Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 354 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#181

Post by chelical »

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…

Does France not exist? Also Japan is already restarting its nuclear reactors because their projected emissions targets are impossible to hit without restarting the plants.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#183

Post by natmaka »

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.

At an equivalent total cost of ownership most will prefer renewables to nuclear: no risk, no waste, no geopolitically touchy nuclear fuel, no adventurous decommission...

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#185

Post by 542458 »

halfjoking wrote: post #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 th…

Interesting. Does 21/ton include the cost of using the land?

Edit, looks like rock isn’t put on the beaches, but rather into relatively fast moving shallow seas.

https://legacy.projectvesta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/m...

I’ve got to say, this does look interesting.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#186

Post by yellowapple »

mrjangles wrote: post #111
ekianjo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A solar farm that produces the same power as a nuclear power station (1GW) requires 1000 3MW turbines (33% efficiency) at 700 meters apart. That's 500 square kilometers of turbines (something like 200 square miles). I once did the calculation and it came out to something like 10 times as much concrete and steel to build the turbines as it would have taken to build the nuclear power plant.

Did you mean wind instead of solar? Or panels instead of turbines?

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#187

Post by cranx »

halfjoking wrote: post #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 th…

We’d also die of mesothelioma. But hey, the co2 was captured.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#188

Post by yellowapple »

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.

The balance sheet doesn't include externalized costs, last I checked.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#189

Post by rsj_hn »

natmaka wrote: post #178
rsj_hn wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, because building wind/solar/biomass/... production units took most of the investment capacity, while coping for variability was cheap because we already had thermal (fossil fueled) powerplants. Those are aging up and more and more expensive to use due to carbon taxes, therefore storage-related projects get boosted. H2 (and fuel cells), thermal and kinetic storage... are getting traction. The sheer amount of e…

All of the above facts are exactly correct. There is a huge financial incentive for storage. Right now.

And yet the storage is not being built in any meaningful sense. At best we have "ideas" but these have not been actually deployed at scale. People keep throwing out ideas, but when there is a crunch they fly in diesel generators or add gas peaker plants.

That alone should tell you how expensive the storage problem is to address. It's a very hard problem.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#190

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

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…

> (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

Hydroelectric dams have the same issue. I also bet, that if one of those gigawatt lithium battery storage facilities had a fire, it would be a very bad day for people around them.

Post reply on HN