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

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#241

Post by opo » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #142

opo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...It is all about nuclear no matter the cost. Oddly, this is the exact sort of behavior I sometimes see with the advocates for renewables. Cost should always be a consideration, but when people conveniently ignore some costs and focus on others, it does a disservice to the goal of decarbonizing the grid. The levelized cost for residential rooftop solar is at least as high as nuclear, but that cost doesn't seem to m…

Ok, tell me how do you plan on restoring the dying nuclear industry? It's still dying to this very day and it's not because there is a lack of trying or too much regulation. It's because of the inherent complexity of a monolithic power plant. They are so complicated that no single party except the government can take full responsibility for them. Meanwhile no other industry has this problem.

>Ok, tell me how do you plan on restoring the dying nuclear industry?

That is a different discussion. France built France built over 50 reactors in about 15 years, so obviously a rapid buildup could be done if that ends up being the best option, but that is worthy of its own discussion.

My point was that there are advocates who only talk about the cost of nuclear power compared to say the low cost of solar electricity from solar cells in Arizona at noon. If we are going to only rely on wind/solar there are a lot of unknowns about how long term grid storage could work or the costs of over building of wind/solar that might have to be done, etc etc. Yea that all might just work out, but if it doesn't is it better to suffer an existential threat from climate change or use nuclear power? If people are opposed to nuclear power no matter the consequences, then they should just say that.

I think Bill Gates has the right approach here - he is investing in grid storage technologies AND investing in advanced nuclear plant designs.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#242

Post by petre » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

jnxx wrote: post #213

petre wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We saw what happened to Areva building reactors on a fixed cost contract. Today's economic realities do not quite let one plan a 10 year project on a fixed cost. 3.3bn do not equate to 2007 3.3bn in 2020. The Chinese are able to do it because they not a free market economy, they can force people to work at gunpoint.

So, these things are not viable in a market economy? Why should they be pursued then?

They are viable but I'm quite skeptical about accurately estimating the costs for a 10 year project. Concrete, steel, fuel, workforce costs fluctuate from a year to another, let alone 10 years. We'll just have to accept that there are going to be cost overruns.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#243

Post by petre » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

jnxx wrote: post #212

petre wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Westinghouse was all rotten from the beginning, they sold reactors like cigarettes packs and disregarded scientists' safety concerns. Just look at the guy at 15:21. https://youtu.be/EviEN0ScOwg

So how do you turn a whole unsafe industry into a safe one? That's a lot of organizational DNA to change. Might as well convert a dinosaur into a gazelle.

Dunno, probably act responsibly like the AECL (Canadian company responsible for CANDU reactors) has. Usually it's a management problem. Start by changing the CEO? The nuclear industry, just like aerospace, should be very risk adverse. It's no place for SV or tobacco company mentalities.

I am hopeful about the new crop of companies currently designing SMRs. This was probably the way it should have been done from the onset, rather than pushing single unit power to hundreds of gigawatts.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#244

Post by sir_bearington » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

jnxx wrote: post #227

manfredo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land costs are indeed an immense issue. The exact figure of how much land needs to be covered in solar panels varies depending on inclination with the sun and weather.Its not too bad for countries like Australia that have reliable sunlight and plenty of land. But much of the energy consumption occurs closer to the poles, and with more frequent obscuration of the sun from weather. And these countries are typically muc…

Can confirm that Germany is totally covered by solar panels by now. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-gree... https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-renewables-recor... https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/10/29/solar-other-renewable... https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/...

Germany also produces under 10% of its electricity (and an even smaller fraction of its total energy consumption) from solar power.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#245

Post by godelski » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

_Microft wrote: post #109

manfredo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that nuclear is the only known geographically independent way of generating carbon free energy that isn't subject to intermittency. The redundancy isn't an issue with nuclear, it's an issue of the notion that we need nuclear and renewables. Just cut out the renewables, and only use nuclear. Using nuclear to fill in the duck curve makes renewables redundant, thus the aversion to nuclear of many proponents…

Middle Ages called, they want their concepts back. Why is "geographical independency" desirable here? We ditched the concept of self-sufficiency long ago for almost every other product. Your iPhone was not built here. Your banana was not grown here. The corn might have been grown half a country away. The drugs you might have been prescribed were maybe not produced in your country at all. Why would energy be so differ…

Do you really want to depend on another country for your power? Like maybe a little (we do this), but a significant portion? Honestly this seems like a disastrous idea. This is a huge security risk and pretty much puts your entire economy and social well being in the hands of another country. Idk about you, but I'll pay more money for this security.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#246

Post by godelski » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

7952 wrote: post #112

manfredo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that nuclear is the only known geographically independent way of generating carbon free energy that isn't subject to intermittency. The redundancy isn't an issue with nuclear, it's an issue of the notion that we need nuclear and renewables. Just cut out the renewables, and only use nuclear. Using nuclear to fill in the duck curve makes renewables redundant, thus the aversion to nuclear of many proponents…

I wonder which is easier? Large scale battery deployment or scaling nuclear. I think there are good reasons to be bullish about battery storage. It is already an area of massive research. It is something we need to scale anyway due to electric cars. And it is very easy to deploy to the existing grid. You just need a concrete pad, some power gear, and a substation. Being optimistic about nuclear does not mean we canno…

> I think there are good reasons to be bullish about battery storage.

That's not my issue. My issue is that we currently have working nuclear technology. That we can build and deploy now. Bullish means we're relying on future inventions. With the potential catastrophe we have ahead of us I don't think it is a good idea to put all our eggs in one basket. It may not pan out. It may not pan out in the timeframe we need it to. Nuclear is a relatively cheap risk reduction strategy. Be bullish on battery, but have a backup because in the mean time we're still using coal/oil/gas.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#247

Post by sir_bearington » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #240

manfredo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the third time, the solution is to just save money by ditching the intermittent sources and only using nuclear. Nuclear makes renewables redundant, not the other way around. Nuclear generates power round the clock. Nuclear doesn't suffer from the duck curve, so it doesn't need storage or gas backup plants.

Nuclear does suffer from the duck curve. It has the opposite problem of what to do with the excess power when demand is lower.

No it does not. The Duck curve refers to the sinusoidal production of solar power (and wind power, to a lesser extent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve. The duck curve refers to the problem of the fact that energy consumption is mostly flat, but solar solar produces a big curve from dawn to dusk. This is why renewables need so much storage, to take overproduction during peak hours and use that excess energy during the off-hours. Matching a flat source of energy generation to a mostly flat demand curve is much easier than adapting a sinusoidal source of energy generation to a flat demand.

The disparity between peak energy load and minimal energy load is only ~25%. Excess energy is an easy problem to solve. Nuclear power plants' thermal output is largely fixed, but their electrical output can be modulated by more aggressive cooling. Basically, deliberately produce more waste heat. If this nuclear plant is on the coast it can use this waste heat for desalination - the waste heat gives you freshwater as a bonus.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#248

Post by godelski » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #240

manfredo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the third time, the solution is to just save money by ditching the intermittent sources and only using nuclear. Nuclear makes renewables redundant, not the other way around. Nuclear generates power round the clock. Nuclear doesn't suffer from the duck curve, so it doesn't need storage or gas backup plants.

Nuclear does suffer from the duck curve. It has the opposite problem of what to do with the excess power when demand is lower.

Typically you sell it or you reduce output (yes, you can reduce output).

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#249

Post by godelski » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

opo wrote: post #241

imtringued wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, tell me how do you plan on restoring the dying nuclear industry? It's still dying to this very day and it's not because there is a lack of trying or too much regulation. It's because of the inherent complexity of a monolithic power plant. They are so complicated that no single party except the government can take full responsibility for them. Meanwhile no other industry has this problem.

>Ok, tell me how do you plan on restoring the dying nuclear industry? That is a different discussion. France built France built over 50 reactors in about 15 years, so obviously a rapid buildup could be done if that ends up being the best option, but that is worthy of its own discussion. My point was that there are advocates who only talk about the cost of nuclear power compared to say the low cost of solar electricit…

That's because Bill Gates listened to the scientists, and you can see him write about this. He knows to not put all his eggs in one basket. So he invests in small nuclear, because it is a technology we have and can fix deployment issues. He invests in solar because it is a far cheaper option in sunny areas. He invests in carbon capture and sequestration to reverse the effects of climate change to this point and how we'll likely continue to pollute. He invests in battery technology so we can use those renewables without a base load (really would be a phase in). And he's investing in fusion because it could make all these questions obsolete. He's investing from many different angles because you can't really predict what will work.

There's this weird myth of "either or" here. People are treating money, labor, and materials as if they are these static things. This isn't a video game where if you need more pylons you just buy them. In reality we only have so many experts in a field at a time. We can't just solve fusion faster by throwing more money at it. There are diminishing returns after a point. So you use this money elsewhere. This weird myth of "either or" really comes down to thinking that everyone is stupid and "I'm an expert" (the "It's so simple, you just..."). I find this odd on a site full of tech nerds who have to frequently deal with these types of logistical issues and laymen making wildly naive conjectures.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#250

Post by godelski » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #52

godelski wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

Relying on another country for your energy needs isn't a great idea. We've long sought to be energy dependent. Doing so has led to less wars and less influence from outside governments. Are you really going to base your entire economy and civilian well being (because let's be real, we live in an electric world) on the promise that another country will always sell that energy to you at a fair price? Always? Never decide to change?