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

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#151

Post by gefhfff » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:36 AM UTC

corban1 wrote: post #130

Krasnol wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We know the French model works really well It works so "well" that the French taxpayer will have to pay the UK so they can deliver their guaranteed energy prices the over-due and over budget reactor they desperately try to finish will generate. It's so fantastic that every summer they have to buy dirty coal energy from Germany because their rivers get too hot and every winter because...it's too cold and their agein…

France €0.1765 per kWh 57.3 gCO2/KWh (2019) | Germany €0.3159 (+76.9%) per kWh 468 (+816%) gCO2/KWh (2019) Seems the success is very clearly visible both environmentally and economically? [0] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190067/carbon-intensity... [2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/co2...

Correlation is not causation

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#152

Post by yCombLinks » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:36 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…

It is the solution to the climate change problem caused by coal and natural gas. Competing with their price should not be in the equation. Your second paragraph seems hostile, no, I don't have a plan and won't submit one.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#153

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:38 AM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #142

UncleOxidant wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was careless lack of protection against flooding. The quake itself didn't threaten containment.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#154

Post by naasking » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:42 AM UTC

rsj_hn wrote: post #134

natmaka wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is those battery costs that make solar lose the price advantage, so yeah, it's a problem.

Solar is now so much cheaper than everything else that I find your claim hard to believe.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#155

Post by dd36 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:42 AM UTC

mrjangles wrote: post #96

bobthepanda wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proj…

Astroturfing by fossil fuel companies.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#156

Post by throwoutway » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:44 AM UTC

sfifs wrote: post #148

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 pre…

> (maybe with the exception of US Naval Reactors org - but who knows given the secracy)

Then perhaps the US Navy and their US Navy Corps of Engineers need to be tasked with building & maintaining a system of land-based reactors

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#157

Post by mlyle » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:44 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…

> 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.

This is a little pessimistic: these numbers rely on current proven reserves without reprocessing. Of course, if you want to use a bunch more uranium, prices will go up and the number of proven reserves will increase. This won't necessarily take a massive price swing-- heck, even at current prices new reserves will continue to be found.

> Then the price will skyrocket, and nuclear is already more expensive than renewables.

Fuel is a negligible portion of the cost of nuclear. You could triple the cost of fuel without materially impacting the operating costs of a reactor, and the overall costs of nuclear energy are not dominated by operating costs, but instead capital costs.

And, we're leaving out that reprocessing fuel is possible and proven (though there are proliferation concerns0.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#158

Post by mlyle » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:46 AM UTC

gefhfff wrote: post #151

corban1 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France €0.1765 per kWh 57.3 gCO2/KWh (2019) | Germany €0.3159 (+76.9%) per kWh 468 (+816%) gCO2/KWh (2019) Seems the success is very clearly visible both environmentally and economically? [0] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190067/carbon-intensity... [2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/co2...

Correlation is not causation

??? we're talking about the economic cost and carbon output of energy vs. how it is generated. Do you think there's some other common factor that explains France using lots of nuclear power and having a low carbon footprint and energy costs?

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#159

Post by m0zg » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:46 AM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #100

rsj_hn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reduc…

I guess we'll see, since China knows that GDP is directly tied to energy, and they are pursuing "all of the above" strategy. We've been pursuing the "make Al Gore rich" strategy so far.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#160

Post by benjamir » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 2:49 AM UTC

Nope. Most of the construction attempts of the last two decades failed. We need coal replacements before 2032. Even if you try to build nuclear plants _on time_, that will fail. So it cannot be _the_ solution -- no matter your stance on nuclear power; maybe part of the solution; but not _the best solution_!