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

Activists who embrace nuclear power

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 598 posts

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#41

Post by [deleted] »

lukeschlather wrote: post #31
flaque wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that larger investment in nuclear won’t yield reduced costs, just as larger investments in solar did.

According to the IEA we are spending more on nuclear power research than any other category. (More than wind and solar combined.) More money won't magically give us better nuclear technology. If renewables keep getting better we're going to have to start some serious conversations about cutting nuclear funding in a few years, we're investing too much money with basically zero return on investment. https://www.iea.org…

[deleted]

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#42

Post by afterburner »

hntrader wrote: post #28
afterburner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the largest feature of modern nuclear power is that it got a lot more expensive as we realized how much safety we truly needed to build into it. Whereas, without much prompting, solar got a LOT cheaper. When nuclear develops that significantly, we will all pay attention. Until then, build cheaper sources. Also consider when building nuclear, you are locking into technology from 10 years ago (when the pl…

Isn't the point of nuclear to provide power when it's not sunny as a cheaper alternative to storage in batteries? If so then what's the purpose of comparing the cost of solar and nuclear as if they're directly competing for the same use case?

> Isn't the point of nuclear to provide power when it's not sunny as a cheaper alternative to storage in batteries? If so then what's the purpose of comparing the cost of solar and nuclear as if they're directly competing for the same use case?

What the hell are you talking about.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#43

Post by armada651 »

afterburner wrote: post #25
phabora wrote: post #5

I would rather risk a few local meltdowns than a global heatup.

Just buy solar and wind, avoid both.

You're never going to have a powermix that's 100% renewables. There will always be a few power plants to pick up the slack if weather conditions are unfavorable for a long period of time. Should these plants use coal, gas or nuclear?

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#44

Post by vlovich123 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #36
orwin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would, but not as much as solar did. But people don't include recycling cost in PV, as well as electrical grid maintenance, impossibility to work as a baseline, no pilotability. Solar is good if the population is mature enough to accept the cost of sending PV to a recycling plant. And as long as it doesnt go past 50% of the energy production (you NEED a baseline of 30 to 40% at the very least)

Base load power is unnecessary. The only type of power that's required is dispatchable power. If you have enough dispatchable power to meet peak demands you don't need anything else. For example, the northern towns served by a diesel generator. Other types of power are optional, but should be thrown into the mix for cost, reliability or environmental reasons.

My (perhaps erroneous) understanding nuclear is the only power source that can generate the power/heat that many very heavy industrial use cases need can’t be supplanted with renewables, no matter how inexpensive/efficient they are.

That’s why countries like France have significantly lower coal usage whereas Germany has higher, even though both have similar levels of renewables.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#45

Post by Enginerrrd »

afterburner wrote: post #18
galangalalgol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A grid that relies on transmission to that degree will require unifying some disparate grids won't it? Also it seems horribly vulnerable to attacks digital or physical.

If you're worried about attacks, you should be even more worried about nuclear.

Not really. This is actually a primary design consideration taken very seriously at nuke plants. The same can NOT be said about the rest of the grid, and renewable generation facilities.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#46

Post by ssijak »

Now that launching stuff into orbit is getting much cheaper, is there any reasonable calculation to just ship nuclear waste into orbit? Or even further away (crashing it into Sun would be ideal but too expensive I guess)

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#47

Post by croes »

orwin wrote: post #15
rpiguyshy wrote: post #9

i just dont buy it. hypothetically, there is a nuclear power plant design that is perfectly safe in that it will never melt down. but there is no nuclear power plant that produces no waste. as long as you are producing waste, you are depending on bumbling bureaucrats to properly dispose of that waste and manage the waste often for extremely long periods of time. its just not an ideal situation. the government cant ev…

Disclaimer1: I'm "pro" nuclear (as a baseline to supplement hydro), and i think nuclear is the 3rd best option (behind hydro and reducing consumption) Disclaimer2: i have investissment in veolia Panels do decline, a lot, and especially older panels, but also most newer industrial solar PV are using heavy metals that can burn land (I mean, go to indonesia and look at farmland or even forest near communities were ONG i…

Why is it not possible?

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#48

Post by cygx »

hntrader wrote: post #28
afterburner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the largest feature of modern nuclear power is that it got a lot more expensive as we realized how much safety we truly needed to build into it. Whereas, without much prompting, solar got a LOT cheaper. When nuclear develops that significantly, we will all pay attention. Until then, build cheaper sources. Also consider when building nuclear, you are locking into technology from 10 years ago (when the pl…

Isn't the point of nuclear to provide power when it's not sunny as a cheaper alternative to storage in batteries? If so then what's the purpose of comparing the cost of solar and nuclear as if they're directly competing for the same use case?

Nuclear reactors don't make sense as peaker plants, hence are not a battery replacement as such.

You're correct that one should factor in the cost of storage if one wants to considers renewables as an alternative to nuclear for providing base load power.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#49

Post by [deleted] »

krustyburger wrote: post #6

When she first contemplated working at Diablo Canyon, she imagined the rat-infested Springfield Nuclear Power Plant on “The Simpsons,” where green liquid oozes out of tanks. Eventually, like Hoff, she changed her thinking. “What we were doing actually aligned with my environmental values,” she told me. “That was shocking to me.” You can tell from my username what an enormous fan of The Simpsons I am. One of the few t…

[deleted]

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#50

Post by hntrader »

afterburner wrote: post #42
hntrader wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the point of nuclear to provide power when it's not sunny as a cheaper alternative to storage in batteries? If so then what's the purpose of comparing the cost of solar and nuclear as if they're directly competing for the same use case?

> Isn't the point of nuclear to provide power when it's not sunny as a cheaper alternative to storage in batteries? If so then what's the purpose of comparing the cost of solar and nuclear as if they're directly competing for the same use case? What the hell are you talking about.

Solar doesn't provide off peak power without storage. So comparing nuclear directly to solar in the way you've done makes no sense.
Post reply on HN