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

181–190 of 249 posts

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

#181

Post by konjin »

audunw wrote: post #71
edbob wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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 largest such example cost $100 million and can run the state grid it's connected to for 7 minutes.

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

#182

Post by DrBazza »

lorenzhs wrote: post #101
DrBazza wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The 1952 Great Smog of London [0] caused 4000 deaths due to coal burning over FIVE DAYS. Not quite like for like, but the Chernobyl Exclusion zone is about 1000 sq. miles, which is approximate the same size as (modern) London. The UN predicts that possibly 4000…

"As a result of the Chernobyl reactor accident, certain species of mushrooms and wild game are still highly contaminated with caesium-137 in some areas of Germany." https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush... , from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection.

Ultimately it says this:

> If wild game or wild growing mushrooms are consumed in usual amounts, the additional radiation exposure is comparatively low but it can be avoided. Those who wish to reduce their personal exposure should not eat wild game self-hunted or mushrooms self-picked in the most affected areas of Germany.

and

> In Germany it is not permitted to market food with a radiocaesium content of more than 600 becquerel per kilogram.

and

> In the last years values of up to several thousand becquerel per kilogram were measured in wild game and certain edible mushrooms.

So isn't this is just cautionary, rather than a significant health risk?

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

#183

Post by ohgodplsno »

_nalply wrote: post #176
sofixa wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It took a tsunami on an unmaintained nuclear power plant to cause Fukushima.

It took the russians lifting off _every single security mechanism_ to cause Chernobyl.

The ojer major incidents like Three Mile Island are just "well, security measures have failed, we didn't have enough fallbacks. It's broken now. Light irradiation around but nothing major".

So, no, nuclear power doesn't stop for anything but the absolute worst conditions. As for the "doing even worse" part, two can play that game: hydro is renewable and yet killed hundreds of thousands. Oh no, stop hydro!

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

#184

Post by paranoidrobot »

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.

> wind isn't capable of base load supply.

I'm sorry, but really: Citation required on that claim.

There's plenty of counter positions[1][2][3] which say that if you assume 'base load' is a genuine thing, that renewables, including wind, are capable of meeting all our power generation needs - through a mix of energy sources, and also energy storage.

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-ene...

[2] https://theconversation.com/renewable-energy-can-provide-bas...

[3] https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/baseload-ene...

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

#186

Post by hntrader »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #184
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.

> wind isn't capable of base load supply. I'm sorry, but really: Citation required on that claim. There's plenty of counter positions[1][2][3] which say that if you assume 'base load' is a genuine thing, that renewables, including wind, are capable of meeting all our power generation needs - through a mix of energy sources, and also energy storage. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-ene... […

> and also energy storage.

Precisely, that's my point. The costings of the OP ignore that part.

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

#187

Post by toyg »

jerome-jh wrote: post #175
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 leadin…

Europe and US would still not have an ideological high ground even if they fully decommissioned coal. They built their wealth on coal, so from the perspective of BRIC and other still-industrializing countries they would (and in fact already do) appear like they are just trying to pull up the drawbridge. Pressuring developing countries to stop using coal is a lost cause, and will only increase enmity.

What we really have to do is to make alternatives so cheap and reliable, that coal looks like the stupid choice. Renewables can even be sold to certain poor areas (like deserts) as a great chance for an economic leap.

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

#188

Post by dispat0r »

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?

> improving in capacity at immense rates There is almost no increase in capacity at least not without making the batteries bigger.

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

#189

Post by konjin »

yokaze wrote: post #159
realusername wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly doubt there's that many places where you can build some hydro plants which haven't been used yet. At least there's approximately none in Europe. That's fine as a philosophical thought but in reality, all the hydro capacity is already used.

I merely wanted to disprove the hypothesis "no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365" by example. I am not making an argument that we should go all-in on hydro power instead. Quite the contrary, I am arguing against a single source of power, but a diversification.

Are you interested in my hamster wheel solution?

I'm not arguing that we should go 100% hamster, but not having it be part of the energy mix going forward is dangerous since we need the diversification of energy sources.

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

#190

Post by dispat0r »

_nalply wrote: post #177
melling wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Switzerland it's a political decision same as Germany it has nothing todo with cost or the ability to run the plants.
Post reply on HN