Live data from Hacker News

Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

allianceforscience.cornell.edu

251–260 of 306 posts

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love to dig out this old article on why "baseload" is a bullshit argument against reneawbles and surprisingly, "baseload" comes up only when it's nuclear astroturf time again. Weird eh? https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374

Solving the climate crisis with Future Tech is nice and all, but the word "future" does have a meaning. More practically, we should we be building the last generation of nuclear reactors to cover us for the next 50 years until the Future Tech actually exists.

At this point, the untested "future tech" is nuclear. Storage is far more reliably produced than nuclear, and its silly to pretend otherwise when we have extremely robust supply chains for storage that produce absolutely massive amounts, whereas nuclear just creeps along with failures and schedule delays and excuse after excuse after excuse.

Nuclear is not a serious tech, it's barely a tech at all because it gets more expensive rather than cheaper the more we discover about it. Almost an anti-technology in fact, mostly a boondoggle to fund decrepit contractors that have killed subways and transit and all sorts of other construction in the Western world.

Current lithium ion storage production is at 200-300 GWh/year, which, with daily discharge is 8-12 nuclear reactors' worth of energy. Per year. And this capacity is growing 10x every 5 years, and massively dropping costs. Every. Single. Year. Nuclear is an absolute joke compared to that.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#252

If we would pour into nuclear research the kind of money we pour into renewables, nuclear power would become safer and cheaper.

You still have to haul around huge amounts of radioactive materials with whatever technology. That alone is a big factor in the impossible risk calculations. So far there has never been a dirty bomb. What if the pro-nuclear fanboys get their wish and we solve the energy problems of the developing world using nuclear power? What if a modestly developed country gets overrun or overturned? I don't like the odds. Most ri…

I think it's cheaper and easier to construct a biological weapon than a dirty bomb. For the nuclear material one would need an existing nuclear infrastructure, while for a biological weapon only a reasonable good biologist and a lab is enough.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#253
post #234
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You understand that parts of Finland get 24-hour sunlight all summer long?

Producing electricity during the summer nights is basically useless. There's a huge diurnal effect, and an even larger seasonal one. The consumption at the winter peak is roughly double that of the summer trough. Solar is fundamentally a bad fit for Finland. (Wind is a little bit tricky too, since abnormally low winter temperatures correlate with low wind speeds. But that is a problem on the time scale of a week, rat…

So, during summer, you don't need to pay to have ammonia shipped in. During winter, on occasions when wind threatens to die down for longer than your stock of ammonia will last you, you order a shipment.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#254
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One incident almost 50 years ago, with no long-term effect, is not a red warning. Ammonia as an energy storage medium grows an already very mature use. Millions of tons of ammonia are handled every year.

> One incident almost 50 years ago Smaller incidents happen every year, example for Canada: https://www.technicalsafetybc.ca/case-study-ammonia-release-... > Millions of tons of ammonia are handled every year. Fertilizers are handled in even larger quantities, generally safe most of the time, yet accidents do happen. This alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion killed comparable count of people to C…

Reaching.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#255
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have enough renewable generating capacity to charge storage from, and won't two years from now, either.

You mean Germany has enough storage now that is unused and would also be enough to cover the case where gas is replaced with solar? Any numbers that show this , including say 1 winter week for residential and industry consumption?

What you wrote does not make sense.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#256
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a negligible fraction of the storage that will be built will be batteries, so talking about batteries is just blowing smoke. Storage cost is falling even faster than renewables cost ever did. There are many different storage options. Each place will adopt the mix of them that makes sense for that place. Until new renewable generating capacity no longer displaces carbon emission, spending on storage would be stup…

I disagree, we are in the hundreds of GWh/year of lithium ion production now, and it grows 10x roughly every five years. It's unlikely that any other storage tech can build supply chains quickly enough to compete with that growth. I certainly don't see pumped hydro doing this, unless we can stop relying on geography and construction projects. To make pumped hydro economical we would need something like spheres bolted…

Yet, the material cost for such a sphere, today, would be much less than for the equivalent amount of batteries, even at projected prices. It would only ever experience compressive force, which unreinforced concrete is very good at.

Lithium is a poor choice for stationary storage, and competing with growth of electric car usage would be bad policy. Probably molten-metal batteries will turn out better for utility use, where you must have batteries. But there are a lot of other choices besides batteries and pumped hydro.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#257
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, we are in the hundreds of GWh/year of lithium ion production now, and it grows 10x roughly every five years. It's unlikely that any other storage tech can build supply chains quickly enough to compete with that growth. I certainly don't see pumped hydro doing this, unless we can stop relying on geography and construction projects. To make pumped hydro economical we would need something like spheres bolted…

Yet, the material cost for such a sphere, today, would be much less than for the equivalent amount of batteries, even at projected prices. It would only ever experience compressive force, which unreinforced concrete is very good at. Lithium is a poor choice for stationary storage, and competing with growth of electric car usage would be bad policy. Probably molten-metal batteries will turn out better for utility use,…

On the prices, I haven't heard much optimistic news, the last I heard was at best, parity with current lithium ion prices:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605...

But that was five years ago, and as a manufactured product perhaps they can achieve better pricing over time.

Lithium ion has no disadvantages for stationary storage, and it has one absolutely massive advantage: there are lots of higher-margin uses driving production scales up, and manufacturing costs down.

If the dropping price of lithium ion batteries suddenly opens up new markets that are so huge, that demand can not be met, prices plateau for a long time, then I hope that other technologies can catch up. But as it is I see little chance for other chemistries or technologies to scale to match lithium ion in the near term future. I'm perhaps hopeful for iron-air batteries from Form Energy, but that's only because their management team has lots of hot shots, and not as much because they have an innate technical advantage. At this point in time, execution is everything, and there's precious few people with the executive capacity and the names that would allow them to attract sufficient capital to compete with the lithium ion juggernauts.

(I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong. And I have been proven wrong on my skeptical tech takes in the past, so I know I'm not invincible here.)

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#258
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fengning is less than half the cost of a nuclear plant and delivers twice as much power. But the issue is not power but storage capacity. Fengning has 40 GWh of storage capacity, that is less than day of production of basic 2 GW nuclear power plant. For countries in central Europe (or even northern Europe, like Finland), solar production during winter is generally negligible so from renewables you are left with win…

Periods of high wind tend to coincide with periods of low solar and vice versa. That negligible solar tends to coincide with the very highest wind production. Offshore also tends to anticorrelate with onshore wind. Diversity of wind and solar production already takes a huge chunk out of variability. Variable/surge/nearly free pricing would take another huge chunk of storage requirements as easily time shifted demand…

We do have historical weather data, so there should be no reason to guess if a certain amount of storage is sufficient.

I would be far more positive on renewables plus storage if people could point to studies that given this grid, storage, energy production and weather data that would have happened during that time period in that area.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#259
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because: - we do not need energy for private homes ONLY, we also need for industry, hospitals, schools, ... "buildings" that demand MUCH more energy than a home, similarly we do not need only private cars but also trucks, tractors, ... that demand MUCH more power not only in kW terms but also in load capacity and weight: a truck on lithium can be done in vehicle terms, but it's load capacity is less than a half and i…

You missed a lot of things. It is always claimed that the conversion to 80-100% renewable energies fails because of "non-existent" & "too expensive" storage options. At the same time, most arguments against #VisionZero are reduced to lithium-ion batteries, their costs and their environmental balance. Here is an overview of chemical and mechanical storage options that are affordable & feasible with current technology.…

Sorry but that's just theory next to propaganda in the sense that we can play math games like "hey but you produce 120-130% of the total energy you need", yes, only I need energy on 24h so while theoretically I produce more than I consume in practice evening-night-early-morning-noSunnyDays I use the grid or I need a stable source of energy, that's to say how certain analyses are just optimistic math often commissioned to back some PR target with something that appear science.

"Thermal Energy Storage" is just an experiment no one know if can work in production and on scale, "Pumped storage power plants" is classic mountain hydro, VERY effective, but need mountains and water, for instance just Swiss and Norway who NORMALLY have plenty of both this summer have had significant issues due to water shortages, they import more energy to backup, energy coming mostly from nuclear (Sweden and France) and a bit from oil&gas, "kinetic rotational mass storage" are classic flywheel UPS, something we have almost abandoned because of costs and very small effectiveness, they do not "store" for long, like ultra-condensers they can be just quick stabilizer who can cover 1-3' short spikes letting other systems have time to ramp up or down, hydrogen is a recurrent myth some try to sell, nothing we will ever seen on scale etc.

Long story short: you collected some scientific evidence, that's scientific, positive, but in practice is just a theoretical game. I've experience the same in my small setup: in theory microgrid stability is assured, Victron even say their MultiPlus is a pure-sine-wave UPS quick enough for the entire house and under certain condition most of the time is true, unfortunately there are also some other conditions, not so rare, and that's why in practice I have to keep small UPS for home rack and desktop FORMALLY uselessly redundant.

At grid scale is even worse: we predict enough to speculate how much energy we will produce with a very good precision but we can't predict instantaneous variations, or to simplify given an hour timeframe we can predict what's up in the means in such hour, but we can't predict many peaks during that time. Keeping the grid practically stable so far means rolling blackouts: when too many loads appear we cut some to lower the total load keeping the frequency up enough, when too many goes down we cut-out some generators to keep the frequency low enough, statistically it's very well, we guarantee stability in 99% of the case, blackouts tend to be just few minutes per localized area etc. In practice is just like 1.x℃ global warming is a mean value that means for some areas +10/+15℃ in summer, witch have a VERY DIFFERENT face at such zoom level.

Your operator can say "hey we just have had a ∑ of 99.99999% of reliable works on scale, unfortunately the nearby hospital have had to put many UPSes to avoid the "just a minute" blackouts that happen weekly and heavily impact their IT tools. Some again optimistically respond "but hey, you just need a PowerWall, a vehicle-to-load application!" yes, on scale. Try to compute how much backups we need for a manufacturing plant with CNCs operating 24/7/365 or just for apartments where there is no room to install such systems physically. Doing so it's very USA: being optimistic, project yourself and fix on the go or fail and restart. For a company who can fail that's work, for a society is a recipe for disasters so ample that's CRIMINAL trying at such speed and manner.

Being "smart" like having a parallel data network quick enough, with enough bandwidth, with enough IT safety and reliability, with all electricity producer and consumers just tell "I need xkW in y time" and get "we ramp up production for you" theoretically can be a game changer, I do not even imaging how such monster can be built and maintained. Not only: we need such system on scale, witch means substituting 100% off all equipment. Did you have experienced some large-scale changes like shifting from analog terrestrial television or radio to digital? Now try to imaging how much we need electricity 24/7/365 respects of TV/radio.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#260
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still have to haul around huge amounts of radioactive materials with whatever technology. That alone is a big factor in the impossible risk calculations. So far there has never been a dirty bomb. What if the pro-nuclear fanboys get their wish and we solve the energy problems of the developing world using nuclear power? What if a modestly developed country gets overrun or overturned? I don't like the odds. Most ri…

Even a major nuclear accident is not, in the scheme of things, as terrible as continuing to use fossil fuels, which is the realistic alternative for baseload power. The Great Barrier Reef will not mind a few nuclear accidents.

No, the "realistic alternative" is not continued use of fossil use, certainly not forever. It's just a lie people like you keep telling to somehow make nuclear power appear less dangerous by comparison.

And it's not "a major nuclear accident". Talk about multiple major and minor accidents on top of having a baseline of huge supporting infrastructure dealing with the procurement of radioactive base materials and the spent fuel and other waste. Because to replace fossil fuel and "solve" the climate crisis, you need to scale up nuclear power and its risks. Nuclear plants and their supply chains need to sprout up everywhere, including and especially where there is no trustworthy regulatory environment or where that is likely to disappear. And then we aren't just talking about accident but about potential mal intent which is impossible to calculate. Because once you build a power plant somewhere, you also can't just take it away.

Post reply on HN