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

171–180 of 249 posts

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

#171

Post by mpweiher »

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 article does not explain why nuclear must be part of the energy solution.

1. "it generates baseload electricity with no output of carbon,"

2. "nuclear power plants operate at much higher capacity factors than renewable energy sources or fossil fuels."

3. "Third, nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source. "

Now you might not agree with the explanations, but to say it doesn't explain seems...incorrect.

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

#172

Post by Paradigma11 »

cybervegan wrote: post #114

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…

We regularly build mines 4km deep with no water for several km around. Where are these radioactive isotopes supposed to leak to and why should we care?

If you have suddenly contact with rock from 4km depth there are not many scenarios where it would matter if it's radioactive.

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

#173

Post by corty »

ketzu wrote: post #167
corty wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Yes, I agree completely. Nuclear can be safe and sensible, but we do need to get rid of a bunch of old crap first.

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

#174

Post by yodelshady »

jerven wrote: post #122
yodelshady wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they decided really well in Texas at $ 9,000 / MWh.

Do you think that the organizations that couldn't bother to take into account a 1 in 20 winter would build safe and secure nuclear? Also consider the amount of battery storage arriving onto the Texas grid in the next few years. If that would have been commissioned already, reconnecting neighbourhoods would have been much easier.

I don't need to think. Somebody provided several PWh - PWh - of energy with, in the US, simply no accidents worth worrying about, and on global scale still none that compare to the damage fossils have done.

That's not a hypothetical. It already happened.

I really, really aggressively don't care what grid storage salesmen claim. Put up a plan for the TWhs needed to cover a cold windless snap and we'll talk.

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

#175

Post by jerome-jh »

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…

Coal consumption is may be down in Germany but it is still huge (the 4th in the world). Of course GDP is up since coal is very cheap!

Germany is the elephant in the room of Europe. Because of it, it is impossible for Europe to pressure India and China to lower their coal consumption. And EU could pressure them: it is China's largest customer and outsources quite a bit to India. Overall coal is the major factor leading to a climatic overrun.

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

#176

Post by _nalply »

sofixa wrote: post #142
_nalply wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about nuclear vs coal but about nuclear vs renewables. Just shut down both coal and nuclear!

And what happens when there's a storm? Renewables alone can't provide all the power needed over extended periods of time without very significant storage, for which there is no large scale cost effective solution actually implemented.

Nuclear power also shuts down when there's significant disruption from nature. Nuclear power even might do something even worse than shutting down.

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

#177

Post by _nalply »

melling wrote: post #145
pumpkinpal wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Even with that, 20% of US electricity is still from nuclear. We managed to build these before the industry became expensive. Now Germany and the United States are rushing to close the operating plants. I’m not sure why we can’t figure out how to build a standard design and replicate it

Perhaps because that standard design didn't work out?

Even Switzerland is shutting down nuclear plants and they managed to build the longest railroad tunnel of the world without budget overruns and half a year before due date.

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

#178

Post by lapinot »

cameldrv wrote: post #92
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?

That's fine, but show your work. Nuclear gives us 24/7 reliable power. What is the cost comparison for renewables for the same product?

It's obvious that energy sources based on local meteo conditions don't have 24/7 reliability. The question is: how much of that reliability do we need? What would be possible if we did forgo some? Most of our industrial processes are optimized for pure efficiency (optimizing asymptotic behavior with no regard to constants), which is biased towards high-energy, constantly running chains and immense infrastructure. These need reliability. If we optimize for more smaller workloads, which can start/stop depending on local conditions (and power source), then we loose some efficiency in the process but gain a lot in the simplicity of the energy supply chain (which may in the end translate in lower/comparable overall energy consumption).

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

#179

Post by _nalply »

corty wrote: post #166
kdtsh wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 littl…

That's really interesting.

I am against nuclear power but upvoted your comment anyway.

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

#180

Post by MaxBarraclough »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #134
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?

Average lifetime of those batteries are about 7 years before a full replacement. Everyone also seems to clearly ignore how detrimental they are to the environment. There's huge swathes of toxic wastelands created from mining the materials needed. So cost, lifecycle and externalised environmental damage is what I would say is missing here. https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-tr... Late edit: Batt…

> Average lifetime of those batteries are about 7 years before a full replacement.

The significance of this is a function of our ability to recycle them.

Post reply on HN