Live data from Hacker News

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

e360.yale.edu

161–170 of 249 posts

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

#161
post #155

"a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources" Since when are Pulitzer prize winners experts on nuclear energy? A sentence like this is shows he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about: "Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem in the U.S., is not any longer a technological problem." see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU "A final compla…

The pricing analysis assumes that costs for renewables scale linearly as they approach 100% of grid capacity, but they do not. Other comments in this thread speak to this phenomenon well. Without viable energy storage, operating in parallel with something like load-following nuclear is necessary for wind and solar to remain as cheap as currently quoted. If viable scale energy storage is invented, it will not be free.

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

#162

Nuclear energy, for generations now, always has a stronger theoretical case than a practical one. Going on first principles, nuclear is amazing. Abundant. Clean. Cheap. Constant. When we build cities along the kuiper belt, they're obviously going to be nuclear powered. Practically... Nuclear energy has been around for 60+ years. There have been massive investments. Many plants in many countries trying different thing…

What counts as notable success? The entire base energy load for Ontario, Canada comes from nuclear (see: live.gridwatch.ca) and the provinces high energy costs (such as they were) were directly caused by investment in renewables through guaranteed high rates paid to producers. This is not a political point, I supported those mostly-now-abandoned investments. They took down just-erected windmills near my house in rece…

Notable success would be what was promised in the 50s. Energy so abundant that it's not metered. Doing to coal what coal did to wood. I don't think you should judge renewables on the same terms. These are much younger projects, at scale.

Seizing defeat is fair, perhaps. Nuclear has been on the cusp for too long. "Marginally better than coal/gas" is not the notable success we were promised. I'm willing to cut losses, if that's all that is at risk.

I'm not saying that nuclear's first principles advantages will never materialize. They will eventually. I just wouldn't be betting on nuclear now.

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

#163
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's more or less what they are doing. Most of the reactors that have been shut down were built in the 1970s when safety standards weren't as strict as they are today. https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/Germany/Germany.htm That is, the reactors were over 40 years old and were reaching their end-of-life dates anyway. Upgrading them to conform to modern safety standards isn't cost-effective. Essentially, this is w…

>Upgrading them to conform to modern safety standards isn't cost-effective. Why that? In France nuclear power plants are kept to the newest safety standards. Everything in a nuclear power plant can be replaced apart from the reactor vessel and the containment building.

Because many of them were built before TMI and Chernobyl, in the 70's using designs from the 60's. It's similar to how maintenance on a car from the 70's probably isn't worth it.

Nuclear isn't working very well in France either. The reactor in Flamanville had an initial projected cost of 3.5 billion euros which has now ballooned to 12.4 billion euros and the project is over a decade late. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-idUSKBN24A... The French are also preparing to transition away from nuclear as more plants are being decommissioned.

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

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They kill less people than coal if you make a very gross average of total deaths per kWh. 30 years after the Chernobyl disaster there are two uninhabitable subdivisions of Ukraine that will require control for the rest of human history. "Average deaths" doesn't matter when the people living near nuclear power plants have to be in constant preparation for total evacuation. I agree with the parent comment in that I wou…

> when the people living near nuclear power plants have to be in constant preparation for total evacuation

What are you talking about? Is there any serious unpredictable danger for people living near Chernobyl?

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

#165
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…

[deleted]

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

#166
post #153
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear isn't as inflexible as you think. A usual change rate in power output is around 10%/min, so you can go from half to full in 5 minutes. Far away from days or weeks. Here is a nice comparison: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lastfolgebetrieb

On a synchronous grid? Unless the capacity of the nuclear plant is tiny (which means the economy of scale is lost - who is building a nuclear plant in the area of 10s of MW?), you instantly have voltage instability if you lose supply, and yes, bringing the network back to synchronicity can take days or weeks. This is the same issue we have with coal, which is part of the reason we are trying to diversify the grid (la…

Yes, on a synchronous grid. Yes, everyone does it. Yes, it works.

You seem to be thinking in a binary manner, the plant is either on or off and there is some big central regulator doing the switching. But that isn't how it works.

Plants, through their grid connection, 'see' the grid frequency of 50.00Hz. If the frequency now deviated to 49.99Hz because consumption increased, the generators will be slowed down a little. Not a lot, because they intentionally do have some momentum reserve for very fast variations. Now that out generator has slowed, your nuclear power plant (say a BWR) reacts to this: a slower generator slows the coolant flow to the reactor. The load following will turn up the coolant pumps, cooling down the reactor a little more, leading to less steam bubbles, more moderation, more fission, higher power output. This higher power output leads to higher steam throughput, speeding up the generator.

If grid load decreases and frequency goes up to 50.01Hz, the reverse happens. Faster generator means higher coolant flow. Load following control slows down the coolant pumps a bit, steam bubbles increase through higher temperature, less moderation, lower fission, lower power and steam production, slows down the generator. Things are designed to stabilize at 50.00Hz. The exact amount of power the reactor produces is dynamically scaled up and down to keep the grid frequency stable.

For a PWR, there is some more control logic involved because steam bubbles aren't normally present in a PWR. So load following works by changing control rod positions depending on the grid frequency, which isn't quite as fast, but still in the order of minutes.

So load following is very gradual and non-binary. The myth that you can only on/off power plants is just a myth for almost any kind of plant.

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

#167
post #140
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You still have to remember that the Fukushima reactors were also old and crappy designs. That TMI was as harmless as it was came from the things we learned, Fukushima predates that. Tepco also refused to upgrade or improve several safety measures. And the Czernobyl design not only ignored a lot of safety knowledge the Sowjets had at that time, but took intentional shortcuts to be cheaper and make the fuel more access…

> You still have to remember that the Fukushima reactors were also old and crappy designs.

This is only comforting if we stopped operating "old and crappy" reactors. But overall, your comment seems to agree with my point, as you wrote:

> Tepco also refused to upgrade or improve several safety measures.

> ignored a lot of safety knowledge the Sowjets had at that time, but took intentional shortcuts to be cheaper and make the fuel more accessible

This the point I tried(, but not neccesarily succeded) to make: We should expect this kind of corner cutting and underfunding.

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

#168
post #66
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.

Because it need to be 350%, not 100%.

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

#169

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…

"struggle to make the shift away from fossil fuel AND nuclear (...) have to buy power from France (...) are able to sustain a large portion of our economy on renewables TODAY." Let's say 40% of Germany's electricity consumption comes from renewables and 60% from the other sources. If I cut the other sources, will renewables still be able to provide their 40% shares? The answer is no, because people and the economy ne…

Folks, this is the exact kind of post I am talking about. Uninformed or shilling, who knows.

Germany is already providing stable base load power using renewables, and increasingly so, but here we are, some random account is taking quotes out of context "(...)" and spouts some bullshit about "people needing stable electricity".

Yes, they need it. And guess what. German electricity outages per household amount to somewhere around 15-18mins per year over the last years. As renewable shares grow, coal declines and nuclear is basically wiped out the average interruptions continue to shrink. [1]

The US is at 8 hours per household per year, what are your nuclear plants doing? The answer is obvious: it's a mundane question. It's not just the type of energy generation that matters when providing a stable network and therefore this argument is pure and utter rubbish.

[1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-electric...

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

#170
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the resources needed to build the solar and wind infrastructures ? Metal, extraction of that metal, rare earths,... ? I'm all for solar and wind and whatever, but at some point there are some maths to do... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o

Isn’t nuclear power really expensive? Solar and wind I think are just materially cheaper than anything else even including construction. I’m looking at the Lazard 2020 Levelized Cost of Energy report here: https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o...

I checked the prices in your document. But I'm more after the actual resources consumption. For ex. if solar is cheap, but in the end, solar panels production releases more CO2 than nuclear, then it's of no use for CO2 emissions.
Post reply on HN