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

211–220 of 249 posts

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

#211

Post by mFixman »

fsflover wrote: post #164
mFixman wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Is there any serious unpredictable danger for people living near Chernobyl?

The towns surrounding Chernobyl were completely evacuated. This can happen again.

In Germany, the government of Aachen is giving iodine tablets and asked its people to prepare for an eventual nuclear catastrophe because of the nearby nuclear power plant behind the border with Belgium [1]. The nuclear power station was designed to run 30 years, but 15 years after its expiration date there's no sign the Belgian government will close it.

I wouldn't trust any western government to not fall for the same "already built plant = free energy" trap the Belgian government fell into. We are better off admitting that and focusing on renewables instead of risking nuclear.

https://m.dw.com/en/german-city-of-aachen-offers-iodine-tabl...

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

#212

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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…

>Do we have to buy power from France or other neighbors in times of high demand? //

We don't need nuclear energy, except we need neighbours to use it for times of high demand??

Why is France selling us (UK and other nearby countries) all this nuclear generated electricity if, as you contend, it's entirely uneconomical and already replaced?

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

#213

Post by i_am_proteus »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #199
i_am_proteus wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Batteries for energy storage is already viable. Batteries are already cheaper than high voltage power lines. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...

In some markets. The author of this short essay makes many assumptions that trends will remain linear.

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

#214

Post by notacoward »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #172
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.

That is simply untrue. The deepest operational facilities - e.g. Morsleben and Schact Asse II in Germany, WIPP in the US - are less than 1000m. There are a handful of others under construction, even more under consideration, but even if those all became operational today "regularly" at 4km would be a drastic overstatement.

Even with the facilities that exist, there have been incidents and concerns about groundwater contamination over the truly long term that many of these isotopes require. You present it as a solved problem but in fact it's anything but.

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

#215

Post by jerome-jh »

toyg wrote: post #187
jerome-jh wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

India and China have a much larger population than Europe and the US. So the situation is not comparable to the time when Europe and the US did their industrial revolution. BRICs cannot act as if it is. There are many ways to apply pressure that are not necessarily adversarial. But of course if Europe does not lead the way in de-carbonating electricity it will automatically be perceived as adversarial.

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

#216

Post by _nalply »

dispat0r wrote: post #190
_nalply wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not so clear cut. Mühleberg near Berne has said that 2019 they didn't make profit, however the operator company BKW never published gains with that plant.

https://www.bernerzeitung.ch/region/kanton-bern/das-akw-mueh... (paywalled)

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

#217

Post by _nalply »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #183
_nalply wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

The problem are the future accidents with the left-overs of nuclear. They are simply uncountable because these are in the future.

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

#218

Post by bryanlarsen »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #213
bryanlarsen wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries for energy storage is already viable. Batteries are already cheaper than high voltage power lines. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...

In some markets. The author of this short essay makes many assumptions that trends will remain linear.

It doesn't matter. Both HVDC and batteries are cheaper than nuclear, by a lot.

The cost of solar, *including storage* is $40/MWh in Arizona *today*. Running that $40/MWh power to NY over HVDC is cheaper than a nuclear power plant. And according to the author, generating and storing the power in New York via solar or wind would be even cheaper.

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

#219

Post by pfdietz »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #133
lorenzhs wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. France, which doesn't really invest heavily in renewables is at 30% right now. Spain is at 60%, and most of Europe is around 40%. It's not exactly hard. Sure, Germany doesn't have some sources (hydro is an amazing source of power), but let's not p…

Rare earths are not required to build solar panels. Please stop repeating this canard.

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

#220

Post by ewindal »

pumpkinpal wrote: post #119
melling wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And we've failed doing that with software for longer, yet we still keep building software.
Post reply on HN