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

351–360 of 397 posts

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

#351

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

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…

You're missing the point, which is that if you don't use a nuclear plant to 100% capacity (or run at 100% capacity and throw away most of the energy), you end up paying more for every Joule you actually use.

How much would it cost to build nuclear power generation capacity to meet peak demand, vs. building a grid with renewables, long-term transmission and storage? The levelized cost of solar and wind power is way below that of nuclear power (and that difference will become much larger if you're only fully utilizing nuclear power during the daily peak demand), so the question is how much storage and transmission add for renewables.

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

#352

Post by caffeine »

m0zg wrote: post #316
dagmx wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You however voiced your opinion that her platform is meaningless based on a past profession rather than acknowledge the merits of her current profession, educational background or any external input she may have received to put forward this platform with many others. Why not address the merits or lack thereof of the platform instead of trying to tear her down? How is anyone of a lower socioeconomic demographic ever m…

First off, I do generally regard non-expert opinions on complex subjects as ridiculous (see Gell-Mann amnesia on why that is). But AOC helped me in that by not reading her own proposal, and allowing "cow farts" to figure prominently in it. That just invites ridicule. As to why I did not address the merits: it's not a serious proposal, so there's really nothing to address as it presents no details for how to get from…

This is actually a serious and useful critique ... Might be more effective to lead with this next time.

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

#353

Post by Aeronwen »

est31 wrote: post #194
wolfram74 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's that branch of minimalist environmentalism where their favorite nuclear reactor is whatever doesn't already exist. The instant it starts getting built, /somebody'll/ start protesting it.

Of course there will always be a better and safer design. But what about replacing the 50 year old designs currently deployed now with recent ones?

They angry mob will refuse to let you build the replacement, and demand the old one be torn down since you admitted it's so unsafe.

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

#354

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

polote wrote: post #244
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With energy from wind farms 1000 km away, hydro and biofuels closer by, and nearby storage. At the beginning, you'll probably also have a small amount of "dirty" generation as backup, but which sits idle most of the time.

> biofuels "Allocating 10% of arable land to biofuels would allow a net production of something like 4% of the present consumption of oil products." https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/could-... >hydro "Increasing the hydro production from 10% (present value) of the electricity generated to 80% seems clearly impossible, and even a multiplication by 2 might be out of reach. " https://jancovici.com/en…

Hydro would essentially be used as a battery, not to produce most of the power. You can generate hydro power when there's a lull in the wind or on a cloudy day.

I'm really talking about biomass, and I mention it because it's more dispatchable, meaning that it can be used to smooth some of the fluctuations in wind and solar.

There are better technologies than lead-acid batteries. Thermal salt storage and flow batteries are two interesting options. Thermal salt storage has already been used in conjunction with solar thermal energy, but it could be used with any generation source. There are some ongoing large flow battery demonstration projects, such as an 800 MWh / 200 MW battery being built in Dalian, China.

5% of the surface of the country isn't so bad. But wind is stronger and steadier offshore, so it's better to line the coastline with wind farms.

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

#356

Post by ebalit »

pydry wrote: post #74
ebalit wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi...

I put here the interesting paragraph of this article. The JCER report is also interesting to get the details of what this number includes over a 40 years plan [0].

"Completely cleaning up and taking apart the plant could take a generation or more, and comes with a hefty price tag. In 2016 the government increased its cost estimate to about $75.7 billion, part of the overall Fukushima disaster price tag of $202.5 billion. The Japan Center for Economic Research, a private think tank, said the cleanup costs could mount to some $470 billion to $660 billion, however."

0: https://www.jcer.or.jp/english/accident-cleanup-costs-rising...

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

#357

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

arcticbull wrote: post #149
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, ...as long as you completely ignore the risk of large catastrophic events. Like nuclear power plants being targeted during a war.

How about hydro dams? Bangqiao killed 200,000 people. There's plenty of things you can try and hit in war, and nuclear reactors aren't generally located near population centers. Nice thing about America and its enemies is it's (a) really hard to get to America and (b) its enemies can just lob their own nuclear weapons at America instead of hoping to hit Los Alamos. If deathly fear of war were an issue we'd probably b…

Because nuclear is subject to the same problems as anything else, namely human nature (inc. human stupidity).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

"The construction of the dams thus emphasized the goal of retaining water and overlooked their capacities to prevent floods, while the quality of the dams was also compromised due to the Great Leap Forward.

Some experts have also pointed out that the Great Leap Forward as well as "Learn from Dazhai in agriculture" severely damaged the ecosystem and forest cover in the region, which was a major cause of the flood, and the government's mishandling of the dam failure, however, further contributed to the casualties."

So shitpile upon shitpile.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#Whist...

Further "The Chinese government deems the dam failure a natural one as opposed to man-made disaster" so still denying reality.

This is why I am uncomfortable with nuclear, not at all because it's intrinsically unsafe but because it will be done cheapest. And if one country does everything on cost uber alles, it's the US (as a brit we're close behind). Chernobyl happened not because a well-built and well-run reactor unexpectedly went bad.

Incidentally, from same link: "estimated death toll ranging from 85,600 to 240,000" so your quote is towards the upper limit

Additionally, the death toll was again partly due to mismanagement:

"For example, while only 827 out of 6,000 people died in the evacuated community of Shahedian just below Banqiao Dam, half of a total of 36,000 people died in the unevacuated Wencheng commune"

So again the death toll could have been lower if people in charge hadn't been stupid - but they were.

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

#359

Post by jahaja »

rayiner wrote: post #252

Matt Yglesias makes a great point about differing views of environmentalism in his new book: https://www.aei.org/economics/the-case-for-one-billion-ameri... . > The reason I say “eco-pessimist” rather than “environmentalist” is that to me if you’re an environmentalist, it means you’re somebody who takes environmental problems seriously. You are aware of the literature on the problems of air pollution. You’re not sayi…

> But I think if you are smart about environmental problems, you recognize that to resolve climate change, you either need a cataclysmic fall in living standards

This seems to be just another way of saying: "I'll rather go down with the ship than risk losing my current privileges".

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

#360

Post by brazzy »

arcticbull wrote: post #88
brazzy wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 clarificat…

So do I take your lack of response to the key part to mean that you agree with me that nuclear waste is not, in fact "less hazardous to work with" than solar waste? Because that was what my original comment was about.

> 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.

It is a bit more than Yucca Mountain's capacity as per its own FAQ: https://www.yuccamountain.org/faq.htm

> Consider that was generated since 1958 when Shippingport opened.

So? It still needs to go somewhere.

> 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.

Except it's already more than filled by existing waste. And except that's at the current level of nuclear power usage which people here are saying should be massively expanded.

> At one site.

Which is the only site the USA's 50 states have been able to agree to establish. Wait, no: the state that actually contains it has not agreed: https://ag.nv.gov/Hot_Topics/Issue/Yucca/

> 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.

That is not how you do risk assessment for a storage site for waste that will be hazardous for thousands of years, my dude.

Post reply on HN