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

71–80 of 249 posts

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

#71

Post by audunw »

edbob wrote: post #36
lawrenceyan wrote: post #5

What do you do in 30 years when another incident like the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster happens? Batteries will be the long term solution to energy baseload needs, not nuclear.

> 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.

> Viable base load battery storage is science fiction.

That's a huge exaggeration. There are several solutions building commercial plants right now that should be good enough. Ambri is one example that was designed from the ground up for grid energy storage.

The other thing is that even with nuclear, if we want to solve emissions from transportation, steel production farming and fertilizers, we need to produce a HUGE amount of hydrogen. If you have hundreds or even thousands of renewable hydrogen production plants, you have all the energy regulation capability you'll ever need.

I feel like most nuclear proponents really aren't looking at the big picture. Not that I'm against nuclear btw. It'd be tragic if we didn't continue the R&D we're doing. But it's not as essential as you'd think, if you keep in mind the fact that we have to solve the energy storage problem anyway to get electricity into places where you don't have a grid connection.

I actually think the main benefit of renewables is that they stimulate even more R&D in energy storage. There's huge synergy benefits.

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

#73

Post by ketzu »

Rokid wrote: post #12
legulere wrote: post #6

> Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies. This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die. Chernobyl and Fukushima had drama…

Chernobyl and Fukushima are not the best arguments against nuclear imo. Chernobyl was underbudgetted in terms of safety. For instance no protective dome was places around the reactor housing as done in other countries. Add that to a suboptimal design to start with and sheer bad luck... Fukushima on the other hand is a better comparison. But on larger scales, such as Europe or the US, surely it must be possible to pla…

> hernobyl was underbudgetted in terms of safety.

I think that is something we should expect to be the default and is a problem in maintenance as well. Leaky pipes and more are common problems for nuclear power plants. e.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/radioactive-leaks-found-at-75-o...

> Fukushima on the other hand is a better comparison. But on larger scales, such as Europe or the US, surely it must be possible to place the plants in areas that are not subject to such natural disasters that would threaten the safety of the reactors?

In the end it matters to massively overscale the safety for the location it is in, no matter where you put it. Including rigurous maintenance and checks of all of this. But those things will make it much more expensive.

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

#74

Post by Hammershaft »

ruph123 wrote: post #27
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…

> Don't be fooled by disastrous events, nuclear is statistically the safest energy source we have[1], so don't fear it senselessly. The fear of operation should not be put forward as the one problematic thing of nuclear energy. Another big problem is how we deal with the toxic waste for the next millennia? Especially looking at the volatility of sensible politics in the US, how can you be sure that the next Trump wil…

> The problem with nuclear power plants is that: You have to deal with very dangerous material and guarantee that this waste, which could very well outlive humanity, will not hurt your population?

It is worth noting when considering this question that fossil fuels also leave dangerous and radioactive waste, but instead of being confined to a dense waste we understand how to contain, it is emitted as particulates into the air that we breath.

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

#75

Post by audunw »

konjin wrote: post #2

No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear, no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems. But because it's unfashinable to…

> Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Even with nuclear power, we'll need to produce MASSIVE amounts of hydrogen to cut all carbon emissions. If we have enough renewable hydrogen production plants to make all the hydrogen we need for ships, planes, steel production, farming and fertilizers, we'll have all the energy regulation and storage capability we'll ever need.

Seasonal variations in cold climates can be handled better by trash burning facilities. Yeah, recycle/reuse first, but eventually you'll need to get rid of a lot of non-recyclable mixed waste regardless.

I feel like people claiming nuclear is essential has never truly thought about the big picture.

In my opinion it's a benefit that renewables stimulate more R&D into energy storage. It's a positive synergy, since those solutions are absolutely essential to solving the climate crisis anyway. Unless we invent nuclear reactors we can put on planes and trucks. Now there's a Star Trek level invention!

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

#76

Post by justatdotin »

konjin wrote: post #2

No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear, no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems. But because it's unfashinable to…

nuclear doesnt run 24/7/365

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

#77

Post by fsflover »

JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #61

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…

You can already see what effect nuclear has when the safety is not done well (Chernobyl and Fukusima). But even those cases kill less people than coal done well.

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

#78

Post by amarant »

ruph123 wrote: post #27
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…

> Don't be fooled by disastrous events, nuclear is statistically the safest energy source we have[1], so don't fear it senselessly. The fear of operation should not be put forward as the one problematic thing of nuclear energy. Another big problem is how we deal with the toxic waste for the next millennia? Especially looking at the volatility of sensible politics in the US, how can you be sure that the next Trump wil…

In the context of trump being stupid, I can't guarantee anything. Assuming sane leadership there are established methods that appear to work well.

In response to trump being stupid my only response is that waste management isn't the nuclear problem in worried about when it comes to trump...

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

#79

Post by PartiallyTyped »

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?

That is if, not only can we keep making them, we produce them at massive scales without inciting coups around the world for Lithium [1]. Because let us be honest with ourselves, the CIA has staged coups around the world many-a-times [2], and iirc but can't locate that some of said instances were done to support private entities.

[1] https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/opinion/3735-we-will-c...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

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

#80

Post by sjwright »

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?

There’s no prospect of batteries acting as base load supply anytime in the foreseeable future. Batteries aren’t even great for peak supply yet. Those big grid-scale battery farms installed by Tesla (et al) are used primarily for grid stabilisation and a limited amount of useful arbitrage.
Post reply on HN