Live data from Hacker News

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

thebellows.org

221–230 of 397 posts

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

#221
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally different type of waste.

Indeed, one is the kind of waste you can drop a few oil drums of into Yucca Mountain and never have to worry about it again. On the other hand wind requires huge quantities of rare earth metals mined in open-air hellscapes in the far western reaches of China -- devastating the environment [1, 2]. So, why is it all mined in China you might ask, knowing rare earths are distributed all over the world? Specifically becau…

> https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

For some reason, the largest hydropower accident [1], 100 000 – 200 000 deaths, is always left out when calculating safety statistics for hydro. It would make hydro 100–200 more dangerous, by number of deaths.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

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

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty big shift of the initial question, but it's an important shift! If you look in the "most free" markets for energy in the US, where there is the most possibility for independent companies to come in and provide generation and other energy resources, we are looking at ERCOT in Texas and PJM in the north. In these free markets, we are seeing huuuge amounts of storage resources in the interconnection pipe…

What do you mean by 17GW of storage in the pipeline? I'm not seeing this in your sources. Watts isn't a measurement of storage, storage is measured in watt-hours. To put the mismatch between available storage and required storage in perspective, the US consumes 11.5TWh of electricity daily on average. We have ~25GWh of storage currently. Most of that is in hydroelectric storage, which is geographically limited. Less…

Storage can be measured in watts as well as watt-hours. Doesn't help to have a 1TWh of storage if the output is limited to 1W. You need both. Not sure what the parent post was actually referring to though.

But watts IS actually important for balancing renewables. The storage is not so much about storing energy across days, as it is about frequency regulation. An interesting thing is - you'd think hydropower would be perfect for balancing renewables, but it's actually not on its own. You really don't want to ramp power up and down every second. It wears out the hydro power plant faster. Faster changes in pressure results in more wear and tear. So counter-intuitively, you're seeing some considering putting battery-storage in hydro power plants.

> Less than a gigawatt is in battery storage

It's funny how often numbers like this are presented with the intention of making renewables/storage look bad, when they're often incredibly impressive when you consider the context. The fact that battery storage has come this far, and most of it in only the last few years, is very impressive to me. The growth is exponential, so the fact that it's almost the same order of magnitude is promising.

> This works out to a few minutes of storage - and a matter of seconds of battery storage.

I don't think the whole country needs more than a day of total short-term storage. Especially if you combine it with more HVDC power lines. So doesn't seem that bad to me. Still a looong way from reaching the goal, but no solution is going to be complete in less then two decades.

For long term storage there needs to be other solutions. For those rare days/weeks where there's somehow significantly less solar and wind for a longer period over a larger area.. it might be a good idea to just keep some gas power plants around. If you only use them a few times a year, I think we can make enough CO2-neutral fuels for them.

For winter months in colder climates, you can also look to countries like Sweden. Make trash burning power plants that use its heat to heat nearby homes. Very efficient, and you can "store" power by storing trash. Southern areas can "transfer" power to the north by sending its trash there. Modern plants are incredibly clean burning. In Oslo they also have a demonstration that combines it with CO2 capture and storage.

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

#223
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By "sucks up all the resources" you'd have to have all humans efforting to do things like this that nothing can be allocated to anything else. Nonsense. Please apply some intelligence and common sense. We're not talking about shutting down all other activities and only doing Green New Deal stuff. We're talking about the limited amount of resources that can be redirected by various choices of government policy. Give…

How so? Nuclear requires certain types of expertise and I'd hope, certain certifications for construction. Also, historically, they've each been multi-year ventures. These are likely different humans and different companies than people doing urban gardening projects and rooftop solar. I honestly don't see the conflict here. I don't know too much about nuclear construction and maintenance but I'd imagine it takes year…

> The GND proponents could finally understand marketing and branding and successfully reposition their project to our collective appetites as a collection of small bite-sized community projects but nuclear cannot do this.

The GND proponents aren't even talking about specifically how individual GND projects would be executed; they aren't talking about whether it would be a collection of small bite-sized projects or a few large ones.

What they're talking about is the government putting its thumb on the scale even more in favor of renewables. And that means even more incentive to do those projects, and less incentive to do others. That's where the conflict is.

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

#224

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…

A big problem I have with things like "the green new deal" is that they are buzzwords onto which many different policies can be mapped. I think to lots of people it implies no nuclear, and to some others it doesn't. Both are "right" because the buzzword has no implicit meaning.

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

#225
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By "sucks up all the resources" you'd have to have all humans efforting to do things like this that nothing can be allocated to anything else. Nonsense. Please apply some intelligence and common sense. We're not talking about shutting down all other activities and only doing Green New Deal stuff. We're talking about the limited amount of resources that can be redirected by various choices of government policy. Give…

How so? Nuclear requires certain types of expertise and I'd hope, certain certifications for construction. Also, historically, they've each been multi-year ventures. These are likely different humans and different companies than people doing urban gardening projects and rooftop solar. I honestly don't see the conflict here. I don't know too much about nuclear construction and maintenance but I'd imagine it takes year…

> Ignoring possible futures and going with historical pasts, nuclear plants are what are called "megaprojects" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaproject) and that's their main Achilles heel for our times. Americans at least, have stopped believing in them.

This is a valid point as far as the type of nuclear projects that have been done in the past is concerned. However, nuclear has progressed, and many of the designs being worked on now are not megaprojects and would not require the same huge up front investment that traditional designs have.

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

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by 17GW of storage in the pipeline? I'm not seeing this in your sources. Watts isn't a measurement of storage, storage is measured in watt-hours. To put the mismatch between available storage and required storage in perspective, the US consumes 11.5TWh of electricity daily on average. We have ~25GWh of storage currently. Most of that is in hydroelectric storage, which is geographically limited. Less…

ERCOT puts their panning pipeline out in the open; I'm relying on an ERCOT expert that said this as a summary of the August 2020 XLS raw data [1]. About 950 MW is as far along to have an interconnection agreement. Grids think of energy sources primarily in terms of power, not in terms of energy, so that's the number that gets reported to ERCOT. Grid ops dispatch W, not Wh. We may never know the exact GWh for these pl…

[deleted]

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

#228
Author has good intentions, but absolutist and dangerous thoughts here. For example: "In order for this to work in the United States, the federal government could consolidate the nuclear arms of General Atomics, General Electric, Westinghouse, and others into a single public corporation. This federal entity would be mandated to decarbonize the American electricity grid."

They suggest making a monopoly for nuclear? Are you kidding me? That is a recipe for bad technology choices and taking advantage of customers. Let the market figure it out, with dozens of designs and vendors and demonstrations. It's already an oligopoly with maybe 2 or 3 incumbents in the US. And it's been that way since the 60s when the government created that market power for military and international nuclear export reasons. Essentially they picked water cooled technologies because they made sense for the Navy, and picked just two companies to export them internationally, subsidized, etc for civilian use. We need more companies not less. And we need the government to stay out of it. The only thing federal government should do is help lower licensing costs and timelines and establish locations for rapid and responsible demonstration of advanced nuclear projects. The only way to do this is smaller reactors that take less money and time to demonstrate and verify. Think small not big. The DOE might be doing this with the Advanced Reactor Demonstration, but it seems they may be in the business of monopoly creation with just two companies out of 20 or more selected to demonstrate billion dollar mega projects.

Whatever we do, we should not deploy more water cooled technologies just to decarbonize. Yes, they work; yes they have not caused damage human life the US. But the GE designed Fukushima reactors and the RMBK water reactors are astonishingly close to catastrophe. People don't understand how much effort goes into avoiding meltdowns. We need new meltdown proof designs that don't need active cooling to keep the reactor at safe temperatures.

TO THE FEDS: prevent monopolies - make demonstrating new nuclear technologies easier

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

#229
post #24
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.

Wasn't half of the problem in CA due to unexpected natural gas plant power-downs? That was hardly renewable's fault.

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

#230
post #133
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…

You can't compare nuclear and wind/solar, how are you going to power the lights at night when there is a no wind ?

In addition to other points made, I wanted to add, at the altitude large turbines reach, there is almost always wind, around the clock.
Post reply on HN