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

Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 818 posts

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#41

Post by simion314 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #12

Funny 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…

>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.

Why the progress is possible only for Solar and storage and in your opinion not possible for nuclear? Nuclear could be cheaper if people would not be paranoid about it. What I think could happen is this new smaller reactors could be deployed in countries more rational, irrational countries will have to buy energy from the others.

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#42

Post by amacbride »

rectang wrote: post #7
jeffbee wrote: post #4

I 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…

Are there any Y Combinator companies who are invested in the advance of nuclear power?

I know of Oklo, Helion, and UPower; there may be others. These three were relatively early (2014-2015 or so.)

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#44

Post by donkarma »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #20

Please 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,…

nuclear fission is actually the safest electricity generation we have right now, and modern reactors are pretty safe and are hard to cause to melt down even intentionally, all of this non-sense is mostly just fearmongering

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#45

Post by adrianN »

goneri wrote: post #40
adrianN wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uranium ore distribution is also quite uneven. Fossil fuel distribution is also quite uneven.

Thorium is an abundant alternative to uranium, and the technology to use it has existed since the 1960s.

Thorium reactors never worked very well unfortunately.

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#46

Post by ben_w »

philwelch wrote: post #22
photochemsyn wrote: post #12

Funny 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…

> ... 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. Sure, if you handwave the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage and make a series of generous assumptions about future technology, that's probably true. Nuclear te…

> the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage

What are these problems, exactly? I see videos and news stories about grid batteries being successfully deployed for short term management and how pumped hydro is basically a big cheap gravity battery, but I'm not a civil/electrical engineer, so I accept there could easily be elephants in the room here.

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#48

Post by rectang »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #24
mikece wrote: post #9

I 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…

I think your perception of the risk from terrorist attack on a Nuclear power plant and the actual risk involved are out of whack. Especially given that human error is a much more likely source a radioactive leak.

The fundamental problem is the concentration of radioactive materials at a single facility. (Hydroelectric power has a similar problem with the water behind dams.)

Whether it's human error, terrorist attack, or natural disaster, nuclear facilities are vulnerable in a way that solar and wind facilities are not.

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#49

Post by adrianN »

unchocked wrote: post #32

I will hazard that the problems with nuclear are not technological but political, and the economic problems with nuclear are there because of political reasons. France gets ~75% of its power from nuclear, safely and economically. France inhabits the same physical world as the rest of us, but is different politically. If there were a will, there would be a way. If the environmental movement had paid more attention to…

France is currently not building enough reactors to replace those that will need to be shut down due to age in the near future. They would need to build a lot more if they wanted to satisfy demand for heating and transportation. I assume they have good reasons not to build more reactors.

Re: Nuclear is back on the table for a green future

#50

Post by thereddaikon »

adrianN wrote: post #29
nonethewiser wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sunlight and wind distribution is quite uneven.

Uranium ore distribution is also quite uneven. Fossil fuel distribution is also quite uneven.

Good thing you can pick it up and move it to other places.
Post reply on HN