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

111–120 of 249 posts

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

#111

Post by corty »

lorenzhs wrote: post #82
jpxw wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, Germany until very recently, comissioned new lignite plants and is still actively mining lignite in areas that are still being expanded. There is some political turmoil about that, but at best, fossil fuels have plateaued. Also, for coal plants there are periods of "readiness" where the plants are nominally shut down already, but kept in readiness when power demand is high and renewables are nil, such as the cold period at the start of february this year. And we are comissioning gas power plants as a readiness reserve, those are kept in permanent readiness right after comissioning. Costs an arm and a leg, but energy storage investment doesn't exist in Germany aside from some very minor projects.

Oh, and renewables are at a standstill as well, for the last few years there was very much stagnating growth in capacity. Since older renewable investments are reaching the end of their component lifetimes and subsidy periods, we will soon be at net negative growth in renewable capacity.

I'm not sure where politics will proceed from here, depends on the election(s) this fall. Appetite for more renewables with ever-rising prices isn't as high as it used to be, at least in my subset of the population.

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

#112

Post by awesomepeter »

neuronic wrote: post #91

I am in no way or shape against nuclear power per se. I know its technology, I have studied the engineering behind it etc. Still, any argument against nuclear is immediately categorized as "fearmongering" no matter how much it isn't based on the technology itself. Facts and an interest in truly bringing your country forward don't matter. Money and lobbyism is what rules the discussions. No matter how many subversive…

It's all nice, but where does the base load come in? From what I know Germany is decomissioning their reactors, and is replacing them with NEW coal power plants + importing energy from other countries (which is just sidestepping the problem)

What's the real solution here? If all countries did what Germany does, we'll have a lot of coal power plants, why not instead have nuclear ones? I don't know a lot about this topic, but it seems to me there isn't any viable solution here, even if nuclear costs a lot.

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

#113

Post by konjin »

pif wrote: post #31
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…

I can't understand the downvotes you got. You pushed may be a bit on political stereotypes, but other than that you just stated the facts.

Ever noticed how liberals say "do you believe in global warming?" and not "do you understand global warming?" it's not about knowing science, it's about using "science" to defend whatever your group happens to believe.

This is not science, this is dogma masquerading as science. For some reason liberals have been allowed to think they are pro-science for the last 20 years when in the most important cases of our time they are not.

They need to have it bashed into their skulls that they are not pro-science and that they are responsible for the coming apocalypse.

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

#114

Post by cybervegan »

We aren't even responsible enough with the nuclear assets and waste we already have, and we're going to have to actively look after that lot for millennia to come. You can't just walk away from a spent fuel waste facility - you have to run it, or it will eventually leak radioactive isotopes into the environment. We aren't even doing that right now, so how do we expect our decendents to have the will and knowledge to do that in 2200? If we're still around at all.

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

#115

Post by Hammershaft »

yokaze wrote: post #44
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…

> No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear Irrelevant, unless you want to have a mobile power generator. > no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. First, not true: Geothermal and hydro both can generate power 24/7/365. Yes, that is location dependent, but you set yourself up there with using absolutes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland .) Second, we do not need a single s…

> Sure, and the only reason we aren't there is because of those hippies. It isn't like half of the research budget since the 50s went to nuclear research, and only 11% to renewables.

That funding only went to variants of nuclear power that synergized with the military applications that drove that funding in the first place. Molten Salt Reactors have none of the characteristics that enabled Fukushima and yet research was abandoned on them.

Regardless, we need to start acting now, and that means choosing solutions that are proven or at least exist today.

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

#116

Post by amarant »

ketzu wrote: post #65
amarant wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

What other metric would you use though? It seems to me the top-level comment is arguing "I think nuclear is scary so therefore statistical risk analysis is invalid"

I disagree.

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

#117

Post by lorenzhs »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #98
lorenzhs wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

This transition can _never_ be finished. There is no reality in which, in 2025, or 2030, or 2040, Germany is running 100% on renewables. Let's have a quick look at the german energy mix: https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DE As I write this: * Germany has 68GW of wind capacity. Only 3GW are currently producing, because there's no wind. * Solar is doing just as bad, with 9.11GW active out of 53GW * Even worse, in the…

Your use of "green energy ayatollahs" tells me you're more interested in ranting than debate. Yet even in the current low-wind, low-sun scenario, 37% of German electricity is from renewable sources according to your link. Your conclusions don't match your own data.

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

#118

Post by _nalply »

roenxi wrote: post #7
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…

We're comparing two neighbourhoods. One has less deaths and less robberies. It is the one with nuclear power. Chernobyl has done less damage and had less impact on those millions of people than the totally routine burning of coal. I grew up in a coal mining region; I fully expect more people suffer negative health outcomes when coal works as expected than in a Class 7 nuclear catastrophe. We just don't count the heal…

Accidents are bad but left-overs are even worse. I wish people would think more about long-term problems with spent fuel rods. I don't think that burying them is a viable solution as the Asse mine in Germany shows.

https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-l...

The salt mine was deemed to be safe for thousands of years. But then people discovered ingress of water. And salt water is corrosive.

I am sure that we will experience very expensive disasters with nuclear storage the next few thousand years.

We should never have used nuclear power in large scale.

Edit: And we should shut down coal, too. It's not about nuclear vs coal but nuclear vs renewables.

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

#119

Post by pumpkinpal »

melling wrote: post #70
partingshots wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We've also spent 30+ years trying to build nuclear plants on time and on budget and we've been unable to do that.

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

#120

Post by Hammershaft »

lorenzhs wrote: post #84
Hammershaft wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It isn't whataboutism if people write off an energy source because it creates visible and containable waste and as a result a much more dangerous energy source wins out that emits much more of an invisible and uncontainable waste.
Post reply on HN