Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#61

Post by hilbert42 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:26 AM UTC

nickdothutton wrote: post #10

Realistically if we were going to go big on nuclear we needed to do so 30 years ago. In the UK at least, it takes decades for planning permission and more decades for design, build, commissioning, and finally entry of a reactor into operational service.

"In the UK at least, it takes decades for planning permission and more decades for design, build, commissioning, and finally entry of a reactor into operational service."

In France it's another matter altogether, there are nuclear power stations everywhere and about 70% of the country's energy comes from nuclear. (Years ago, during a conference I was at in Avignon we even had a tour of the nearby UF6 gaseous diffusion plant and it was almost considered matter of fact.)

Compared to anglophone counties like the US, UK, Australia and NZ, France is heavenly peaceful when it comes to establishing new nuclear plants.

Why is it that if one speaks English one's overly likely to object to nuclear power?

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#62

Post by bobthepanda » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:27 AM UTC

yCombLinks wrote: post #60

elihu wrote: post #50

I'd be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper, that's what's going to get built. Also, renewables don't require a high degree of trust in the human operators to manage risks appropriately. I think that's really the main sticking point with nuclear; reliable reactors can be made, but how do you manage the humans who maintain the plants in a way that's not susceptible to corru…

The problem is nuclear has been the affordable solution for decades and hasn't been built, due to politics.

Affordable by looking at any other measure than the balance sheet, maybe.

Nuclear plants that are on time and on budget are exceptions, not the rule.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#63

Post by Rebelgecko » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

zeptonix wrote: post #25

TheDudeMan wrote: post #9

California is prematurely closing its perfectly good nuclear reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Clos...

There have been several leaks and you know, maybe a state with a lot of earthquake activity isn't the best place to put a nuclear reactor.

How do the leaks compare to the continuous streams of coal ash and radon now that the load is being picked up by coal and natty plants?

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#64

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #43

gefhfff wrote: post #14

Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm

See, you can't "believe in climate change" and be against the cleanest, most abundant energy source we have: nuclear. It's just not a logically consistent position, a litmus test to determine if one's environmental advocacy is real or merely performative. That is why China has announced they're building 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years. The US will _inevitably_ have to follow suit to remain competitive.

China is investing far more in renewables than nukes - by 2030 the plan is for 7.7% of total energy from nukes vs 20% from renewables.

If you ignore the colourful but factually incorrect rhetoric and look at the reality, nuclear power is expensive compared to renewables, and renewables will only get cheaper over time.

But more importantly, when you consider a complete lifecycle analysis instead of cherry picking operational emissions and ignoring the rest, nukes are not a genuine low carbon energy source.

https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-...

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#65

Post by pirate787 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #41

gefhfff wrote: post #14

Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm

It is more expensive mostly because the government creates economic incentives for renewables, and disencentivises nuclear. Politicians act this way because public was taught by the militant ecoactivists that nuclear energy is baaaaaaad (better use coal, right), and now vote against politicians that support it.

The Fukushima disaster was a stark lesson that had nothing to do with "militant ecoactivists".

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#66

Post by elihu » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #54

elihu wrote: post #50

I'd be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper, that's what's going to get built. Also, renewables don't require a high degree of trust in the human operators to manage risks appropriately. I think that's really the main sticking point with nuclear; reliable reactors can be made, but how do you manage the humans who maintain the plants in a way that's not susceptible to corru…

> d be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper Cost is not just a single factor. Energy density is very important too. Solar farms take huge amounts of space to produce very little energy compared to a nuclear plant.

Solar farms can be pretty big, but we have the space for it. If you look at a map of the United States, there's a lot of land in the Southwest that gets a lot of sunlight and isn't usable for growing crops. It's an ecosystem, and anything that intrudes on that ecosystem will be somewhat disruptive, but as long as reasonable care is taken I don't see it as a problem to use a smallish fraction of that land for solar production.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#67

Post by erentz » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:33 AM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #52

m0zg wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, you can't "believe in climate change" and be against the cleanest, most abundant energy source we have: nuclear. It's just not a logically consistent position, a litmus test to determine if one's environmental advocacy is real or merely performative. That is why China has announced they're building 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years. The US will _inevitably_ have to follow suit to remain competitive.

China: * 50GW nuclear already in place, producing 5% of the gridpower. Previsions: up to 200GW in 2030. * 790GW renewables already in place, producing 26% of the gridpower. Previsions: 1200GW in 2030. In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of windpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

Interesting, that's a pretty good illustration of the low capacity factors of wind and solar given that renewables figure includes 356GW of hydro power. And it shows them increasing nuclear power 4x but renewables only 50% by 2030.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#68

Post by trinovantes » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:33 AM UTC

m0llusk wrote: post #59

engineer_22 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dirty little secret is that renewables are consumable. They wear out and have to be replaced. Like discount shoes: they're cheap, they don't look good, and you throw them away after a while.

The dirtier non secret is that all the critical parts of a nuclear reactor become radioactive waste. We still have no long term plan for dealing with the radioactive waste that had already been generated.

The heavy metals used in batteries and solar panels are also very toxic [1]. Only reason we don't talk about them is because they can be offshored since they can't be weaponized.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-...

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#69

Post by Rebelgecko » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

KarlKemp wrote: post #35

The International Monetary Fond, not known to be populated by treehugging hippies with naturalistic fallacies as a major character trait, published this beautiful graph: https://blogs.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/eng-april-4... Nuclear now costs three times as much as solar & wind! And that data ist from 2017. Both technologies are also not showing any slowdown in improvements, while nuclear tends to get more e…

I think it's misleading to compare peak nuclear generation against peak solar/wind- in order to be comparable with nuclear's baseload, renewables need to be built in conjunction with a boatload of batteries. Otherwise you just end up burning fossil fuels at night time.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#70

Post by hedora » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #54

elihu wrote: post #50

I'd be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper, that's what's going to get built. Also, renewables don't require a high degree of trust in the human operators to manage risks appropriately. I think that's really the main sticking point with nuclear; reliable reactors can be made, but how do you manage the humans who maintain the plants in a way that's not susceptible to corru…

> d be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper Cost is not just a single factor. Energy density is very important too. Solar farms take huge amounts of space to produce very little energy compared to a nuclear plant.

Also, solar apparently pollutes a heck of a lot more than nuclear.

It’s still > 100x better than fossil fuels, and I’m still putting some on my roof, but the figures in the article are surprising.