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

201–210 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#201

Post by sgc »

tarsinge wrote: post #155
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…

That’s just false. Here is an article (in French sorry) showing with real data from the grid how nuclear baseline adapt in real time to renewable production change: https://lenergeek.com/2019/03/07/mix-electrique-nucleaire-tr...

Interesting article. It shows that since nuclear is at least 3x faster to respond than wind power in France at the time of the study, its response time is more than adequate as a major part of the energy mix. However, even in France with their dozens of reactors, it is not fast enough to respond to more than 2/3 of peak demand changes (100MW/min of their peak 150MW/min change in demand).

It seems obvious that it's extremely useful to be able to produce so much electricity and reduce the need for fast switching power by 2/3. Surely 100MW/min of fast switching energy storage is not without its own massive environmental footprint, something that significantly reduces the calculated impact of nuclear.

If we could ramp up construction of solar, wind, and long range transmission capabilities to the point where they could effectively respond to all demand, we would not need to have a conversation. But in the midst of worldwide supply chain disruptions that will likely last for years, it seems irresponsible, even extremely irresponsible, to push aside the parallelization of additional low emission energy production capabilities. Seeing as this is all very time sensitive at this point, and the consequences of failure are likely a widespread collapse of society and suffering for generations.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#202

Post by LatteLazy »

theli0nheart wrote: post #195
LatteLazy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe. But until we have that first plant, it's too early to go for mass implimentiion.

I wish Musk would take a shot at it. He's the only engineer/financier/crazy-person who I think could make an impact. Government's clearly aren't interested and no one else can get the cash together.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#203

Post by raverbashing »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #171
adrianN wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of the statement that fossil fuels have been subsidized directly and by not paying for their externalities is wrong?

I didn’t say it’s wrong. I said it villianizes those fuels. We needed fuels as a society for those 3000 mile flights over the pacific that ships your iPhone here. Energy “subsidies” are a strategic investment in securing your lifestyle. Just look at Europe right now as they head into winter with sky high natural gas prices. They’d go ahead an strike any deal that secures their supplies so they do t freeze half to dea…

> I said it villianizes those fuels.

Oh no, heavily polluting (and not only CO2) energy sources are being villanized...

Yes, yes, I am going to villanize Coal, which spews more radioactivity than nuclear.

Natural Gas, Gasoline, Oil, are "ok"ish. Not coal.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#204

Post by poorjohnmacafee »

Hate to conclude but climate change has evolved into a self-serving political agenda for our elites and this is yet more evidence of that.

Nuclear is obviously renewable and proven. Flourocarbons - CFCs - HCFCs - HFCs - and other related are extremely aggressive GHGs yet all of those are not phased out (or in case of CFCs there's plenty of evidence (see Nature) that emission continues in non Western nations) but making it part of the debate gets stonewalled too.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#205

Post by toomuchtodo »

LatteLazy wrote: post #202
theli0nheart wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe. But until we have that first plant, it's too early to go for mass implimentiion. I wish Musk would take a shot at it. He's the only engineer/financier/crazy-person who I think could make an impact. Government's clearly aren't interested and no one else can get the cash together.

As he’s said numerous times, solar is fusion at a distance and solar combined with batteries is the future, both of which can be safely recycled and manufactured rapidly at scale. Tesla’s entire business is selling batteries to store clean energy for later use (either in vehicles or stationary storage), and enough sunlight hits the earth every 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. Lithium is abundant in the world’s crust, and there are no proliferation risks.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34396787/elon-musk... (Elon Musk Says the Sun Can Power All of Civilization. Of Course He's Right.)

“That free fusion reactor in the sky conveniently converts ~4 million tons of mass into energy every second. We just need to catch an extremely tiny amount of it to power all of civilization.”

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 16, 2020

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#206

Post by DennisP »

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 works fine with renewables. Use nuclear for the minimum demand level, since it's cheaper than batteries per kWh. Build enough solar on top to cover the extra demand during the day. For remaining discrepancies with demand, build the cheapest combination of storage, excess production, and load-following by nuclear (which is perfectly capable of that with modern reactors). Wind adds some randomization but on the other hand it's less likely to go down all at once over a whole continent, so probably doesn't hurt if the grid is large enough.

This assumes your goal is to meet energy demands reliably with clean power at the lowest possible overall system cost. If instead your goal is to maximize wind/solar no matter what, then of course nuclear doesn't fit in.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#207

Post by lostmyoldone »

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…

If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet.

Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent history of political leadership all over the world, and the baffling level of support even the most immature of policies have, it's clear we have a ways to go. Most people doesn't even seem to realize that as a species we've only just emerged, we're so young. Toddlers on any timescale but the most naïve and short sighted.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#208

Post by goodpoint »

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.

That would not solve risks around political instability or centralization of power or the environmental impact of the energy being created.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#209

Post by mabbo »

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.

But the bar will always be set higher and higher.

Oh, it's safer than all other reactors ever designed? Yeah, but it isn't PERFECT, is it? What if I ? Then it might be dangerous!

Oh, it has 1/10th the nuclear waste of all other reactors ever? But it STILL MAKES NUCLEAR WASTE.

Oh, it can be built at half the cost of previous reactors for twice the energy? THAT'S STILL WAY TOO MUCH.

And to be clear, I think renewables are major important part of the solution. But waiting for them to meet the demand that nuclear can hit immediately means decades of dirty energy generation. We need to do both renewables and nuclear right now.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#210

Post by pelasaco »

Well based in the history, the United Nations Climate Change conference, or COP, started at Germany in 1995. There Merkel should play a central role. Looking back on her time in the Ministry of the Environment. Fast forward to 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities. They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years. Add to it the (in)famous “German angst” caused after the Fukushima accident. With that narrative, built over the time, it will be very hard to change the actual scenario.
Post reply on HN