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

Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 249 posts

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#61

Post by JauntyHatAngle »

My main issue with Nuclear power is my lack of trust in regulators over time.

Nuclear done well is safe, clean and has an extremely low carbon footprint.

But, where profit incentives exist, lobby groups exist. And the US government has shown itself incredibly pliable with enough donations and time given.

So for me, give it 10-15 years, or less, and the safety margins will erode over time as people get too comfy with the new normal, and like always happens, be it Boeing, Texas power systems or the like, I have a nasty suspicion bad events will start happening at a scale previously unseen, with companies not doing their due diligence and lobbying for concessions and bending regulation around expensive but necessary precautions.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#62

Post by partingshots »

hntrader wrote: post #59
bjourne wrote: post #50

The article does not explain why nuclear must be part of the energy solution. In fact, the argument seem to be that nuclear has been the target of fear mongering from environmentalists and therefore nuclear must be a part of the energy solution which is a fallacy. Germany has decommissioned numerous nuclear plants (Energiewende) and yet its GDP is up and its coal consumption down. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact…

"four times as expensive as wind" This isn't a valid comparison, since wind isn't capable of base load supply. You would need to factor in storage costs to make the comparison valid.

Batteries are also getting cheaper and improving in capacity at immense rates too no? It seems like a double whammy against nuclear, unless there’s something I’m missing?

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#63

Post by derriz »

GlennS wrote: post #28

I feel like this is a prime example of someone failing to update their beliefs with new information. For decades it would have been a reasonable position that governments should override political objections, embark upon mass nuclear power programs, and try to drive costs down through economies of scale and process improvements over time. 20 years ago it was arguably a correct and very strong position to take? 10 yea…

Exactly, people are repeating decades old argument without incorporating what has happened with technology over the last 10 or 20 years.

In the last decade, grid scale battery costs have declined by 75%. Wind turbines and solar panels have declined by 80% and 90% respectively. These declines are actually accelerating at the moment - grid scale battery storage has halved in price over the last two years. In contrast, the LCOE of nuclear has increased by 20%.

The industry is moving so fast that arguments become stale very quickly but people are slower, it seems, to update their opinions.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/04/30/solar-and-...

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#64

Post by jpxw »

bjourne wrote: post #50

The article does not explain why nuclear must be part of the energy solution. In fact, the argument seem to be that nuclear has been the target of fear mongering from environmentalists and therefore nuclear must be a part of the energy solution which is a fallacy. Germany has decommissioned numerous nuclear plants (Energiewende) and yet its GDP is up and its coal consumption down. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact…

The issue is that solar/wind can only provide so much of your country’s energy supply, due to storage issues.

So you’re then left with a choice. Go with nuclear, or use fossil fuels, to make up the remainder of your energy consumption.

For example, Germany is still under 50% renewable despite their recent pushes. But instead of getting the other 50% from a relatively clean source (nuclear), they choose instead to use fossil fuels.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#65

Post by ketzu »

amarant wrote: post #26
piplikoc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there were a lot of deaths from these nuclear disasters, they were horrible, we should have avoided them. But nuclear energy is still much less deadly than fossil fuels. Air pollution-caused diseases are lung cancer and stroke for example. I think nuclear plants have become much safer and there is more international regulation to maintain their safety. I recommend this excellent video on this topic from Kurzgesa…

Not only is nuclear safer than coal, it's safer than solar! (in terms of deaths per Gwh produced) https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

One of the points of the toplevel comment is exactly

> This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths.

So adding a statistic that only focuses on that seems not helpful to me. Are there some available that give a broader analysis (that might not be as catchy for social media)?

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#66

Post by olau »

pif wrote: post #30
amarant wrote: post #18

I think nuclear definitely has a role to play, at least in the short term. I'm not sure about expanding its usage, but definitely maintain what we have until it can be replaced with renewables, and definitely replace nuclear only after coal/gas/other fossil fuels are no longer being used anywhere. Don't be fooled by disastrous events, nuclear is statistically the safest energy source we have[1], so don't fear it sens…

I agree with you on most of your comment, apart from: > maintain what we have until it can be replaced with renewables We cannot be sure renewables will ever be able to replace nuclear/fossil/hydroelectric, thus we should be a bit more conservatives in our plans for the future.

Why don't you think we can use renewables to reach 100%? People have done calculations on it using existing tech?

For my country, those calculations were done by a government body in 2014, and they estimated that the total cost would be somewhat higher, but not astronomical. But since then, the prices have fallen much faster than they anticipated.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#67

Post by MagnumOpus »

thecupisblue wrote: post #42
edbob wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Batteries will be the long term solution to energy baseload needs, not nuclear. Viable baseload battery storage is science fiction. Nuclear works now, in this century.

AFAIK gravity storage is in the works now. Nuclear works, with large risks, but so does hydro, solar, wind, without the risks of nuclear. And as we're approaching effective fusion, starting to phase out construction of new nuclears makes complete sense.

> gravity storage is in the works now

To cover the electricity needs created by using solar as base load for the US, you would need on the order of 10 TWh of sotorage -- that means basically using all of the Great Lakes as water storage, filling them up with 300 feet of extra water every day and pumping that out every night. Theoretically possible, but an unimaginable feat of engineering and prone to nimbys in Chicago/Detroit/Cleveland, far more so than creating a few dozen extra nuclear plants...

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#68

Post by isoprophlex »

bjourne wrote: post #50

The article does not explain why nuclear must be part of the energy solution. In fact, the argument seem to be that nuclear has been the target of fear mongering from environmentalists and therefore nuclear must be a part of the energy solution which is a fallacy. Germany has decommissioned numerous nuclear plants (Energiewende) and yet its GDP is up and its coal consumption down. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact…

Are those costs calculated in the current energy markets?

Once intermittent renewables (solar, wind) reach their saturation point, nuclear revenue changes.

This is also highly dependent on how much storage (and flex) capacity is installed alongside these renewables...

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#69

Post by rusk »

partingshots wrote: post #62
hntrader wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"four times as expensive as wind" This isn't a valid comparison, since wind isn't capable of base load supply. You would need to factor in storage costs to make the comparison valid.

Batteries are also getting cheaper and improving in capacity at immense rates too no? It seems like a double whammy against nuclear, unless there’s something I’m missing?

Just curious where we are we at in terms of the environmental aspects of mass scale heavy duty battery production?

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#70

Post by melling »

partingshots wrote: post #62
hntrader wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"four times as expensive as wind" This isn't a valid comparison, since wind isn't capable of base load supply. You would need to factor in storage costs to make the comparison valid.

Batteries are also getting cheaper and improving in capacity at immense rates too no? It seems like a double whammy against nuclear, unless there’s something I’m missing?

We just spent 2 decades saying this.

I suppose we’re going to say it for another.

that’s 30 years of emissions that could have been avoided.

Post reply on HN