dual-purpose dam, for downstream flood control as well as power, and the immediate cause of its failure was that they didn't allow enough water out for fear of downstream flooding. Its flood control role was apparently so important that the government had to rebuild it despite the previous failure and its death toll. Also, I don't think it'd even be possible to build a nuclear power plant with the level of technology at which Banqaio Dam was constructed; it was an early-50s dam made of clay, back when the two nuclear powers were just starting their first experiments with nuclear generation. That's probably a good thing too, given the quality of engineering involved.

The idea we have some kind of choice between disasters like the Banqaio Dam one and nuclear power seems like a false one on every level.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#82

Post by boomboomsubban » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #81

Isinlor wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The best example is Banqiao Dam failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam Its failure in 1975 caused as many as 230,000 deaths. The death toll of this disaster was considered a state secret until 2005 when it was declassified.[4] According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province[13] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidem…

It's the example nuclear proponents always cite, but it's a terrible example. Banqiao Dam was a dual-purpose dam, for downstream flood control as well as power, and the immediate cause of its failure was that they didn't allow enough water out for fear of downstream flooding. Its flood control role was apparently so important that the government had to rebuild it despite the previous failure and its death toll. Also,…

The Banqiao dam is by far the most catastrophic failure, but there are many other examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st...

>The idea we have some kind of choice between disasters like the Banqaio Dam one and nuclear power seems like a false one on every level.

That is broadly the choice though.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#83

Post by thatcat » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 6:11 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #78

thatcat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh I see. In that respect there is hope that mass produced small modular reactors would bring down mfg cost by increasing volume. I don't have numbers though.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#84

Post by ixtli » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

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.

I am a conservationist! I hang out in and around these communities and I am disheartened to see my comrades being anti-science and often straight up luddites.

Are you really trying to say that it will be cheaper by kwh to use solar / wind than nuclear? This is easily disprovable by simple googling.

Here's a giant study that shows that by 2050 you could cover 1/3rd the US total energy requirements using JUST nuclear in 169 square miles. The same with solar would require 1500-4250 square miles. Do you think this is reasonable? What about the environmental impact and labor costs of decentralized generation and maintenance of literally thousands of miles of solar panel.

Here's an MIT study on how we basically cant solve our immediate problems without a strong investment in nuclear: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-mit-energy-future-nuclear.html

The "numbers" on this, as you ask for, are really well covered. We need to have a diverse energy portfolio of renewables: no one worth listening to will contradict this but the simple fact is that by all accounts you can't generate the required amount of energy in the next 10-20 years without nuclear. Nor should we!

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#85

Post by ixtli » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

Reedx wrote: post #71

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.

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.

There are really innumerable problems with using solar or wind (or even hydro, for these reasons) to serve a society that requires stable power generation. And we haven't even gotten to the environment impact of producing, and then throwing out!, battery tech at scale.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#86

Post by ixtli » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 6:31 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #57

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…

Can you link me to some support of the claim about batteries? I'm always depressed with what i perceive as total stagnation on that front. Last i checked the way they store power grid-scale electricity is literally to pump water up hill then let it back down when they need it. That's how bad our battery tech is.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#87

Post by sprafa » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38

sprafa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Turns out, Chernobyl is pretty safe right now. Could be cleaned up with a Troop of Scouts with trash bags. Its the FUD surrounding 'nuclear' that keeps people out.

Have you watched the show? The effort that was made to clear that are up was above and beyond what most people would consider reasonable.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#88

Post by philipkglass » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

ixtli wrote: post #86

eloff wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can you link me to some support of the claim about batteries? I'm always depressed with what i perceive as total stagnation on that front. Last i checked the way they store power grid-scale electricity is literally to pump water up hill then let it back down when they need it. That's how bad our battery tech is.

Some recent utility scale battery project news:

"NV Energy Announces ‘Hulkingly Big’ Solar-Plus-Storage Procurement"

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nv-energy-signs...

"‘Cheaper Than a Peaker’: NextEra Inks Massive Wind+Solar+Storage Deal in Oklahoma"

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nextera-inks-ev...

"GlidePath Took on Storage in Texas. Now It Wants to Add Batteries to Wind"

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/glidepath-took-...

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#89

Post by sprafa » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

option wrote: post #52

sprafa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you saying te use of thousands of people to clean up that region is an invention?

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#90

Post by rconti » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 7:20 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #80

rconti wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Right, but you said "Large chunks of California where power is actually needed are essentially deserts.."

My point was that power can be shipped, in-state, just as easily (more easily?) than it can be shipped from out of state.

Here's a source that discusses maximum power demand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California

I'm not sure to what extent solar offsets this, but it's worth noting that it was in 2006, before solar was nearly as popular as it is now. Your source discusses power sales, where, I think you're right, rooftop generation would be netted out.

In realtime demand, I think the only cancellation would be the realtime net of production vs consumption. The all-time peak of around 2pm would be a time with lots of solar generation, to your point, so solar during peak times would cancel out some observed demand. Also it sounds like they did a lot of work to time-shift power usage, rather than outright decrease it.