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

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#91

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Krasnol wrote: post #67
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not like lifetime of those plants has been something that just came up recently. You have to plan for that and if you didn't, you need to buy power elsewhere and pay the price for your negligence. This would be the way to go if you care for safety. If you don't, you shouldn't build even more of those reactors because this technology is obviously nothing for you.

Bond issue, rate raising - all up to the public. And the public says "No more nuclear!"

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#92

Post by MBCook »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #77
MBCook wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. But GP was asserting that wind could replace nuclear when they fill different roles.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#93

Post by Krasnol »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #91
Krasnol wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like lifetime of those plants has been something that just came up recently. You have to plan for that and if you didn't, you need to buy power elsewhere and pay the price for your negligence. This would be the way to go if you care for safety. If you don't, you shouldn't build even more of those reactors because this technology is obviously nothing for you.

Bond issue, rate raising - all up to the public. And the public says "No more nuclear!"

Yeah, I mean, I say that too.

The tech is dangerous, humans are irresponsible greedy idiots who should not handle it and we have no space for the waste from production and from decommission.

Also: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri...

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#94

Post by cam_l »

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…

We are currently having some parliamentary inquiries in Australia to start a nuclear program. I have always been against talk of nuclear on two main grounds [0,1] (but against decommissioning existing plants).

However a local economist has argued (and costed) for a way to make nuclear viable in this country. Tldr: a carbon price.

https://johnquiggin.com/2019/08/23/what-price-nuclear-power/

[0] Time/Cost (in aus, this means 30yrs+ & tens of billions). Though in CA, this may be considerably less, it is unlikely to be as cheap short term as renewables or gas.

[1] All the mines and dumping grounds in oz are in the middle of sensitive habitats or traditional owners lands.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#95

Post by ixtli »

ixtli wrote: post #84
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.

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 i…

Apparently i forgot to link the first study i referenced: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi...

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#97

Post by JoeAltmaier »

sprafa wrote: post #87
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not the reactor; the town?

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#98

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Krasnol wrote: post #93
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bond issue, rate raising - all up to the public. And the public says "No more nuclear!"

Yeah, I mean, I say that too. The tech is dangerous, humans are irresponsible greedy idiots who should not handle it and we have no space for the waste from production and from decommission. Also: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri...

All contrary to how modern reactors work. No human intervention required; waste not the issue.

Its FUD like that, that keeps accidents happening. Because we can't decommission old reactors by building new ones.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#99

Post by sprafa »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #97
sprafa wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not the reactor; the town?

The ground being removed, the mass extermination of animals (although people have said its exaggerated in the show). Supposedly the cleanup was immensely expensive

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#100

Post by ajross »

merpnderp wrote: post #51
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.

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.

> If we relied only upon renewables

Strawman. No one is talking about "relying only" on wind/solar. The point is that if you have $100M to spend on power and infrastructure, and have the choice of one medium scale reactor that will come online around 2027 or about 4x that capacity in coastal wind that can be operational next year (and yes, the price delta really is about that big), and you actually care about climate and not an argument on HN, you build out the cheaper option because at the end of the day that's going to make a bigger difference.

If at the end of the process we're trying to decomission the last 10% of legacy gas plants and need carbon-free options for peaking and buffering, sure, we can talk about building some expensive reactors.

Post reply on HN