Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
11–20 of 818 posts
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#12Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes.
Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.
Much of the discussion of energy in the American media is pretty poor these days. For example, the solar tariff issue on China sourced PV - there are simply no US companies making panels of comparable quality (monocrystalline Si lasts longer and is more efficient). Concepts like requiring Chinese manufacturers to open factories in the USA if they want to sell in US markets would make sense but probably would violate some trade provision or other.
Another factor that this article should have mentioned is the reliability of the global uranium ore -> fuel rods supply chain. Costs vary significantly based on the purity of the ore (18% is the top, 0.1% is the economically viable limit) and like oil, uranium ore is not globally distributed (unlike sunlight and wind).
As far as Russia/Ukraine, the real agenda the US government seems to be pushing there is using that conflict to rapidly increase LNG exports to Europe from the US West/South coast, even though energy prices are spiking due to inflation (and plausibly due to exports of crude oil from the USA, allowed under that 2015 bill lifting that restriction). A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap, meaning no need for fossil fuel imports from any party. Yes, that's technologically possible, but would require massive economic investment.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#13Small distributed reactors sound great, but don't they exacerbate the waste disposal problem? I think the logistics and politics would be easier to manage if the waste production was highly centralized.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#14"American"'s nuclear energy is back on the Table for a Green Future
years of anti-nuclear propaganda all over EU past decade, thanks Germany, only to end up depending on the US even more, while boycotting their friend France
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#15I know HN is just desperate for that i-told-you-so moment when fission rises from irrelevancy to save us all from climate change, but it's just not going to happen. Look at this figure [1]. The amount of proposed solar and wind and battery projects in the United States at the end of 2021 was 1000s of time larger than the amount of proposed nuclear power projects. And one big difference is the renewables are actually…
The United States is not the only place in the world. There are other countries with their own idiosyncrasies where different strategies may make more sense, and they all vent to the same atmosphere. So maybe if you're going to make a dismissing post such as this, about _global_ emissions, you should include arguments that cover places that are not the United States.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#16I would love to see nuclear be far more of the base-load production in the US, but rather than large gigawatt-scale reactors I think it would benefit everyone more if we moved to using SMRs (small modular reactors). Not only could manufacturing economies of scale be realized but SMRs can passively cool themselves in the event they need to scram or shut down. The scenario that concerns me the most is a terrorist attac…
A Rolls Royce (SMR) for every community!
[1] https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#17Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes. Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of w…
Sunlight and wind distribution is quite uneven.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#18I know HN is just desperate for that i-told-you-so moment when fission rises from irrelevancy to save us all from climate change, but it's just not going to happen. Look at this figure [1]. The amount of proposed solar and wind and battery projects in the United States at the end of 2021 was 1000s of time larger than the amount of proposed nuclear power projects. And one big difference is the renewables are actually…
spot on! no wonder you get downvoted! nobody likes to hear the truth over here
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#19I know HN is just desperate for that i-told-you-so moment when fission rises from irrelevancy to save us all from climate change, but it's just not going to happen. Look at this figure [1]. The amount of proposed solar and wind and battery projects in the United States at the end of 2021 was 1000s of time larger than the amount of proposed nuclear power projects. And one big difference is the renewables are actually…
You make huge order of magnitude errors in your thinking
Nuclear provides the so called base load (the minimum level of electricity demand required). To replace base load with renewables + energy storage requires so much CAPEX and battery manufacturing that you don't have money to fill gaps between caseload needs and renewable energy production.
Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
#20Please can the nuclear industry stop paying PR consultants.
We have one use for the nuclear industry - building scientists who can then build nuclear bombs. IMO this is a reasonable use of public funds - the strategic needs of nuclear weapons are not going away.
But please please just accept that and move on. Stop getting in a vital public debate.
Nuclear fission is a terrible civilian technology - vastly expensive, the effects of a catastrophic failure are massive and the costs to avoid it (yes you can build safe nuclear plants) are huge - basically nuclear projects need to be on the A game - all the time, year after year, constantly upgrading and improving for decades to come.
I might believe that for five or six plants run to just build weapons. But i refuse to believe we can build 1,000s of the fuckers in every country on earth and think that they will be all maintained to standards better than Fukijyma