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

281–290 of 354 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#281

Post by stavros »

ojosilva wrote: post #272
stavros wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know people that do this. No amount of "fossil is the enemy, not solar" can convince them, and they keep posting anti-solar/pro-nuclear propaganda.

This is what I tell them pro-nuclearists, who mostly, in my circles, tend to be engineers or tech-savy minds with a better-is-better mindset: Nuclear is the mainframe. Let's just concede, for the sake of argument: the hands-down better, more reliable tech. Renewables is the distributed. Worse but worse-is-better [1]. Setup and investment is incremental. Take down and/or upgrading is also simpler. There's huge tractio…

I generally agree with you, though I don't understand why we can't just do both. People seem to have a very "one or the other" mindset.

Also, it's fine to be pro-nuclear (I am too), but it's not fine to be anti-renewables (or anti-nuclear).

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#282

Post by GordonS »

throwoutway wrote: post #277
naasking wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> we'll run out of it in less than 40 years. This isn't a reason to not do it. That gives us 40 years to figure out alternative processing patterns or alternative energy production.

Given reactors can take 10-20 years to be built and that they don't expect to make profit for decades, if the 40-year figure is true, then it likely is a good reason not to.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#283

Post by mrjangles »

pydry wrote: post #253
coryrc wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is something people get confused about. Grid scale batteries are definitely not cost effective or in existence. The media does their best to obfuscate this. What has been built around the places are battery packs to absorb dangerous power fluctuations caused by windmills. They destroyed the grid in South Australia a few years ago, and Elon Musk famously went in and installed batteries (maybe that is what you are thinking of).

If you don't believe me go back and have a look at how big the batteries were. The 500 million dollar project installed 130 MWh worth of electricity storage. That is enough to produce the same energy as a power station for 10 minutes before being fully drained.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#284

Post by kitsune_ »

vimy wrote: post #7
kitsune_ wrote: post #6

We can't build reactors fast enough. And electricity is only a part of what generates emissions. It's no where close to a solution. Looking up the world's energy numbers, how much of total energy production and emissions are from electricity, how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant, how many nuclear power plants are built per year etc. will show you this.

China is gonna build 150 reactors in 15 years for 440 billion dollar. They lack the defeatist attitude common in the West and it shows.

Let's ignore the fact that uranium is a finite resource and that existing reactors have EOL dates and assume that the west, India and the rest of the world matches China and the world collectively build 600 reactors in the next 15 years, for 2 trillion USD. Congratulations, you barely doubled the amount of reactors and their share of the world's energy production rises from around 2% to 4%.

Meanwhile the world needs to hit net zero emissions in around 2050. I'm agnostic about nuclear power but it's not the solution to global warming. Rich nations still need to reduce their emissions by 10% per year over the next decade and the developing world has to do the same starting around the 2030s.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#285

Post by naasking »

rsj_hn wrote: post #227
naasking wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn't correct. There are dozens of pilot projects for novel grid storage systems being built right now all around the world, and existing battery based grid storage like Tesla's megapack have multiple installations already in use, and dozens more planned this year. Pumped hydro alone is already in the hundreds of GW range. The reason grid storage hasn't been built is because batteries were too expensive, bu…

me: At best we have "ideas" but these have not been actually deployed at scale. you: This just isn't correct. There are dozens of pilot projects for novel grid storage Really not sure what else needs to be said, so this is where I need to disengage.

And as I said, we have hundreds of 100MWh+ battery plants, and hundreds of GWh of pumped hydro. The idea that they haven't been deployed at scale is just wrong.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#286

Post by throw0101a »

another_story wrote: post #206
portpecos wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The moment people blame things on tree huggers https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/educational-magazin... The late 1960s through 1980s saw a shift in the antinuclear movement toward protesting the development of nuclear power as an energy source. The antinuclear movement succeeded in virtually halting the governments' development of nuclear power.

How does one manage to stop nuclear energy but not fossil fuel use? These are arguably the same sorts of groups, with probably a large overlap. How did they have such power in one area, but not in another? If there is lack of lobbyist or industry pressure pushing for it, then we have to wonder why? Nuclear isn't cost effective as a business is the likely answer, and under our current system that drives most of the de…

> How does one manage to stop nuclear energy but not fossil fuel use?

It's easier to target marketing against a few 'smoke stacks' than ten millions tail pipes. It's easier for people to get people to sign petitions against an 'industrial site' that is many kilometres away that most people will never see, compared to having people trash their own personal possession (their car).

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#287

Post by throw0101a »

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.

> Nuclear has the huge problem of not being available for another decade (because that's how long it takes to build plants).

At the very least we can stop shutting down the plants we currently have.

There is a finite amount of infrastructure that can be built at any one time: instead of shutting down nukes and building renewables to take their place, we should be shutting down fossil fuel plants and having renewable take over them.

Once all the fossil fuel plants are gone we can talk about nuclear at that point.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#289

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#290

Post by zajio1am »

xupybd wrote: post #248
stavros wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know people that do this. No amount of "fossil is the enemy, not solar" can convince them, and they keep posting anti-solar/pro-nuclear propaganda.

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.

> Early in the morning and late in the evening

That is solvable problem. Much worse issue is that in mid lattitudes (e.g. central Europe) it is not available (or just marginal) most of winter.

Post reply on HN