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

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#91

Post by rsj_hn » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:45 AM UTC

lizknope wrote: post #89

Does the US really need more electricity generation? Electricity use is stable or even dropping although 2020 may be an outlier. Electric cars will change this though. At a personal level I use significantly less electricity now compared to 15 years ago. HVAC replacement, insulation upgrades, computer and consumer electronics power reductions, lowered my summer electric bill by 40% https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a…

I guess that depends on whether you believe electric vehicles will be a thing.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#92

Post by elihu » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:45 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.

I imagine there are probably ways to make nuclear power cheaper than it is without sacrificing safety, but can it compete purely on cost with solar and wind, or even coal and natural gas?

If you have a plan to fix the regulatory environment in a way that makes it cheaper than fossil fuels (ignoring long term hidden costs of fossil fuel use), then by all means advocate for that. I just think that we shouldn't assume that the technical, economic, and political hurdles will be overcome. Wind and solar are the cheapest option we have right now, so I think that's what we should plan to use. If another better option becomes available we can use it too. I just don't think we should put our eggs in the "nuclear will save us" basket. Maybe it could, but maybe it won't and we need a plan B.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#93

Post by natmaka » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:45 AM UTC

trinovantes wrote: post #68

m0llusk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Batteries: huge recycling projects ( such as https://northvolt.com/ ) are moving forward and the market is ready: in many industrial nations battery-equipped vehicles and buildings are already recycled, not thrown in a trashcan.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#94

Post by natmaka » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:47 AM UTC

throwaway821909 wrote: post #32

willis936 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too late in what sense? The problems time out and solve themselves?

Renewables got cheaper to the point where it's not competitive Counter-argument: Wind and sun are unreliable Counter-counter-argument: Why not build 10x the amount of wind and solar if it's so cheap, and automatically break the circuit when not needed?

Even better: when produced energy is not needed... store it, in order to use it when production is insufficient.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#95

Post by Godel_unicode » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:49 AM UTC

lizknope wrote: post #89

Does the US really need more electricity generation? Electricity use is stable or even dropping although 2020 may be an outlier. Electric cars will change this though. At a personal level I use significantly less electricity now compared to 15 years ago. HVAC replacement, insulation upgrades, computer and consumer electronics power reductions, lowered my summer electric bill by 40% https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a…

Even if that's true (and according to the EIA total generation has been approximately flat for like 10 years) there's still the roughly 20% of generation which is done by burning coal. Replacing that with nuclear makes a meaningful change in total carbon emissions.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#96

Post by mrjangles » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:49 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #62

yCombLinks wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read an excellent article written in Physics Today by a nuclear physicist once. For the life of me I have never been able to find it again. But he describes this in detail.

Basically, in his description this is entirely due to the environmental movement. Any time a nuclear plant gets planned the green groups move in a mountain of lawyers and lock down the process for years and years. The costs this adds to the projects are staggering and it is solely because of this that nuclear power can't be built in the US. In Europe, people have no problem building nuclear cheaply and on time.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#97

Post by qweqwweqwe-90i » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:50 AM UTC

jyounker wrote: post #18

qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to the "Friends of the Earth" and "Natural Resources Defense Council" for pushing us to coal, natural gas, and blackouts... Also raising rates to pay for the premature decomissioning. ' https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-scrambles-to-find-el...

The blackouts are because of fire-risk from transmission lines, and this is largely because PGE paid out bonuses instead of paying for needed repairs to the transmission system. This group of corrupt execs are the same people entrusted to make safety and maintenance decisions for Diablo Canyon.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/corporations/pacific-gas-el...

"PG&E paid top execs $17 million in bonuses from 2012 to 2017"

You really think 17 million would have made a difference? Is that enough money to even bury 1 mile of transmission lines at Californian's exorbitant infrastructure cost?

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#98

Post by UncleOxidant » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

lizknope wrote: post #89

Does the US really need more electricity generation? Electricity use is stable or even dropping although 2020 may be an outlier. Electric cars will change this though. At a personal level I use significantly less electricity now compared to 15 years ago. HVAC replacement, insulation upgrades, computer and consumer electronics power reductions, lowered my summer electric bill by 40% https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a…

> Electric cars will change this though.

Yes, this is what we have to plan for. 20 to 30% of new cars sold in the US will be electric by 2030 (I suspect it'll even be higher than that). Projected to be 45% to 50% by 2035. We'll need more generation and some major grid improvements.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#99

Post by santjego » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:54 AM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #72

shirro wrote: post #40

Nuclear is one of a number of alternatives that needs to be seriously considered but due to the long timelines and high costs of nuclear it is also one of the best stalling tactics for the fossil fuel industry seeking to extend the life of their assets. Possible increased adoption of nuclear in the future is not a reason to avoid setting sunset dates for emitting technologies now and commence transition to whatever l…

We can't afford to wait or not to hedge our bets. Nuclear is a hell of a hedge since we know it works. We know the French model works really well, but for some reason we, the country with the most heavily armed forces in the world, can't "protect" it. BS, moneyed interests and tree huggers are keeping us from fixing the problem until fusion comes along or uber cheap battery density 100x better than what we have curre…

I can't imagine any type of plant I'd like built in a mad rush less than a nuclear power one. I am not against it, but it is not a magic bullet, either.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#100

Post by natmaka » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:54 AM UTC

rsj_hn wrote: post #71

natmaka wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of windpower. The problem here is that China's share of total energy from renewables has decreased from about 33% in 1990 to 13% in 2018[1]. Solar and Wind are not particularly useful given they are unreliable. Hydro is useful as it is reliable, but after the three gorges dam project, there isn't a lot left on the table in terms of hydro for China. Note that this is not because Chin…

> this is not because China is reducing renewables but rather it's energy needs are increasing so rapidly.

This is key (also: in the graph hydro isn't accounted for), and the reason why the current observed trend (huge push to renewables, increasing their share despite the rapid energy needs increase) is another key.

> Solar and Wind are not particularly useful given they are unreliable

Their variability can be reduced, maybe even totally compensated, by various methods: continental-scale deployment of wind turbines, using a mix of sources (wind, solar, biomass...), storage, smartgrid...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211... shows that is is true in Europe (quote: ""we demonstrate that the European energy system would strongly profit from exploiting the implications of these regimes for continent-scale wind generation patterns."), and maybe also for China (quote: "Liu et al. investigated wind energy complementarity across China, demonstrating that whereas a combination of wind and solar resources over a given area reduces the occurrence of zero-power hours, wind resources alone are sufficient to provide baseline power production, if a large enough area is considered.")