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

81–90 of 249 posts

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

#81

Post by PartiallyTyped »

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.

It also needs to factor the cost of producing batteries and manufacturing the storage.

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

#82

Post by lorenzhs »

jpxw wrote: post #64
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…

> "But instead of getting the other 50% from a relatively clean source (nuclear), they choose instead to use fossil fuels."

Unless you're saying that Germany is choosing to build new fossil fuel plants instead of building more renewables (which it largely isn't), what you're describing is a transition that isn't finished yet, not a choice.

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

#83

Post by xenonite »

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…

Regarding the decommission of the nuclear plants in Germany: I don't understand why they are shutdown early, because the major CO2 investment happens during construction. So wouldn't it make sense to leave the active nuclear plants running until their original retirement date, and rather shutdown the coal plants early?

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

#84

Post by lorenzhs »

Hammershaft wrote: post #74
ruph123 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's well known that coal exhaust isn't fairy dust, but it doesn't pose a storage problem [edit: on the scale of millenia], so your argument amounts to whataboutism.

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

#85

Post by Apocryphon »

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…

Along those same lines, can modern America even handle major infrastructure projects such as new nuclear power plants, without those initiatives collapsing into a mass of red tape, contractor corruption, dueling interest groups, endless studies, political showmanship, and cost and time overruns? The time for nuclear was decades ago, when the country's systems were more functional.

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

#86

Post by Hammershaft »

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.

The consequences of a Fukushima Daiichi every 5 years would be preferable to accelerating climate change while waiting for the arrival of a battery technology orders of magnitude more dense then what we currently have.

That said, we could also make a transition to molten salt reactors and avoid both of those outcomes.

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

#88

Post by sjwright »

olau wrote: post #66
pif wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless there’s a massive breakthrough in battery tech, the manufacturing of sufficient batteries would be a guaranteed environmental disaster.

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

#89

Post by jackjohn »

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…

> despite record-low capital costs around the world

No [1] it seems like the costs are licensing and beaurocracy due to design re-iteration.

[1] https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118

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

#90

Post by ElKrist »

xenonite wrote: post #83
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…

Regarding the decommission of the nuclear plants in Germany: I don't understand why they are shutdown early, because the major CO2 investment happens during construction. So wouldn't it make sense to leave the active nuclear plants running until their original retirement date, and rather shutdown the coal plants early?

Germany did not go out of nuclear for CO2 emissions reasons
Post reply on HN