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

201–210 of 249 posts

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

#201

Post by bryanlarsen »

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.

Here's a project that's supplying energy at $40/MWh *including storage costs*

https://www.energy-storage.news/news/developer-8minute-says-...

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

#202

Post by dispat0r »

Hammershaft wrote: post #139
corty wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

The idea that in a few years germany could be opening multiple lignite coal mines to replace falling renewable output makes me incredibly anxious about our chances of transitioning away from fossil fuels at all. I've argued it in other places in this thread, but I really think the only solution we have right now for clean baseline power is nuclear energy.

Fully agree but this will not happen and it's also too late building nuclear plants takes decades and the know how to construct them is also gone in Germany. We will try to shut off coal plants until we get a huge blackout then we go back to coal.

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

#203

Post by chrisdinn »

dalbasal wrote: post #162
chrisdinn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

You’re definitely right by that measure. There’s a famous hydro energy deal between the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec in Canada where in the 1960s Newfoundland agreed to provide hydro power in a long term contract (80 years?) for what is now a fraction of its value. It’s viewed as an enormous boondoggle (“Churchill Falls”) but what most don’t realize is it was signed under the expectation that the coming wave of cheap, abundant nuclear would make hydro power uncompetitive.

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

#204

Post by notacoward »

Perhaps some form of nuclear power can be part of a sustainable energy solution, but that doesn't mean expanding nuclear power is a good idea right now. Building, running, and maintaining a nuclear power plant is a formidable engineering challenge. So is dealing with its waste. The biggest fallacy is that just because we've been able to get by with temporary waste storage and haven't had a disaster so far we'd be able to deal with much more over much longer periods of time. Nobody who's serious about this or any other topic just assumes infinite scalability. Show proof or GTFO.

With newer plant designs and better waste handling we can come back to considering expansion of nuclear. AFAIK there are just too many problems still unsolved, so that would be premature. In the here and now solar and wind seem vastly preferable. Also, the remaining problems with wave/tidal power, while far from trivial, seem likely to be solved before the remaining problems with nuclear. If that happens, there's no reason to take any risk with nuclear.

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

#205

Post by mzmoen »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #197
paranoidrobot wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... […

Base load generation is unnecessary, the only type of power that's needed is dispatchable or peak power. If you can meet demand at peak, you can meet demand in the trough too. All other power types are added to the grid to increase affordability, reliability or green credentials. Neither wind nor nuclear are suitable to use for peak power.

This assumes that you're power generation always matches demand through time. If you had a sudden spike at night that you don't usually have (like in Texas where people kicked on their heat unexpectedly) and you were using solar, the mismatch would exist and you wouldn't be able to meet the load.

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

#206

Post by magikaram »

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…

I happened to read an article a few weeks back regarding Aluminum-Air batteries, and a potential use in EVs, yet while they might not be ideal for EVs, a potential ability for use in the grid might be convenient.

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

#207

Post by lorenzhs »

DrBazza wrote: post #182
lorenzhs wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 60…

It's mostly cautionary but a problem for forest management because it means that the radioactivity of game has to be checked and it often can't be sold. I've eaten the mushrooms in question (self-picked) and would do it again. They're delicious. But my region also wasn't particularly hard-hit by the Chernobyl fallout.

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

#208

Post by dalbasal »

chrisdinn wrote: post #203
dalbasal wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

You’re definitely right by that measure. There’s a famous hydro energy deal between the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec in Canada where in the 1960s Newfoundland agreed to provide hydro power in a long term contract (80 years?) for what is now a fraction of its value. It’s viewed as an enormous boondoggle (“Churchill Falls”) but what most don’t realize is it was signed under the expectation that the coming wave…

That's a really demonstrative example. I love trying to see the present from the viewpoint of the past. I feel like it sharpens the quality of my subjective judgement more than anything else.

I was quite obsessed with Keynes' famous 15 hr workweek prediction as a student.

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

#209

Post by bjourne »

dispat0r wrote: post #191
bjourne wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/arti…

You're arguing in bad faith. Yes the new reactors are expensive and late but also a new class EPR. There is also no plan from France to transation away from nuclear.

Ok, so the delays and cost overruns at Flamanville were caused by a new reactor type (and this wasn't factored into the original budget estimates I presume?). What were the cause for the delays and cost overruns at Hinkley Point, Olkiluoto, and Vogtle? France aims to reduce nuclear's share of its electricity output from 75% to 50% by 2035. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-edf-idUSKBN1ZK0RL We will see what happens, but given the record-low electricity prices and the Flamanville fiasco, France's nuclear phaseout may go even quicker.

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

#210

Post by bryanlarsen »

mzmoen wrote: post #205
bryanlarsen wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Base load generation is unnecessary, the only type of power that's needed is dispatchable or peak power. If you can meet demand at peak, you can meet demand in the trough too. All other power types are added to the grid to increase affordability, reliability or green credentials. Neither wind nor nuclear are suitable to use for peak power.

This assumes that you're power generation always matches demand through time. If you had a sudden spike at night that you don't usually have (like in Texas where people kicked on their heat unexpectedly) and you were using solar, the mismatch would exist and you wouldn't be able to meet the load.

Exactly. You need natgas peakers (that aren't frozen) or charged batteries to deal with this. Nuclear, wind and solar are all unsuitable for this situation.
Post reply on HN