All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected • Hacker News Board

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#351

Post by xyzzy_plugh » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #274

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that there is abundant solar opportunity at the planet-level, but it's unrealistic to build infrastructure to funnel energy from eligible deserts to the rest of North America. Here where the sky is cloudy as much as it is sunny, and clear even less, and where it snows, solar works but isn't reasonable to replace all power needs at an individual, county or state level. The logistics involved are much…

HVDC transmission, pumped storage where the geography allows for it, and grid interconnectors allow for moving power between geographies. Seasonal deltas are solved for with overbuilding renewables and curtailment when there is oversupply. If nuclear was easy, it’d be done, but it isn’t because it is the more complex, more expensive technology. The sun is free and requires no human management. I cannot stress enough…

> If nuclear was easy, it’d be done

It is done? It is easy? My power needs are completely served right now by hydroelectric and nuclear.

Just because you don't have nuclear reactors in your neighborhood doesn't mean they're more out of reach than solar. HVDC is already widely available. Grid interconnects are mostly political.

We looked at installing PV on a semi-remote home and it was not feasible. The roof was only large enough for a few panels and significant tree removal would've been necessary. The cost was prohibitive.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#352

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

domsom wrote: post #121

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is totally economically viable. It's not viable in the current regulatorily climate. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will return profits for 80 years is an easy financial decision. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will be shut down by moonbats every 4 years when the next batch of princess unicorns is voted into office is not economically viable.

Indeed the regulatory climate is missing to put the costs of handling nuclear waste onto the producers. I doubt it would be economically viable to operate a nuclear plant if those costs were fully factored in.

What about factoring in costs of handing carbon waste onto fossil industry or costs of having no power due to weather onto renewables?

Each power source has disadvantages, and this bickering isn't helping.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#353

Post by fulafel » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

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…

Nucleat actually can do load following quite well, and it's used that way in some places.

But of course this makes it even more expensive per MWh as the utilization drops but the mostly fixed costs don't.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#354

Post by vmchale » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #87

ianai wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when the incumbent, fossil fuel energy, has been propped up by subsidies and unpaid externalities for centuries.

Please don’t fall for the villianization that the media adopt to push an agenda. Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish. Fossil fuels have one of the highest energy densities and hence have been used for ages. We have much to be thankful for thanks to fossil fuels being around. We are in a position today to bring change and I’m all for that. Losing sight of the benefits of energy simply because some sou…

> Fossil fuels have one of the highest energy densities and hence have been used for ages. We have much to be thankful for thanks to fossil fuels being around.

far lower than nuclear

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#355

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

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…

"Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide that."

There is an illogical assumption underlying this claim - if both power sources are zero-carbon, why does it matter which one we turn off? Why do have to turn off nuclear instead of disconnecting a wind turbine? What difference does it make?

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#356

Post by nitrogen » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

Goety wrote: post #288

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don’t fall for the villianization that the media adopt to push an agenda. Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish. Fossil fuels have one of the highest energy densities and hence have been used for ages. We have much to be thankful for thanks to fossil fuels being around. We are in a position today to bring change and I’m all for that. Losing sight of the benefits of energy simply because some sou…

>Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish. Energy is needed for basic modern services. Humans have survived a long time without electricity. It could be simpler to 'go without' or 'find a workaround' for a lot of conveniences if we were serious at combating climate change.

Not for eight billion people. Just look at what happens when we stop loading trucks for a little while. Now imagine if you expanded all that "going without" to everything that uses energy. You'd have days at most before mass chaos.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#357

Post by drclau » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

neither_color wrote: post #235

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #83

That's how you know none of this is real. If mankind was actually on the brink of extinction all options would be on the table. Especially one that offers free unlimited energy. Mankind does not have an energy generation problem. It only has an energy storage problem.

That's how I interpreted it. If the end of the world was being triggered in 10 years we would use any and all options at our disposal, even experimental ones, all concurrently. We have enough labor and resources to go all in on energy production.

I think what you see, and quite likely misinterpret, is world leaders who are still waking up to the issue. I think most of them have not yet fully internalized what the climate crisis truly means (and even if they do, maybe some just are not able to care enough). It is good they at least are starting to do so, and I hope they won't lose momentum.

The climate crisis is likely the greatest challenge humankind has faced so far. I am starting to think that only true SF fans can actually process this information. It seems one needs to have thought about it for a while before being hit with this information (existential threat to our civilization), to be able to process it fast. SF may have provided people with the prerequisites to understand the situation. Or, alternatively, maybe people who are capable of thinking far into the future are drawn to SF.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#358

Post by foepys » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:04 PM UTC

doikor wrote: post #193

ddulaney wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

France and Germany stabilize each other's nets. There actually isn't really a "French" or "German net" anymore as all European countries are very tightly connected nowadays.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#359

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

Kon5ole wrote: post #311

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…

Earth gets hit by 170 000 TW of sunshine every hour. That's more than the yearly global consumption of energy. If we could capture only 1% of that, we'd have 80 times more than we need, from just the sunshine reaching earth. This makes the photovoltaic cell and related technologies more interesting than nuclear to me. A way more abundant energy source with none of the downsides of nuclear is clearly within our reach.…

"If we could capture only 1% of that, we'd have 80 times more than we need"

Should people abandon Norway, Greenland and Iceland?

Hypotheticals which ignore all trade-offs and drawbacks are not very usefull.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#360

Post by vmchale » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

yodelshady wrote: post #248

At some point, you have to wonder: why does the nuclear industry seem to just suck at lobbying? The wind lobby has professionals who made the case to people who matter. That's not evil, that's your - the industries - job . At a high level the nuclear industry, sorry to say, honestly doesn't care. It's the Boeing of the energy world, except even more so: wring every last drop out of dead tech, and never invest a cent.

It's hard for scientists to go against negative press - here coming from the oil lobby etc. Smears and lies.