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

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

thebellows.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 397 posts

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

#291

Post by dTal »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #192
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to pay off the initial construction costs. Throwing away half the energy you generate means that you're wasting the large up-front costs.

Right. If we build nuclear plants to fulfill peak energy demand (which coincides with a lack of energy production from solar) then there's not reason not to just run the nuclear plants 24/7 and skip building solar altogether. This is why nuclear power and intermittent sources end up being a dichotomy in practice. Solar does provide a good way to mitigate carbon emissions in the meantime, even if it's role in a fully…

+1 I wish this were further up. Reliable power is always better than unreliable power. "Base load" is a misleading concept because people conflate supply-side and demand-side fluctuations, which are generally unrelated except in "niche use cases" like you mention. You always need some sort of storage or on-demand generation to deal with demand fluctuations. With wind/solar, you need extra storage to smooth out supply fluctuations.

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

#292

Post by cinntaile »

rtx wrote: post #18
cinntaile wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what you base your claims of unquestionably better results for the costs and risks on? Current nuclear energy production is quite expensive, it's on par with the costs for offshore wind iirc. The risks, well... Privately insuring a nuclear power plant is pretty much impossible from a cost perspective. That's why governments, the tax payers in other words, have to assume the full risk in case something goe…

Why are we talking cost and not the pollution footprint.

Not really sure why you were downvoted before since it's a valid question.

We're talking cost since that's what the gp was talking about, I also believe that risk and cost is the right framework to think about these issues. Pollution is basically a cost, it's just that right now someone else besides the polluter will end up paying that cost sometime in the future. I think it would be a good thing if we could convert pollution to a cost that we get taxed on now, which is what a global carbon tax wants to achieve. That way you have to pay for what you pollute. It would definitely be a step in the right direction and perhaps the cost of nuclear would not be so great if all these externalities are taken into account. To be clear though. Just as I would like to see a carbon tax, I would also like to see nuclear paying actual risk premiums so that we can have a level playing field when choosing an energy source based on its LCOE or any similar criteria.

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

#293

Post by dTal »

pfdietz wrote: post #157
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 would be utterly terrible for filling in the last part of a renewable-dominated grid. As in, ludicrously expensive, compared to other non-nuclear, non-fossil alternatives. The article you point to talks about "firm, low carbon sources". This kind of source for this last bit would be something like hydrogen, not nuclear. A nuclear reactor operating at 10% capacity factor to "fill in" for renewables would be pr…

You can invert this and say that solar/wind would be utterly terrible at "filling in the last part" of a nuclear-dominated grid.

The inability to generate constant, reliable power is a weakness, not a strength.

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

#294

Post by pvaldes »

arcticbull wrote: post #27
pvaldes wrote: 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…

I wonder why they needed to borrow 1500 millions of euro just to make urgently a concrete tomb to enclose this kind of waste when we could just dump a few oil drums somewhere instead. Or just, ehem... dump it illegally in the sea for free.

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

#295

Post by nickpp »

adamsea wrote: post #124
wutbrodo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's a proposal; it can be negotiated and changed until it becomes law. The main purpose is: a) Help give future generations a reasonably livable and enjoyable planet. b) Help Americans by creating jobs.

You forgot its actual main purpose: Help politicians get elected.

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

#296

Post by nickpp »

rayiner wrote: post #255
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 really already too late. Even if we the developed world decarbonizes in the next 20 years, India, China, and Africa will not. That means what we really need to be looking at is technology to power carbon capture.

I guess you need energy for carbon capture too.

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

#297

Post by pfdietz »

dTal wrote: post #293
pfdietz wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear would be utterly terrible for filling in the last part of a renewable-dominated grid. As in, ludicrously expensive, compared to other non-nuclear, non-fossil alternatives. The article you point to talks about "firm, low carbon sources". This kind of source for this last bit would be something like hydrogen, not nuclear. A nuclear reactor operating at 10% capacity factor to "fill in" for renewables would be pr…

You can invert this and say that solar/wind would be utterly terrible at "filling in the last part" of a nuclear-dominated grid. The inability to generate constant, reliable power is a weakness, not a strength.

Right. It's one or the other generally (although some solar could help nuclear if demand peaks on sunny days).

However, unless nuclear gets a lot cheaper, it's looking like the nuclear dominated grid is going to be more expensive than the renewable dominated grid, even taking the cost of intermittency into account.

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

#298

Post by marcusverus »

primroot wrote: post #201
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…

If nuclear is so safe then why the subsidized insurance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

That's not a subsidy. It's a claim by a third party (who, coincidentally, exists to advocate for strict regulation of the nuclear industry) that the government is underestimating the risk associated with nuclear power. Differences of opinion regarding actuarial tables aren't subsidies.

The wiki article claims that CATO also supports this, but that claim does not appear to be supported in the cited material.

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

#299

Post by DennisP »

dTal wrote: post #283
piva00 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point of nuclear, hydro or coal though, they need to be run at high capacity to be economically viable, have long spin up and down times and are costly to maintain. You use them as the basis of the grid and use wind and solar that are more prone to fluctuations to fill up the demand when necessary, less batteries needed as the base load can always be delivered by nuclear/hydro. Coal is basically dead…

>use them as the basis of the grid and use wind and solar that are more prone to fluctuations to fill up the demand when necessary Er, how does this work? You can't control when wind and solar produce power, so how can you use them to "fill up the demand when necessary"? If anything, using a fluctuating source on top of already fluctuating demand just increases the amount of power storage you need. A power source tha…

At least with solar you know when it won't produce power. You could have enough nuclear for nighttime demand, and build enough solar for the extra daytime demand. You'd have some remaining discrepancies to make up but relatively small ones.

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

#300

Post by nickpp »

csours wrote: post #90
pydry wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Considering that Enron is gone and California still has blackouts, I guess the problem lays with the state?!
Post reply on HN