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

Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 619 posts

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#561

Post by read_if_gay_ »

jhayward wrote: post #556
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s misinformation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany You can clearly see how coal is on the rise shortly after 2010. So it is factually true to say they switched back to coal. You would be correct to point out that coal use has gone down since, but not by half. Not even close.

Let’s use German industry data[1] Fuel 2010 2019 (TWH) Lignite 145.9 113.9 Hard Coal 117.0 57.3 Nuclear 140.6 75.1 Renewables 105.2 244.3 Natural Gas 89.3 91.0 That’s as of 9 months ago. Since Lignite generation dropped 22% in 2019 alone , and Anthracite 30%, we can expect it is even lower today. I make it about 35% by the 2010-2019 numbers, so true, not 50%, but it does in no way support any kind of statement that “…

Your numbers also show that coal use went up by several TWh shortly after the Energiewende. I'll concur that the numbers improved much faster than I would have expected based on what I had in mind from previous years. But they still went up.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#562

Post by reitzensteinm »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #520
reitzensteinm wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a "miracle". Hornsdale was installed for $500/kWh, which works out to $125/MWh of storage at 4000 cycles. Prices have already decreased by over 30%, so we're probably at $100/MWh today. If you need to store half your generation on a diurnal cycle, add it on to the LCOE of ~$50/MWh for utility scale solar, and you are cost competitive with the LCOE of nuclear today . Lithium battery production is going…

$500 KWh is still much more expensive nuclear. Furthermore competition with electric vehicles isn't going to decrease battery cost, it's going to increase it. More demand for a constrained supply leads to higher prices. Wind is also geographically dependent, not all regions are capable of generating wind power at the same cost as Hornsdale. If your wind averages half the average wind speed you're going to have to bui…

Sorry I forget, what happened to the price of gasoline as it scaled up orders of magnitude?

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#563

Post by jhayward »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #561
jhayward wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s use German industry data[1] Fuel 2010 2019 (TWH) Lignite 145.9 113.9 Hard Coal 117.0 57.3 Nuclear 140.6 75.1 Renewables 105.2 244.3 Natural Gas 89.3 91.0 That’s as of 9 months ago. Since Lignite generation dropped 22% in 2019 alone , and Anthracite 30%, we can expect it is even lower today. I make it about 35% by the 2010-2019 numbers, so true, not 50%, but it does in no way support any kind of statement that “…

Your numbers also show that coal use went up by several TWh shortly after the Energiewende. I'll concur that the numbers improved much faster than I would have expected based on what I had in mind from previous years. But they still went up.

Anyone who describes the Energiewende nuclear draw down as having caused coal consumption to rise is propagating misinformation.

While there may be some small, tightly qualified way in which the statement can be twisted to be true the impression that is conveyed is one that is in conflict with the facts.

Misinformation often uses small truths to tell larger lies.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#564

Post by pvaldes »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #553
pvaldes wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a single person has died directly of radiation from the Fukushima accident. This claim has been extensively debunked in Hacker News yet.

Is Wikipedia currently wrong on this with the sources listed there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... Deaths 0 from radiation,[3] 2,202 from evacuation,[4] Non-fatal injuries 37 with physical injuries,[5] 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns[6][7] "For evacuation, the estimated number of deaths during and immediately after transit range from 34 to "greater than 50".[12][17][1…

> Is wikipedia currently wrong on this...?

Aye

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#565

Post by Manfredo_1 »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #562
Manfredo_1 wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$500 KWh is still much more expensive nuclear. Furthermore competition with electric vehicles isn't going to decrease battery cost, it's going to increase it. More demand for a constrained supply leads to higher prices. Wind is also geographically dependent, not all regions are capable of generating wind power at the same cost as Hornsdale. If your wind averages half the average wind speed you're going to have to bui…

Sorry I forget, what happened to the price of gasoline as it scaled up orders of magnitude?

The price increased. And this increase occurred over the span of a century, not a decade.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#566

Post by reitzensteinm »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #565
reitzensteinm wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I forget, what happened to the price of gasoline as it scaled up orders of magnitude?

The price increased. And this increase occurred over the span of a century, not a decade.

https://jancovici.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/prix_petrol...

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#567

Post by justatdotin »

ENIanDEM wrote: post #544
justatdotin wrote: post #376

this year, the veil fell and the usa nuclear fuel working group showed the industry for what it is: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-e... The nexus with weapons is undeniable. I stand with hibakusha in opposition to nuclearism. https://www.icanw.org/

... What? Trump decided to enact some protectionist uranium policies and this makes the nuclear industry the baddies..? Did you throw out all your cutlery in disgust when he jacked up steel import tariffs? This is cretinous.

hey murry, I'm from a pseudo-independant steel (and uranium) producing nation.

perhaps this summary is clearer: https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/us-uranium-mining-nfwg...

"according to the Department of Energy, the desire to enhance the domestic uranium industry is being driven by a demand for low-enriched uranium that will be used in tritium production for nuclear weapons in the 2040s, as well as highly-enriched uranium needed to fuel Navy nuclear reactors in the 2050s"

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#568

Post by pfdietz »

paul_f wrote: post #330
pfdietz wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the plants I mentioned were 40+ years ago. They are all contemporary. Vogtle is still under construction, Summer was cancelled a couple of years ago ($9B down the drain), Flamanville 3 is still under construction, and the last is near completion. You may be confused with earlier reactors at some of those sites.

Vogtle 1 and 2 were completed on 1987 and 1989. They will be online until 2047 and 2049. Vogtle 3 and 4 are currently under construction and will be completed in 2021.

I was refering to 3 and 4 (and Summer 2 and 3)

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#569

Post by m4rtink »

pvaldes wrote: post #514
m4rtink wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lots of greenhouses nearby ? Well, thats perfect - nuclear power plants produce a lot of heat that could be used fow greenhouse heating instead of being dumped via cooling towers/sea water thermal exchangers. Win-Win!

We have sun here, m4rtink. This is not Finland

Duh! I might indeed have been playing Factorio a bit too much recently. :P But hey, at least got that train based (including steam) nuclear power plant working. :P

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#570

Post by m4rtink »

numpad0 wrote: post #494
m4rtink wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats still pretty small and usage specific - modern 1000 MW electricity producing nuclear power plants produce about 3000 MW of heat, so about 15x the naval nuclear reactor in your example.

Like I said, US had commissioned around 20 of those reactors in the past couple decades.

Fair enough - still what I'm trying to say is that those 20 cover the thermal output of a single modern reactor & many are needed even just to get rid of seriously polluting power sources, like the brown coal/lignite fired power plants used in many places in Europe.
Post reply on HN