We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal • Hacker News Board

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#61

Post by tertiary » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #52

tertiary wrote: post #30

First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything. Second, I'm on the fence over whether I support more reactors and not because nuclear==bad. I trust the technology, but my concern is whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear. Buying into a fission reactor means you pay billions up front, but you also…

> First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything. Am I crazy, or did the Green New Deal have as an explicit goal the decommissioning of all nuclear plants? EDIT: Ah, apparently that was in the initial released plan, but they changed the language to technically leave the door open for nuclear, without supporting it (and with occasional statements expressing disfavor towards nuclear as a…

I don't think so, at least not according to Ocasio-Cortez [1]. It is a pretty new idea though and is probably in flux, so it may have been different in the past?

[1] https://morningconsult.com/2019/05/06/ocasio-cortez-green-ne...

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#62

Post by dane-pgp » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

tertiary wrote: post #30

First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything. Second, I'm on the fence over whether I support more reactors and not because nuclear==bad. I trust the technology, but my concern is whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear. Buying into a fission reactor means you pay billions up front, but you also…

> First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything.

While that is true in principle, there is apparently some evidence that investing in nuclear energy causes countries to de-carbonise more slowly (perhaps because of the upfront costs of nuclear power stations, and the time it takes to build them).

"Researchers found that unlike renewables, countries around the world with larger scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to show significantly lower carbon emissions—and in poorer countries nuclear programs actually tend to associate with relatively higher emissions."

https://techxplore.com/news/2020-10-crowd-nuclear-renewables...

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#63

Post by bilbo0s » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

radford-neal wrote: post #29

From the article: "No nuclear energy program has ever launched without heavy state intervention — the capital costs are just too high for private entities to take on." I think this misses the real reason. High capital costs are no barrier to private financing as long as the eventual profits will accrue to the investors . But in this highly-regulated industry, investors can't put money into nuclear plants thinking tha…

We only have one real data point as far as actual newly constructed plants in the US go, but that data point agitates against your position. At Vogtie, the government made a rule that effectively forbids consumers in the Vogtie service region from using anything but Vogtie. So no switching to using some wind farm that someone might slap up down the road from you. Material point is that regulations generally favor these sorts of plants where consumers are concerned because the government needs the plant. (Or, at minimum, has decided they want the plant.)

Not that any of it matters. Obviously, Vogtie still is a financial mess. I suppose it's probably beyond "mess". Once something's more than 200% or 20 billion over budget it's OK to go ahead and call it a financial disaster. I'm only pointing out that regulations work both ways, and when the government is trying to get a power plant built the regulations will generally work in favor of the generating entity.

The essential issue is that nuclear plants cost money even if there are no regulations at all. The required metallurgy, for instance, just costs a baseline amount of money, and there's no way to cut it down. I doubt anyone could get a nuclear plant built for less than $1 Billion even in the absence of regulations. And that's for the designs we know and understand. There will definitely be cost overruns for the newer designs that we haven't worked with in production. Investors have to be able to recoup that outlay within a reasonable time frame. So the government is actually doing the right thing by "guaranteeing" customers so to speak. In an environment free of the ability to regulate, I doubt any nuclear plants get built.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#64

Post by pydry » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #24

pydry wrote: post #7

Why Renewables Aren't the Reason for California Blackouts: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/08/why-renew... LCOE of various energy sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... https://neon.energy/Hirth-Ueckerdt-Edenhofer-2015-Integratio... suggests that wind energy has up to 50% higher "real" cost than typical LCOE measurements because of variability, however, this still put…

The National Geographic article attempts to make the point that the problems in CA aren’t fundamentally an issue with renewables. CA’s specific mishandling of their push for a renewable-heavy power supply is the cause, but renewables aren’t inherently the cause. This is technically true in a way, while denying the reality of the situation on the ground in CA.

A lack of forecasting and reliance upon energy imports that are not supported by long term contracts aren't problems that are intrinsically all that hard to fix either. It just requires a bit more competence in running the grid.

California has had a history of poor management of its electric grid (remember enron?). A wholesale switch to nuclear is a vastly expensive and not terribly effective fix for poor grid management.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#65

Post by ebalit » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #44

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the higher cost for nuclear related to the high regulation put in place? Are the low costs for solar and wind using subsidies and considering lifetime/replacement/disposal? Don’t know. Actually asking.

Partly. It's also just very expensive to build a nuclear plant. It's also worth noting that cleanup costs in the case of a nuclear accident are capped by law at $200 million. Any costs above that are shouldered by the taxpayer. Cleanup costs for Fukushima are about ~$500 billion.

Do you have a source for those $500 billions cleanup costs? I'm interested in what is included in order to reach this figure.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#66

Post by rangoon626 » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

OneGuy123 wrote: post #45

asimpletune wrote: post #19

There was an article posted on HN a while back, “Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs”. Not sure if the information is now dated, but I always think about it when I see articles like these. https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm...

This article makes some good points but forgets this: our knowledge increases constantly. So today's reactors might not be able to scale well, but the more we build the better we are at it.

Absolutely. Our knowledge nuclear energy production would have increased more if “environmentalists” hadn’t thrown a hissy fit over gen 2 reactor problems in the 70s.

Its 2020, and I am still breathing in exhaust of a pollution from energy production, as a direct result of their foolishness.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#67

Post by wwweston » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

OneGuy123 wrote: post #45

asimpletune wrote: post #19

There was an article posted on HN a while back, “Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs”. Not sure if the information is now dated, but I always think about it when I see articles like these. https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm...

This article makes some good points but forgets this: our knowledge increases constantly. So today's reactors might not be able to scale well, but the more we build the better we are at it.

That's a good counter for some of the points, although there's limits to how much you can count on it.

It's less comforting for others, like the limited amount of uranium available and diminishing returns on how to get it.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#68

Post by leonixyz » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

OMG has the uranium lobby woken up again?

Follow my reasoning and ask yourself:

1. How long should we stock nuclear wastes securely? >> Basically forever

2. What will happen if we start using more nuclear energy? >> Wastes production will increase

3. Given an increasingly production rate of nuclear wastes, and given the fact that they have to be stocked securely forever, is this going to be economically substainable on the long term? >> No

It's obvious to any child that everything this article is suggesting is economically, environmentally and ethically unsustainable.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#69

Post by rch » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #10

I agree, but why set up a false dichotomy? Nuclear energy should be part of a "Green New Deal", which shouldn't just be about energy, but pragmatic environmentalism in all fields.

My impression is that the GND is focused on jobs, social programs, and justice issues, which is great, just not environmentalism per se.

It might be more effective to expand E. O. Wilson's efforts on biodiversity to include energy policy than to try to have the GND encompass absolutely everything that's happening at the moment.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#70

Post by sebmellen » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:09 PM UTC

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #14

sebmellen wrote: post #10

I agree, but why set up a false dichotomy? Nuclear energy should be part of a "Green New Deal", which shouldn't just be about energy, but pragmatic environmentalism in all fields.

False dichotomies generate controversy and get more clicks!

I wonder how many clicks an article could get with a title like: "Alex Jones Denounces Satanic 'Green New Deal', Scientists Propose Nuclear Energy Alternative".