New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light • Hacker News Board

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#51

Post by pfdietz » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:32 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #33

pfdietz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better news if they had put the money into renewables and storage.

Why? This article even explains why? It isn't an either or situation. You need a well diversified portfolio of zero (operating) emission technologies. Nuclear is one of those, along with wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal.

It IS an either-or situation. Nuclear is terrible for backing up renewables. We don't need a diversified portfolio, we need a sufficiently reliable portfolio at minimum cost. This will likely involve no new nuclear plants; they're too expensive.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#52

Post by pfdietz » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:34 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #38

manfredo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that peak power consumption occurs after sundown in most countries. Nuclear power also costs the same to generate power 24/7 as it does to generate power intermittently. So if you build enough nuclear power to fill in the gap in the duck curve, then you could just run those plants all day and ditch renewables. This is why people invested in renewables are often very adverse to nuclear power.

I don't think it really works that way. Think about battery power, it isn't going to scale linearly. If land costs are a big issue (and limitation) this is true. If wind and sun aren't uniform, this is true. If the premise was true then we would have always only used coal because it is so cheap. You don't have to eliminate the duck curve, but smooth it out. There's also many other reasons to have a well diversified p…

Land costs are not a big issue, especially when looking at the world as a whole. In much of the US, for example, the cost of putting solar equipment on some land is nearly two orders of magnitude higher than the cost of the land itself. If a country is land constrained, then in an era of cheap solar they'll lose heavy industry to other countries with more land.

If land cost ever did become significant globally for renewables then renewables will have already slaughtered the competition, by being cheaper by a huge factor.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#53

Post by dexterdog » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:36 AM UTC

breakfastduck wrote: post #45

Astounds me how so many people can be pro nuclear in opposition to fossil fuels - the instant impact is obviously much better, but the risk if something goes wrong is so catastrophically higher that the increased risk with each plant seems a huge gamble. Where do people think all that nuclear waste goes?

You sound like somebody who has never seen any statistics on nuclear death rates and waste volume because in both cases it is the best of the current options.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#54

Post by lostlogin » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:37 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #6

LatteLazy wrote: post #3

The others are already over budget and behind schedule, the private companies meant to be heading them are dropping like flies. This won't end well... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54158091 https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/energy-news/toshiba-withdraw... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/25/hinkley-poin...

Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Government should just set the conditions for new power and heating infrastructure. No fossil fuels. Zero carbon. A minimum and peak capacity based on current and projected demands. Private companies can bid, but they can't change the conditions. If a private company can more cheaply and faster build massive amount of battery and use exclusively win…

> Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels.

Maybe it won’t be a lot once built, but fuel extraction and processing are energy intensive. Also, 10 years of construction and the vast quantity of steel and concrete are going to burn one hell of a lot of fossil fuel.

It would be interesting to compare the lifetime fossil fuel usage of all power generators, including construction and disposal (and waste storage).

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#55

Post by toast0 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:44 AM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #8

steeve wrote: post #2

Good news for the climate and the environment!

There is no evidence nuclear waste can be disposed of safely in the medium or long term. Only technocrats and elites want more nuclear energy. Its not the will of the voting public. This is a defeat for the environment and democracy.

Burn it and distribute it in the atmosphere like coal plants do, and it won't be that big of a deal.

Can you do better than that? Sure. Leaving it sitting onsite until there's enough will to do reprocessing is probably better.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#56

Post by samschooler » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:54 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #51

godelski wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? This article even explains why? It isn't an either or situation. You need a well diversified portfolio of zero (operating) emission technologies. Nuclear is one of those, along with wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal.

It IS an either-or situation. Nuclear is terrible for backing up renewables. We don't need a diversified portfolio, we need a sufficiently reliable portfolio at minimum cost. This will likely involve no new nuclear plants; they're too expensive.

What should we replace consistent reliable baseline energy with?

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#57

Post by ByteJockey » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:58 AM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #15

godelski wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually have evidence of this? Because I have evidence to the contrary. https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html

Nuclear waste has not existed in the medium or long term. It hasn't even existed longer than the Catholic church, a mere blip on histories timescale. Of course there is no evidence. But the short term failures do not give me hope.

Except it has. There are natural fission reactors (Oklo mine being the best example).

We aren't doing anything that nature doesn't do on its own.

Worst case, you dilute it back down to ore levels and bury it in the ground. Take care to avoid the water table, and it's exactly as dangerous as a lot of the stuff that's already in the ground.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#58

Post by pfdietz » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 3:01 AM UTC

samschooler wrote: post #56

pfdietz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It IS an either-or situation. Nuclear is terrible for backing up renewables. We don't need a diversified portfolio, we need a sufficiently reliable portfolio at minimum cost. This will likely involve no new nuclear plants; they're too expensive.

What should we replace consistent reliable baseline energy with?

Renewables + storage (both short and long term). At the current rate of improvement of these technologies, this will be cheaper. Building expensive baseload now is a recipe for stranded assets not far down the road.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#59

Post by socialdemocrat » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 3:06 AM UTC

I am not all negative to nuclear power but large nuclear reactors is not the way. They are always over budget and delayed. Put the money in next generation nuclear power like small molten salt reactors, batteries and renewables.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#60

Post by korantu » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 3:07 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #54

belorn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Government should just set the conditions for new power and heating infrastructure. No fossil fuels. Zero carbon. A minimum and peak capacity based on current and projected demands. Private companies can bid, but they can't change the conditions. If a private company can more cheaply and faster build massive amount of battery and use exclusively win…

> Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Maybe it won’t be a lot once built, but fuel extraction and processing are energy intensive. Also, 10 years of construction and the vast quantity of steel and concrete are going to burn one hell of a lot of fossil fuel. It would be interesting to compare the lifetime fossil fuel usage of all power generators, including construction and disposal (a…

Fair comparison here is overall energy invested for energy obtained. For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh. Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options. For example for solar it is about 6, versus 75 for nuclear. [1]

Also instructive to keep in mind just how energy dense nuclear fuel is. [2]

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-to...

[2] https://xkcd.com/1162/