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

#81

Post by ebalit » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #46

Klinky wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yucca Mountain waste depot doesn't actually exist. You put it in holding pools indefinitely and wait for the DoE to superfund the site. Nuclear fuel does not have to be mined or go through costly and toxic refinement processes? Reprocessing waste creates even larger amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes. Nuclear is far far far away from being clean. It does allow for potentially better containment and concentration…

Well sure, so long as anti-nuclear campaigners continue to prevent the construction of Yucca Mountain, they can then continue to point to why we can't have nuclear because " where would we put the waste? " The only reason Yucca Mountain doesn't exist is because of anti-nuclear campaigners. It was funded and shovel-ready until 2010. Of course nuclear fuel has to be refined and mined, however the ecological impact is r…

There are research on extracting uranium from seawater instead of mining it [0].

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6g5pj9QfMg

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

#82

Post by jeremyjh » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

svrb wrote: post #53

pydry wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK Hinkley point C got a strike price of £92.50 per megawatt hour guaranteed for (i think) 35 years. By contrast wind got about £39-£41 for two years. Future years will likely be even lower.

A "guarantee" from the state is worth a lot less than face value as it can simply legislate away that guarantee.

They can try but companies sue the government and win all the time. If it weren't possible for governments to enter into enforceable contracts they'd have a difficult time getting anything done.

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

#83

Post by Klinky » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #46

Klinky wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yucca Mountain waste depot doesn't actually exist. You put it in holding pools indefinitely and wait for the DoE to superfund the site. Nuclear fuel does not have to be mined or go through costly and toxic refinement processes? Reprocessing waste creates even larger amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes. Nuclear is far far far away from being clean. It does allow for potentially better containment and concentration…

Well sure, so long as anti-nuclear campaigners continue to prevent the construction of Yucca Mountain, they can then continue to point to why we can't have nuclear because " where would we put the waste? " The only reason Yucca Mountain doesn't exist is because of anti-nuclear campaigners. It was funded and shovel-ready until 2010. Of course nuclear fuel has to be refined and mined, however the ecological impact is r…

NIMBYism is everywhere, even for solar and wind. Maybe it's a flaw of Nuclear that you have to stuff its waste in a giant pit inside a mountain.

Uranium mining often uses leeching techniques, similar concerns to fracking and groundwater contamination, along with general mining hazards.

Additionally rare-earth minerals are needed for a variety of things, even including components within a nuclear plant. I highly doubt a Nuclear plant could be built "rare earth metals free". Fuel rods also may contain a mix of rare earth metals. Rare-earth metal mining and refinement practices need to improve, but they will never go away.

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

#84

Post by brazzy » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #42

brazzy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy fucking shit are you nuclear fanboys delusional (or well paid).

No my dude, you can find yourself on the other side of an argument without your opponents needing to be well-paid and delusional ;) Nuclear energy accounts for about 6% of the world's energy mix. It is the safest source of carbon-free energy in terms of deaths per TWh in the world, leading to half a many deaths as industrial solar, 1/4 as many as wind and 1/10th as many as rooftop solar. [1] The genuinely tiny amount…

Great, you regurgitated all the standard talking points. Have a pat on the head.

Except even if all of that were true (which it isn't), it still wouldn't make nuclear waste "less hazardous to work with" than other kinds of waste.

As for Yucca Mountain, funny that the "genuinely tiny amount" of nuclear waste produced in the USA as of 2011 was already more than the approved capacity of the site, and "never worried about again" is clearly not true given that there was a magnitude 7 earthquake near it last year.

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

#85

Post by BurningFrog » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

aplummer wrote: post #37

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…

Define short term; I think by the time a reactor you start today comes online, we are already pretty screwed

If this is a reference to the "we only have 12 years to save the planet" meme, that is just a thing that went viral.

There is no science behind it.

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

#86

Post by DennisP » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #62

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 nat…

This is a biased source but seems to make a good case that that study has serious flaws:

https://nuclearinnovationalliance.org/we-need-both-nuclear-a...

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

#87

Post by tupputuppu » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #79

svrb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "guarantee" from the state is worth a lot less than face value as it can simply legislate away that guarantee.

Stable governments don’t do this because it calls into question all the other agreements they have made.

Yet even the most stable western democracies do it often enough to make investors consider nuclear power plans too risky - not because of the technology but because of political risk.

For instance here in Finland companies that invested in nuclear made good profit, because of not having to pay costs related to carbon offsets. Politicians saw the profits, considered them "windfall" and taxed them away.

So why would you ever invest in carbon-free nuclear power on those terms?

Simultaneously there's a lot of jobs in coal, which ensure politicians keep subsidising it. From an investor perspective it's a sure deal.

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

#88

Post by arcticbull » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #84

arcticbull wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No my dude, you can find yourself on the other side of an argument without your opponents needing to be well-paid and delusional ;) Nuclear energy accounts for about 6% of the world's energy mix. It is the safest source of carbon-free energy in terms of deaths per TWh in the world, leading to half a many deaths as industrial solar, 1/4 as many as wind and 1/10th as many as rooftop solar. [1] The genuinely tiny amount…

Great, you regurgitated all the standard talking points. Have a pat on the head. Except even if all of that were true (which it isn't), it still wouldn't make nuclear waste "less hazardous to work with" than other kinds of waste. As for Yucca Mountain, funny that the "genuinely tiny amount" of nuclear waste produced in the USA as of 2011 was already more than the approved capacity of the site, and "never worried abou…

> Great, you regurgitated all the standard talking points. Have a pat on the head.

Again, I suggest you adjust your tone, as site rules are pretty clear.

> Except even if all of that were true (which it isn't)

[citation needed], as of course, I provided mine.

> As for Yucca Mountain, funny that the "genuinely tiny amount" of nuclear waste produced in the USA as of 2011.

You're going to have to provide some clarification there, like, all the nuclear waste generated in the history of nuclear power in the United States in the last hundred years? The GAO says the nation has produced 80,000 metric tons to this day. [1] This is in line with Yucca Mountain's capacity. Consider that was generated since 1958 when Shippingport opened.

The government believes that 2000T of waste are generated per year at this stage, meaning Yucca Mountain would be able to house 40 years of new waste. At one site.

Did the magnitude 7 earthquake near yucca mountain compromise the structural integrity of the proposed storage site? Because if not, then your point is moot. Which is what the DOE said. [2] And in fact when this article was written they said the tectonics of the region wouldn't yield an earthquake in excess of a magnitude 7. It's almost like they considered this, and planned for it.

Further, modern fast-neutron reactors and breeder reactors generate an order of magnitude less high level waste than classical designs. [3]

[1] https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear...

[2] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/loose-nukes-w...

[3] https://nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

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

#89

Post by DennisP » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

aplummer wrote: post #37

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…

Define short term; I think by the time a reactor you start today comes online, we are already pretty screwed

It's clear that right now we should roll out wind and solar as fast as we can.

However, once those reach high penetration, costs increase rapidly as you attempt to reach 100% clean energy. At that point it helps a lot to have clean dispatchable power. Nuclear plants we start today can fill that role, in areas without available hydro.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...

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

#90

Post by csours » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #64

zaroth wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 manage…

I remember that California pointed the finger at FERC and Enron. I remember that Enron played the regulations like a fiddle, shutting down plants do drive up spot prices.

I guess I don't know who is responsible for what exactly, and what California could have done better.