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

#101

Post by runarberg » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #58

aplummer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's trite, but it's never too late to start. Certainly starting now is better than doing nothing in this case, and nuclear may be a good option. I'm not convinced that old nuclear tech is economically viable anymore compared to batteries + renewables. New nuclear tech may be. We need investment there.

I don’t think we have time to wait for new old school plants to be built, and we certainly don’t have time for new tech to be developed, tested, regulated before we even start building it. We should start now with the tech we already have (which is renewables).

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

#102

Post by acidburnNSA » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:46 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…

That author has been writing this for years and has had to do multiple retractions. A few top climate scientists are working on a rebuttal right now so we can expect this to be retracted soon as well.

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

#103

Post by epistasis » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #86

dane-pgp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

That's a weird world view. University of Sussex researchers are "biased" but you link to the Nuclear Innovation Alliance?

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

#104

Post by throwawaysea » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

Green New Deal isn’t an energy or environmental program. It is a greenwashed policy proposal that includes essentially the entire far left’s agenda - it uses the word “justice” affixed to many different causes and the cause of environmental protection (rebranded as “environmental justice”) and a dose of mental gymnastics to drag in many unrelated policy proposals that are part of either the social justice or socialist agenda.

If we want to expedite environmental protection, what we need is an unbundling of individual policy proposals from GND, which will speed up adoption of the pieces that matter (like supporting nuclear energy) without all the controversial social justice or socialist cruft riding on it.

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

#105

Post by bob1029 » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

jabl wrote: post #99

joncrane wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a Popular Mechanics cover that indicated that soon, Nuclear reactors would be powering houses and even cars. I don't believe there's a practical limitation that means that a ship has to be huge to be nuclear powered. The limiting factor on cargo ship size is the Panama Canal; there's even a name for it, "Panamax." (Note, there are ships that are larger (Post-Panamax), as well as Suezmax but they are obviou…

Nuclear reactors per se can be made pretty small, e.g. research reactors typically have a maximum (steady state) power output of a few hundred kW (roughly a car engine). OTOH the minimum economic size is probably somewhat larger. I would imagine there's similar issues as with nuclear power plants on land, that is, to get the best return on the invested capital you want to run them with as high capacity factor as poss…

One thing to consider - you could oversize the reactor and have grid hookups available in the harbor so that these ships can provide generation capacity while they are just sitting around. While they are out at sea, the nuclear reactor system could have a secondary mode that is more efficient/safe/etc for seafaring operations.

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

#106

Post by mulmen » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:49 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 smells like the old cliche. Correlation does not imply causation.

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

#107

Post by mulmen » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #103

DennisP wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's a weird world view. University of Sussex researchers are "biased" but you link to the Nuclear Innovation Alliance?

I think the implication is that the Nuclear Innovation Alliance is biased but still making a good point.

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

#108

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

est31 wrote: post #92

DennisP wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Nuclear power isn't very "dispatchable", it takes long times to be turned on vs off. But it might be useful for seasonal use in the winter when there is less sun.

No. Unless you run your nuclear power plant at high capacity factor, the cost of power from it inflates unacceptably. It's an economic issue, not a technical issue.

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

#109

Post by matthewdgreen » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #85

aplummer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a reference to how quickly we are depleting our carbon budget to avert certain levels of warming.

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

#110

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #78

aplummer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know. The science and engineering has quietly moved quite a bit over the last 40 years. These [0] SMRs can, for example - there are several other approaches - can be assembled on a standard assembly line, shipped in a couple of C-Containers, and stood up on a concrete pad (well, not exactly, but close enough that I don't feel like complicating the point. [0]: https://www.nuscalepower.com/

NuScale has given up assembling their reactors in their factory.

https://losalamosreporter.com/2020/08/22/get-out-of-the-fluo...

"In answer to a question I posed to Nuscale at the town hall we have learned that the plan to save costs by fabricating the modules at a remote factory and shipping them to the Idaho site has been abandoned. The artful response to my question said that Nuscale engaged with approximately 40 … pressure vessel fabricators worldwide and … determined that Nuscale will use existing factories … in lieu of building its own factory.

The major module subcomponents will be manufactured at multiple manufacturer locations and shipped to a single location for assembly prior to installing into the facility.” This signifies the failure of one of the major cost-saving features of the Nuscale project, which was to forestall this exact scenario."

The cost of that project has already escalated 70%, btw, with three towns dropping out and the output only 30% subscribed. I think there's a good chance it will never be built.