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

251–260 of 354 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#251

Post by xupybd »

stavros wrote: post #250
xupybd wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar has the huge problem of not being available when it's needed. Early in the morning and late in the evening. Until that is solved with some form of storage it can't solve the problem of greenhouse emissions.

Ah yes, the "it's useless unless it's perfect" argument. Nuclear has the huge problem of not being available for another decade (because that's how long it takes to build plants). Until that is solved with some form of pocket reactor it can't solve the problem of greenhouse emissions.

Yeah, no single technology can solve the problem yet. I don't think the build time is really the main problem with nuclear. If you could replace most of the coal and gas generators in a little over a decade the impact would be immense. Far sooner than I'd expect to see solar have a similar impact. But nuclear only works in wealthy nations.

The main problem with nuclear is the dangers of letting them get into a state of disrepair. In a politically unstable county it could be a real danger if they cannot secure the fuel or waste. A dirty bomb could be an environmental disaster.

Here in NZ many install solar and back feed the grid. They get paid to do so. But this doesn't help reduce emissions. During peak load the coal plants still fire up. We have significant hydro generation but require fossil fuels to deal with peak load. If home owners invested in batteries alone I suspect we could do a better job reducing our emissions.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#252

Post by stavros »

xupybd wrote: post #251
stavros wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the "it's useless unless it's perfect" argument. Nuclear has the huge problem of not being available for another decade (because that's how long it takes to build plants). Until that is solved with some form of pocket reactor it can't solve the problem of greenhouse emissions.

Yeah, no single technology can solve the problem yet. I don't think the build time is really the main problem with nuclear. If you could replace most of the coal and gas generators in a little over a decade the impact would be immense. Far sooner than I'd expect to see solar have a similar impact. But nuclear only works in wealthy nations. The main problem with nuclear is the dangers of letting them get into a state…

> Far sooner than I'd expect to see solar have a similar impact.

Sure, and there's no reason we can't have both, that's my point.

> A dirty bomb could be an environmental disaster.

I live in an area with ~20 coal plants in a 15-minute radius and, let me tell you, a dirty bomb would probably have been cleaner.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#253

Post by pydry »

coryrc wrote: post #210
cinntaile wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What costs aren't being paid for exactly?

Grid stability/storage, plus sunk costs. Say it's a cold cloudy day with no wind and it's been so for a week. You'll need the capacity of that coal/nuclear plant those days. And let's say every other day of the year solar and wind make enough power. So who pays the extremely high fixed cost of the nuclear and coal plant so it's available that one week you need it? No one wants to, so they're shutting them down. The p…

Grid scale batteries have become cost effective in the last two years.

It'll take time to build out capacity but it'll take more time AND cost to build new nuclear plants.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#254

Post by pydry »

dd36 wrote: post #155
mrjangles wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll bet the physicist was also an ex-environmentalist. I've seen a few nuclear/carbon PR pieces dressed up this way.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#255

Post by pydry »

voldacar wrote: post #228
zeptonix wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several leaks and you know, maybe a state with a lot of earthquake activity isn't the best place to put a nuclear reactor.

You are committing the fallacy of the seen and the unseen here. Nuclear power could be literally 10x as dangerous, and it would still cause far less harm to humans than existing non-nuclear sources of energy, and that's when you ignore the negative effects on the climate from those energy sources.

It does well when you compare it to coal and gas. It's not 1980 though. We have cheap battery backed solar and wind now.

3x the cost (5-7x if you take out the batteries) with a small chance of catastrophe doesnt really add up any more unless the country is trying to maintain a nuclear industry for military purposes.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#256

Post by 7952 »

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…

What you are talking about is the marginal cost of producing an extra kWh of electricity. That does vary between different sources. For nuclear, solar and wind it is exceptionally low. For gas and coal it is higher due to fuel costs and market volatility (see gas prices now). A further factor is how quickly a generator can turn on, maintenance costs, and fuel efficiency. Also, different locations have better grid connections closer to population centres.

These kind of discussions always touch on a few of these points. But actually a well designed market absolutely can take these factors into account and price accordingly. You have strike prices to cover capital costs, capacity markets, bidding to reduce costs etc.

The low price of wind is just an acknowledgement that it is less valuable due to intermitancy. But you guarantee the rate regardless of the market because the low CO2 emissions are valuable.

Nuclear is expensive because it is more valuable due to low CO2 and low intermitancy. Give it a relatively high subsidised rate. It should be more expensive than wind.

Gas peakers are valuable because they can be turned on quickly. But they are dirty. So they charge a high rate but the rate is not guaranteed. The market avoids using them.

You could and maybe should replace all of this with a state run electricity company that makes all the decisions. That is really what people are arguing for rather than a particular type of generator. But in an energy market costs need to actually mean something more than a political point.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#257

Post by ThrustVectoring »

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…

The US regulatory scheme (among others) guarantees that nuclear power is expensive. ALARA - As Low As Reasonably Achievable. In practice, this means that if nuclear power is cheaper than alternatives, regulators can demand that more "reasonably achievable" steps are taken to reduce exposure to radiation.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#259

Post by thedrbrian »

stavros wrote: post #252
xupybd wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no single technology can solve the problem yet. I don't think the build time is really the main problem with nuclear. If you could replace most of the coal and gas generators in a little over a decade the impact would be immense. Far sooner than I'd expect to see solar have a similar impact. But nuclear only works in wealthy nations. The main problem with nuclear is the dangers of letting them get into a state…

> Far sooner than I'd expect to see solar have a similar impact. Sure, and there's no reason we can't have both, that's my point. > A dirty bomb could be an environmental disaster. I live in an area with ~20 coal plants in a 15-minute radius and, let me tell you, a dirty bomb would probably have been cleaner.

Ok I’m curious. What sort of industrial area needs 20 coal power plants in a 15 minute ?drive?

Major aluminium production and mining , chinese crypto hub ?

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#260

Post by floppiplopp »

No, it isn't. Building up the needed capacity will take decades and cost an enormous amount of money that is better spend elsewhere. Fuel supply is limited, with cost for exploration quadrupled over the last 15 years, and a doubling cost for uranium fuel over the same period. Commercially viable known uranium reserves are used up by roughly 1/3 since 1950, depleting ever faster with more reactors. Even if we had the reactors already, even if we wouldn't need to spend trillions, the fuel simply isn't there for cost effective usage until the end of the century. Alternative reactors, thorium or fusion are experimental at best. So no, nuclear won't change anything soon.
Post reply on HN