Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

wsj.com

161–170 of 354 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#161

It's bullshit. Electricity is only 28% of global emissions. What about the other 3/4ths? And on that 28%... 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. What about the other 3/4ths?

How much of fixing the other 3/4ths requires more electricity to substitute?

> 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.

Or it could be as much as 4 billion years.

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

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#162
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Solar could be free, and still the battery costs would be prohibitive.

In terms of "hard to believe", ask yourself why countries have not managed to roll out storage capacity to match the solar capacity? It's because solar is relying on fossil fuels or nuclear or hydro to be there when it's dark.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why bury when all those lines needed was replacement of worn parts? Burying power cables is expensive and increases maintenance costs an order of magnitude. Much cheaper to replace hooks that are worn through so the cables don’t fall off the tower and start a fire.

Should probably also add ground fault interruption as a protection measure too. I saw a quite-impressive video of some hardware that was going in on parts of the Australian grid that managed to turn off super-quick as the cable arced to the earth, limiting the heating energy tremendously.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#165

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_!

> We need coal replacements before 2032.

You are not going to get a replacement for coal before 2032. That's like 10 years away.

If you work really hard and get incredibly lucky, you may limit the increase in coal use by 2032 to be roughly zero. But you are talking about massive infrastructure projects, and that's a really tough sell because, for example, you are seeing significant increases in energy usage in developing countries:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50256

See also the world forecast here:

Of the world’s existing coal-fired generating capacity, 99% consists of boilers and steam turbine units that are as much as 30% less efficient than natural gas-fired combined-cycle units that use the latest technology. Because natural gas-fired generators are more efficient than coal-fired generators at converting fuel to electricity, natural gas-fired generation is often a lower-cost option, even if the fuel price of natural gas is slightly higher than the fuel price of coal.

However, the absence of regional carbon policies or regulations along with rising natural gas prices after 2030—particularly in Asia and in regions that rely on higher-cost liquefied natural gas (LNG)—is likely to make coal the most economical generation fuel to pair with increased intermittent generation from wind and solar. This shift reverses the trend observed over recent decades. Although the cost of mining coal will likely raise coal prices after 2030, we project that coal prices will remain low relative to natural gas prices and provide a cost-competitive option to natural gas-fired generation.

Increases in coal-fired generation in Other non-OECD Asia—which includes Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand, among other countries—will account for over 75% of our projected increase in global coal-fired generation from 2030 to 2050. For Other non-OECD Asia, we project that renewable energy sources will account for about 60% of the generation increase over the projection period, primarily from wind and solar. Coal-fired generation will account for nearly all of the remaining growth.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50256

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#166
No it isn’t. 500 million years ago when Earth’s CO2 level was 5000 ppm, did they have nuclear power?

Is that what saved the planet to make it habitable for humans? No - the levels changed because of exposed olivine rocks that absorbed the CO2. That’s how nature fixes high CO2 levels. Why does the solution have to be anything other than that?

If humanity spent $1 trillion per year on extracting olivine, and putting those rocks on tropical beaches, we’d easily solve climate within a couple decades. It costs $21/ton of CO2 sequestered.[1] It’s easily the most affordable solution.

[1] https://www.vesta.earth/

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#167

No it isn’t. 500 million years ago when Earth’s CO2 level was 5000 ppm, did they have nuclear power? Is that what saved the planet to make it habitable for humans? No - the levels changed because of exposed olivine rocks that absorbed the CO2. That’s how nature fixes high CO2 levels. Why does the solution have to be anything other than that? If humanity spent $1 trillion per year on extracting olivine, and putting th…

This is a solution that I haven’t heard until now. Thank you for sharing.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#168
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Household energy prices don't really tell us much about the production costs though.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#169
post #125
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...

The thrust was correct according to your source, or am I misreading it? Nuclear median 12, Solar 48 (4x nuclear), gas 490 (10x solar), coal 810 (20x solar).

Yes, it was, however this dates back 2014 and solar recycling is progressing, and becomes more and more legally mandatory in industrialized nations.

Solar panels: operators now reach ~80% recycling (glass, metal, silicon, plastic).

Wind turbines recycling is also quickly progressing.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#170
It's possible to run a large region (almost) entirely from renewable's, here's the proof:

https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&interval=30m

But Nuclear could still an excellent option depending on various metrics. I rather see some 'risky' nuclear options being considered before any of the geo-engineering ideas take hold (as they will if we don't get a move on).

Post reply on HN