Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

world-nuclear-news.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#191

Post by LatteLazy »

lokimedes wrote: post #182

As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…

The first person to build a safe, economic, waste free reactor will be a billionaire. But so far that hasn't happened.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#192

Post by go_elmo »

xvilka wrote: post #188

Basically it is just a worthless and meaningless event. "Bla-bla" as per Greta Thunberg.

While it is bla bla it is necessary. How else would you establish political pressure in a democracy? Many green transition tech would be feasible if co2 taxes were established, even within the eu.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#193

Post by doikor »

ddulaney wrote: post #52
japanuspus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument does not make a lot of sense without detailing which power sources that can turn on and off quickly you are talking about. The only ones I can think of are hydro and gas-powered thermal? So you want natural gas over nuclear? On the other hand, your comment presumes that there is such a thing as too much power. Once hydrolyzers mature, we could use all of the current renewable power in Europe just for pr…

In addition to hydro and fossil fuels, (most) energy storage setups are quickly dispatchable. I don’t think the question is “is natural gas better than nuclear?”. It’s more “nuclear isn’t quickly dispatchable, which is what we need”. It’s not that gas is better than nuclear, it’s that they solve two different problems. Solar and wind need something to fill gaps when production fluctuates. Today that can be hydro or f…

> “nuclear isn’t quickly dispatchable, which is what we need”

> something needs to turn on in the next 5 minutes or streetlights start going out. Right now, nuclear isn’t capable of filling that niche.

Depends on the reactor. A single ~1GW reactor should be able to adjust its output up by 150MW or so in 5 minutes. If you have multiple that number multiplies obviously.

For example a typical reactor in France with a max output of 1300MW can be adjusted all the way down to 400MW within 30 minutes (and up to max 1300MW output from minimumn 400MW in the same time). If they could not do that there is no way France could generate 70%+ of their electricity with nuclear.

(obviously the reactor has to be designed with the goal of being adjustable for it to be able to do this. France started to do this in the 80s)

edit: Though because the vast majority of the costs of running a nuclear power plant is in building/maintaining it and running it at max vs min output costs the same amount of money most owners want to run their reactor at max output always.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#194

Post by LatteLazy »

This is the 26th agreement to do nothing about the problem. And that doesn't count a bunch of separate but related agreements like Paris.

It's time for local adaption and mitigation. Forget saving the world, save your own corner of it. Or move to a saveable one.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#195

Post by theli0nheart »

LatteLazy wrote: post #191
lokimedes wrote: post #182

As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…

The first person to build a safe, economic, waste free reactor will be a billionaire. But so far that hasn't happened.

And it never will if people who are afraid of it remain in charge.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#196

Post by dv_dt »

japanuspus wrote: post #10
arrrg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…

This argument does not make a lot of sense without detailing which power sources that can turn on and off quickly you are talking about. The only ones I can think of are hydro and gas-powered thermal? So you want natural gas over nuclear? On the other hand, your comment presumes that there is such a thing as too much power. Once hydrolyzers mature, we could use all of the current renewable power in Europe just for pr…

Batteries turn on and off quickly

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#197

Post by i_am_proteus »

arrrg wrote: post #6
chuckee wrote: post #3

It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…

>Nuclear emphatically cannot provide that. This is a falsehood. Nuclear plants can and do load-follow.

They typically are run as close to 100% as possible because so much of the cost of the plant is divorced from the power output at any one time. Framed a different way, they are somewhat more expensive to idle or run at lower utilization fractions than other sources of electricity. But they certainly can (and do) operate this way when needed.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#198

Post by GCU-Empiricist »

arrrg wrote: post #6
chuckee wrote: post #3

It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…

So the power supply used to change the speed of nuclear warships from bare steerageway to 30+kts rather quickly is not responsive to changes in demand? Friend you seem to have some conceptual errors.

There is a lot of things you need to do if you take a plant out of operation, and there is a significant amount of decay heat from fission products that does require external power (basically what caused fukashima's fires) to cool over days if you turn a plant off, but you are oversimplifying solved engineering challenges to present them as intractable challenges.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#200

Post by jrochkind1 »

> We are deeply concerned about the news that every application on nuclear energy for the Green Zone at the upcoming COP26 conference has been rejected

I don't understand what this means. What's an "application for the Green Zone at the upcoming COP26"? "Green zone"? What, is this a military occupation?

OK:

> The Green Zone is the ‘official’ fringe space (managed by the UK government), with around 200 events for the general public, civil society, youth groups and academia. Tickets are free.

--https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/an-architects-guide...

> The Green Zone is managed by the UK Government, and is a platform for the general public, youth groups, civil society, academia, artists, business and others to have their voices heard through events, exhibitions, workshops and talks that promote dialogue, awareness, education and commitments.

> …The Green Zone will be a stakeholder-led space and act as a key hub for engagement during the Summit. As such we are keen to see proposals that drive participation and interaction focused on the themes of climate change

>…In the Green Zone a number of exhibition spaces are available for organisations. As a public-facing venue, we are keen to receive proposals that engage audiences with the themes of climate change and climate action through interaction and participation. We see this two week showcase zone as a hub of tactile and immersive activity.

> …The Green Zone aims to facilitate discussion and engagement, and we’ve heard how important it is for organisations to have a focal point for convening attendees and having conversations. A number of stalls will be provided free of charge to use for one or two days, depending on demand, over the course of the Summit. These are spaces for dialogue and conversation, and might be of interest specifically for NGOs, trade bodies, and youth organisations.

—https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Stakeholder-i...

"Green Zone", really? OK, anyways.

Post reply on HN