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

311–320 of 354 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#311

Post by laurencerowe »

hilbert42 wrote: post #242
laurencerowe wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it used to be a different matter in France, they last completed a reactor more than 30 years ago and the one currently being built is beset with the same time and cost overruns as those in the U.K. > A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Variou…

Yeah, perhaps the French have eventually 'caught' whatever it is that English speakers caught long ago. :-) More seriously, I've not been there for some years now so I'm somewhat out of touch, but at one point I was working in the industry (but not employed by any French organization, EDF, etc.), nevertheless I had a reasonable overview of what the French were doing as far as power generation was concerned. Everyone…

I always assumed it just made more sense for France to go all in on nuclear since they didn’t have coal or oil and gas.

I don’t know how much of the problem is that the new reactors they’re trying to build are so much more complex or that after building as many as they needed, the 30 year gap in construction meant there was a loss of industrial knowledge of how to do it efficiently.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#312

Post by Rebelgecko »

KarlKemp wrote: post #77
Rebelgecko wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's misleading to compare peak nuclear generation against peak solar/wind- in order to be comparable with nuclear's baseload, renewables need to be built in conjunction with a boatload of batteries. Otherwise you just end up burning fossil fuels at night time.

It’s not comparing peak-to-peak. That’s what “levelized” means. It’s price per actual megawatthour produced.

At least in my state, a MWh produced at 3pm is much less useless than one produced at 8pm

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#313

Post by ZeroGravitas »

tuatoru wrote: post #221
elil17 wrote: post #195

I like nuclear and I used to think it was a silver bullet. I still believe that nuclear is very safe for life (in fact, it is even safer than solar on a per-kWh basis due to the high number of deaths associated with people falling off roofs while installing panels) and the enviroment, but I now understand more about some of it's disadvantages. Specifically: 1. It is very expensive. Nuclear has a levelized cost of ove…

I used to oppose nuclear, but I now think it's a worthwhile backup, or perhaps one strand in a diversified approach to getting off fossil fuels. There is, sadly, no one single technology that can replace fossil fuels for even any one major category of use (electricity, industrial, buildings, transport). We're going to end up with a massively more complicated energy supply system. In this context I think it's still wo…

Nuclear didn't get more expensive, the alternatives got cheaper and proved themselves in the field.

Nuclear is in the same pile as tidal turbines, cool tech but just not financially viable compared with churning out wind and pv on a global scale.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#314

Post by orhmeh09 »

xupybd wrote: post #249
_oanp wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the issues I've found is that people genuinely believe nuclear reactors run on the same tech as nuclear weapons, and think that if something goes wrong they will have a mushroom cloud.

I'm very happy for countries like France to have nuclear power but a little scared of less stable countries. While nuclear weapons require enrichment, dirty bombs or unmaintained power reactors are terrifying.

Has there ever been a dirty bomb anywhere?

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#315

Post by orhmeh09 »

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…

Has there ever been a dirty bomb anywhere? Is it a realistic concern? I don’t think it is; my opinion is it was drummed up by the US government and media in the post-2001 frenzy.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#316

Post by another_story »

throw0101a wrote: post #286
another_story wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

A fair comparison would be coal vs. nuclear, not cars.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#317

Post by ilyich »

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…

>Say it's a cold cloudy day with no wind and it's been so for a week.

What if it's been so for a month?

What if the country is Sweden?

What if the month is January?

What if the average temperature is -20C?

>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.

Those who don't want to freeze, they want to pay.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#318

Post by coryrc »

ilyich wrote: post #317
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…

>Say it's a cold cloudy day with no wind and it's been so for a week. What if it's been so for a month? What if the country is Sweden? What if the month is January? What if the average temperature is -20C? >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. Those who don't want to freeze, they want to pay…

Change the way the market works, pick a baseline power and bid it yearly. Then the nuclear stations can compete. But our current one results in shutdowns while we pay for extraneous wind capacity and new natural gas.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#319

Post by na85 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #115
na85 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of places do what's called cogeneration: rather than buy electricity and gas, they just buy more gas and generate electricity on-prem, using the waste heat for heating their facilities/boilers/whatever.

Still; moving those off of fossil fuels will put a lot of strain on our grid. Some of those facilities will put solar panels up and run their energy intensive processes during the day, but not all of them will. The grid needs to be able to handle that process, or we’ll just keep consuming fossil fuels.

Indeed. My point was that the grid demand will go up immensely.
Post reply on HN