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

Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 269 posts

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#121

Post by akamaka »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #113
tda wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only it was a conscious choice... I fear significant climate has happened already, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow will continue for a long time to come. Putting up a few km2 of solar in e.g. the Sahara now is surely less effort than decommissioning dozens of nuclear plants in 50 years.

This is my issue with the debate between Nuclear proponents and Renewable proponents (most of whom seem to be nuclear detractors): They usually compare what is possible in a future state with renewables to what is currently possible with Nuclear technology from decades ago. I want people to start imagining what innovation in Nuclear can look like again. If you want to compare current state to current state, then neit…

It’s funny to me that you’re getting a totally different interpretation from the same facts. When I hear that nuclear needs with the same massive investment, subsidies and decades-long R&D that were required to get renewables to the point were they are today, it’s completely clear to me that nuclear power is on its way out.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#122

Post by pfdietz »

schnitzelstoat wrote: post #93
bayesian_horse wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear reactors are just bigger pains than even the coal plants they might replace. Especially to replace enough fossil fuel one would have to scale up the problems with mining, waste disposal, and risks of accidents or malicious interference. I know this isn't a popular idea here, but there also lots of physicists who don't believe in nuclear fission as a mid-term or near-long-term solution.

This is also true for solar panels too though - they require rare earth materials. And large scale wind farms can have accidents and fires and harm wildlife. Doing anything at scale is difficult.

Solar panels do not require rare earth materials.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#123

Post by BlueTemplar »

bocytron wrote: post #21

French power grid agency RTE made a report[0] forecasting 2050 France energy mix, and because of loss of knowledge and increased security measures, even with strong political will, France won't be able to maintain its 70% nuclear power electricity share. Most nuclear-intensive scenario in this report is max 50% nuclear energy. [0] https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2021-12/Futurs-Ene... in french

In unrelated news, lowering nuclear to 50% of electricity is set as a political goal.

In other unrelated news, safely maintaining the current nuclear electric power would have required a massive buildup starting 10 years ago (to replace the reactors that are currently arriving at the end of their life).

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#124

Post by aerostable_slug »

Joeri wrote: post #83
speedgoose wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CO2 cost is low though. You don’t need to fire coal and gas power plants when it’s dark and not windy.

The long term vision is for those gas plants to be hydrogen-powered, with the hydrogen generated by the surplus of wind and solar during peak times. Pumped hydro for power storage is also something that will become viable. You lose a lot in conversion, but excess wind power is very cheap.

Pumped hydro has been viable for energy storage for decades and decades, running 70-80% efficiency. It's more efficient than most alternatives, to include compressed air, but it can't be dispatched quite as quickly.

The real problem is the fact that environmentalists tend to hate dams, especially large hydro projects, so there's a major political battle on top of finding funding for these kinds of capital-intensive projects.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#125

Post by arethuza »

cstross wrote: post #95
nottorp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accelerando is geek bait. His best work is the Laundry series which he's still working on. Disclaimer: no idea what his opinion of his work is.

My opinion? I began writing the stories that turned into Accelerando in 1998, largely to keep myself from having a work-induced nervous breakdown during the dot-com bubble. I finished it in 2003/04. It's journeyman work, and I like to think I'm both a better writer and a deeper/broader thinker than I was back then: it's no masterpiece, and I'm a little embarrassed by its staying power among the folks here.

For what it's worth, I think you're being a bit hard on yourself - the exuberance and density of ideas of Accelerando make it a good read.

Also, while I'm at it - I don't know how many times I've read A Colder War but the ending still gives me the creeps.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#126

Post by sovnade »

tda wrote: post #107
konschubert wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your risk assessment, but I have to say that given the choice between a climate apocalypse and a nuclear power buildout, I would choose the latter.

If only it was a conscious choice... I fear significant climate has happened already, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow will continue for a long time to come. Putting up a few km2 of solar in e.g. the Sahara now is surely less effort than decommissioning dozens of nuclear plants in 50 years.

Except you lose a lot of that power through attenuation. You can't really send electricity from the sahara to europe efficiently. Even over relatively short distances (a few dozen miles), you're losing up to 10-15% of your overall energy. A thousand miles or more...and I can't even find numbers on that because nobody does it.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#127

Post by sillysaurusx »

callumprentice wrote: post #74

My dad who passed away some years ago on my 50th birthday, worked on the design for the AGR for many, many years. Fond memories of him picking me up from school and excitedly telling me the interesting problems he had to solve that day on the walk home. A lovely way to start my day - thank you for sharing.

What sort of problems?

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#128

Post by [deleted] »

tda wrote: post #107
konschubert wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your risk assessment, but I have to say that given the choice between a climate apocalypse and a nuclear power buildout, I would choose the latter.

If only it was a conscious choice... I fear significant climate has happened already, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow will continue for a long time to come. Putting up a few km2 of solar in e.g. the Sahara now is surely less effort than decommissioning dozens of nuclear plants in 50 years.

[deleted]

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#130

Post by pfdietz »

sovnade wrote: post #126
tda wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only it was a conscious choice... I fear significant climate has happened already, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow will continue for a long time to come. Putting up a few km2 of solar in e.g. the Sahara now is surely less effort than decommissioning dozens of nuclear plants in 50 years.

Except you lose a lot of that power through attenuation. You can't really send electricity from the sahara to europe efficiently. Even over relatively short distances (a few dozen miles), you're losing up to 10-15% of your overall energy. A thousand miles or more...and I can't even find numbers on that because nobody does it.

Since the total loss in the US grid is maybe 6%, your short range figure there cannot be right.
Post reply on HN