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

121–130 of 818 posts

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

#121

Post by fallingknife »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #111
fallingknife wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody always says that solar + storage is cheaper. And sometimes there are even studies to support it. But if that's true where is it ?

China mostly: 2021 figures: > China was the biggest contributor, adding 121 GW to the continent’s new capacity. Europe and North America—led by the USA—took second and third places respectively, with the former adding 39 GW, and the latter 38 GW. 81% of new electricity generaton build globally was renewables last year.

I don't dispute the economics of renewable generation on the existing grid. I'm talking about storage as replacement for baseload, which is purely hypothetical at this point. Right now we have very small scale storage as peaker capacity, but not as a baseload replacement.

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

#122

Post by Tade0 »

mgfist wrote: post #77
pydry wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was always too expensive. It wasnt hippy peaceniks that killed it. It was money. The odd catastrophe didnt help though. Why there is a resurgence of interest now when dirt cheap solar and wind have effectively rendered it a costly relic of the past is somewhat puzzling. I guess PR campaigns like the OP's link are one reason.

It's expensive when you rely on cheap Russian/ME fossil fuels > Why there is a resurgence of interest now when dirt cheap solar and wind have effectively rendered it a costly relic of the past is somewhat puzzling. If cheap solar/wind was enough right now Europe wouldn't be going through an energy crisis.

> If cheap solar/wind was enough right now Europe wouldn't be going through an energy crisis.

It's an oil/gas crisis, not an electricity crisis - that one went away when the days started getting longer.

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

#123

Post by boringg »

impostervt wrote: post #3

I just finished Bill Gates' "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster". Very good book, and it makes two points (among many others): - To reduce carbon in the air, getting clean electricity is key. If we can do that, we can more easily reduce emissions from other areas. - There are no paths to clean energy by 2050 without nuclear power.

Bill Gates, while wealthy and renowned for his tech contributions, has had some missteps in the climate energy space slowing down actual progress with his diversions (i.e. putting money/political will into new moon shots and saying that we don't have the technology to deal with this yet -- instead of deploying readily available technology which is ready).

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

#124

Post by phh »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #68
pydry wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has nuclear plants because in the 1970s it decided it didnt want to be dependent on middle eastern oil. It was very very expensive. It was also nothing to do with global warming. Those plants are fully paid off but nearly all close to death. Replacing them will still be very very expensive. Extending their lives will be dangerous. France isnt quite sure what to do. If there's unlimited money and patience for y…

>Those plants are nearly all close to death. No, these plants are close to the end of their original grant for exploitation. Many of them get renewed for 10, 20 years easily. The US has had plants renewed for 40 years and are still running just fine. > France isnt quite sure what to do. We know what to do, every single scientist from the ASN knows what to do, every economist knows what to do. The non-renewal of nucle…

> We know what to do, every single scientist from the ASN knows what to do, every economist knows what to do.

The ones who underestimated Flamanville's cost by 80%? (and it's still not in production)

Let's maybe not trust them completely, and have our eggs in other baskets as well.

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

#125

Post by q1w2 »

colinmhayes wrote: post #115
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Very unlikely. Nuclear costs are sky high only because in the last decades it was suppressed rather than invested in and improved. Had it seen the same level of support the wind and solar energy have, we'd have a dirt-cheap abundance of nuclear power, with very little carbon emissions. Take away the red tape and scaremongering…

South Korea has been constantly building nuclear for decades. The price has come down marginally, renewables are still far cheaper. Yes, the problem is largely political, I don't see a solution to that though.

This is like saying that the solution to climate change is largely political and you don't see that changing, so you don't think you need to be part of solving that.

In fact, it's quite exactly like saying that, because nuclear is the fastest path to solving climate change.

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

#126

Post by legulere »

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…

> the economic problems with nuclear are there because of political reasons. France gets ~75% of its power from nuclear, safely and economically.

EDF, Areva have a long history of bailouts, buyouts and subsidies by the French government. You are right that it's a political decision that France has so much nuclear, but it is not an economical one.

Even though they decided to replace old reactors with new ones, they do not manage to build enough reactors fast enough and especially not economically. Flamanville has a budget overrun of around 500% and time overrun of around 300%.

Nuclear is neither fast nor economical enough to be built. Only building renewables can help push down CO2 emissions fast and cheap enough.

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

#127

Post by q1w2 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #111
fallingknife wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody always says that solar + storage is cheaper. And sometimes there are even studies to support it. But if that's true where is it ?

China mostly: 2021 figures: > China was the biggest contributor, adding 121 GW to the continent’s new capacity. Europe and North America—led by the USA—took second and third places respectively, with the former adding 39 GW, and the latter 38 GW. 81% of new electricity generaton build globally was renewables last year.

That does not discuss storage AT ALL.

True solar with storage is not economical.

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

#128

Post by Brometheus »

fallingknife wrote: post #59
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…

Everybody always says that solar + storage is cheaper. And sometimes there are even studies to support it. But if that's true where is it ?

Top five countries with the highest wind energy capacity in 2020

    China – 288.32 GW. ...
    United States – 122.32 GW. ...
    Germany – 62.85 GW. ...
    India – 38.63 GW. ...
    Spain – 27.24 GW.

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

#129

Post by drewvolpe »

Simplicitas wrote: post #43

Stunning how many well-informed people here are still so distrustful of nuclear energy despite all the advancements.

People are irrationally concerned about low-probability but high severity risks, which is what nuclear is.

The chance of someone in the US dying from a terrorist attack is about 1 out of 3 million. It's a rounding error compared with heart disease (1:6), suicide (1:93), storms (1:35k) or even sunstroke (1:6k). Yet, the US spends $52B / year on the department of homeland security.

Post reply on HN