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

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#141

Post by blibble » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:29 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #128

stjohnswarts wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Easily processed uranium will last us 80 years at current consumption rates. If you start building current nuclear reactor designs everywhere, we'll run out of it in less than 40 years. Then the price will skyrocket, and nuclear is already more expensive than renewables. We need different nuclear reactors, fast reactors or thorium that use uranium more efficiently to stave this off, but they're more dangerous and sti…

the UK has enough civil plutonium (extracted from waste) for several hundred years, without digging anything up

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#142

Post by zarzavat » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:30 AM UTC

UncleOxidant wrote: post #105

arberx wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's near two fault lines... "Though it was built less than a mile from the Shoreline fault line, which was not known to exist at the time of construction, and is located less than three miles from the Hosgri fault,"

So it probably wasn't constructed with proximity to a fault in mind. Still, just about everyplace in California is near a fault line.

Anybody who is a fan of nuclear power should be against operating them in earthquake zones. Just look at how much Fukushima set back nuclear power.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#143

Post by lukeschlather » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:30 AM UTC

elihu wrote: post #92

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.

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 t…

Nuclear can compete purely on cost with coal. Which is fundamentally the problem. A decade ago nuclear was still legitimately the cheapest source of power but the economics have totally changed and now coal is not profitable and nuclear is likely on the way out.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#144

Post by gefhfff » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:32 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.

Look at global prices: https://amp.dw.com/en/nuclear-climate-mycle-schneider-renewa...

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#145

Post by naasking » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

elihu wrote: post #92

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.

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 t…

From what I've read, most cost and time overruns from nuclear are due to lots of design revisions during construction to make site-specific adaptations that need to be intensively reviewed, approved, revised, over and over again. Small modular reactors are designed to address this since they're preassembled at the factory and small enough that you can easily just move the reactor to adjust for any site adaptations. Unfortunately still years away from approval.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#146

Post by rsj_hn » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #143

elihu wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Nuclear can compete purely on cost with coal. Which is fundamentally the problem. A decade ago nuclear was still legitimately the cheapest source of power but the economics have totally changed and now coal is not profitable and nuclear is likely on the way out.

how are you getting that coal is not profitable? Demand for coal is at an all time high. Check out coal prices.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal

We are also producing more coal than ever before (modulo the dip during covid lockdowns), and coal use is projected to increase:

"Global coal production is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.3% between 2021 and 2025 to reach 8.8 billion t in 2025. While thermal coal production is expected to have a relatively marginal 2% CAGR to reach 7549.6 million t, metallurgical coal is forecast to register stronger growth of 4.2% per year, to reach 1216.9 million t in 2025."[1]

[1]https://www.world-energy.org/article/17139.html

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#147

Post by erentz » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:33 AM UTC

weatherlight wrote: post #121

erentz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the fossil fuel industry wants nuclear power? How do they benefit? They appear to have gained immensely from the halt of nuclear power deployment in the west. E.g. France famously decarbonised it's electric grid in a couple of decades after 1970s due to the energy crisis using nuclear power. How did this help fossil fuel companies? On the other hand, Germany has continued to be more reliant on coal a…

Electricity is only 28% of global emissions. If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world’s electricity from about 445 power reactors. This isn't hard math.

> Electricity is only 28% of global emissions.

Then how do you intend to decarbonize other energy uses without electricity? Want to replace gas furnaces with heat pumps? electricity. Produce hydrogen for shipping or CO2 free steel? Electricity. Charge everyones car battery? Electricity. So on, right?

> This isn't hard math.

Or 4 billion years:

https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-...

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#148

Post by sfifs » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:33 AM UTC

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…

Nuclear is socially and therefore politically non-viable because

(1) When nuclear accidents happen, they suddenly overturn the lives of a LOT of commoners all at once as opposed to slow and creeping and often "statistically determined" impact of other energy tech

(2) technocrats have consistently failed to demonstrate the ability to create organisations that over the long term prioritize safety and the ability to prevent accidents over all else (maybe with the exception of US Naval Reactors org - but who knows given the secracy)

People instinctively get this now. Fukushima was especially a bad shakeup because "if even the Japanese can't do safety right, why would we trust the dumb nerds we went to school with to be able to do so".

We should move on and focus on other clean energy tech, scaling up storage tech and stop wasting time and energy debating fission. And Maybe figure out a rebranding for "nuclear fusion" whenever it works (hopefully within my lifetime) assuming it's safety profile is better.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#149

Post by alfor » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:34 AM UTC

Was the best solution, not anymore.

Solar wind and batteries are coming fast. Today, they are already the cheaper to build and operate But the price of batteries keep on getting lower.

I think that in 5-10 years with very few exception all new generation will be from solar and wind.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#150

Post by dd36 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:34 AM UTC

mrjangles wrote: post #78

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…

Solar, wind plus batteries (and other intermittent sources) are only cheaper because it is subsidized by the base power stations. Only about 20% of the cost of coal and 5% of nuclear comes from the fuel. Almost all costs are fixed costs. They need to be paid regardless of whether people use the power or not. But in the current system, those who use solar or wind and only use base power occasionally aren't paying thos…

Home solar also doesn’t have to support transmission and distribution lines.