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

331–340 of 818 posts

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

#331

Post by pfdietz »

ElectronCharge wrote: post #296
q1w2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, there are NO studies that demonstrate that solar or wind AND STORAGE, are able to produce CONSISTENT power for a full year anywhere. The only studies you'll see are that they proved to be economical on a certain day, or maaaybe overnight. ...but there are zero studies that any solar and/or wind (even combined), can provide consistent power for a full year. ...because that is not currently possible with econo…

It’s worse than that. Storage can, at best, provide for some interval of backup while wind/solar aren’t providing enough power. The problem is that “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events will require more than currently stored. Then, potentially millions of people will be at risk of injury or death from cold or heat. Reliable generation of at least enough to cover survival seems necessary.

That's what hydrogen (stored underground at a storage capacity cost of $1/kWh) is for.

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

#332

Post by Retric »

anonporridge wrote: post #93
Retric wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasons are economic. France has been heavily subsidizing nuclear for years and can swap to cheaper alternatives for less money. It’s not that nuclear is any worse, it’s just that the alternatives got better.

Wind and solar got better, but it seems fundamentally problematic to me to suggest that those are the alternatives to nuclear. They're not. Fossil fuel is the alternative to nuclear (and possibly battery supported wind/solar) as the base load. Fossil fuels are fundamentally cheaper because they can more easily avoid paying the cost of their negative externalities than nuclear can. If we could actually internalize the…

Even with that line of thinking, France was well past the point of using Nukes for base load power.

France had nuclear capacity factors around 70% when America and much of the worlds nuclear power plants where closer to 90%. It physically worked, but dramatically increased production cost per KWH.

Assuming they cut back to 30% or even 40% of all electricity being supplied by nuclear that’s still a significantly reduction.

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

#333

Post by trashtester »

pfdietz wrote: post #306
trashtester wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear. In other words, IPCC counts nuclear as "renewable"?

No, the "remainder" that is nuclear is the 10% that renewables don't cover. The renewables other than solar/wind are things like hydro, geothermal, and waste/biomass.

Ok, thx.

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

#334

Post by Manuel_D »

ncmncm wrote: post #326
Manuel_D wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if we have all our electricity produced through non intermittent sources we don't need grid storage. EVs charge from the grid and drive around just fine. Nobody doubts that. But if we are going to predominantly use intermittent energy sources we'd need massive amounts of grid storage. Delivering this through batteries is not feasible. We need to conserve battery supply for things that cannot be directly powered…

Grid storage cost is falling even faster than renewables cost. Which you already knew.

The costs are falling on white papers, not in actual storage projects. Unfortunately, we can't hook a white paper up to the grid :(

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

#335

Post by ncmncm »

hushpuppy wrote: post #204
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…

> 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. If you eliminate gas and coal powered plants then the costs of nuclear plant lifecycle is incidental compared to economic losses that a country would encounter if th…

False.

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

#336

Post by pfdietz »

dehrmann wrote: post #191

I could never take climate change seriously when nuclear wasn't on the table. If climate change were really a concern, you'd consider a power source that's safer than coal, but has negligible CO2 emissions (mining). I'm glad to see people are taking it seriously.

That used to be a valid argument.

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

#337

Post by ncmncm »

carry_bit wrote: post #114
adrianN wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing electricity is cheap to transmit.

It's not though; that's one of the reasons all of the grids aren't interconnected yet. "Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with tapes" also applies here. The amount of energy you can deliver by transporting fuel rods by truck/train/ship is immense.

Transmission costs only capital. Opex for transmission is practically free.

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

#338

Post by dane-pgp »

ElectronCharge wrote: post #296
q1w2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, there are NO studies that demonstrate that solar or wind AND STORAGE, are able to produce CONSISTENT power for a full year anywhere. The only studies you'll see are that they proved to be economical on a certain day, or maaaybe overnight. ...but there are zero studies that any solar and/or wind (even combined), can provide consistent power for a full year. ...because that is not currently possible with econo…

It’s worse than that. Storage can, at best, provide for some interval of backup while wind/solar aren’t providing enough power. The problem is that “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events will require more than currently stored. Then, potentially millions of people will be at risk of injury or death from cold or heat. Reliable generation of at least enough to cover survival seems necessary.

> “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events

Okay, then we can keep gas power stations around for another 100 years and only turn them on for the few days they are needed. Probably, though, after 50 years we will have solved climate change and energy storage (or wiped ourselves out) anyway.

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

#339

Post by ncmncm »

areyousure wrote: post #183
adrianN wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Undersea cables. There are plenty between Norway and Germany for example.

In case anyone is curious, I found this interesting background reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable That said, there is only one submarine power cable connecting Norway and Germany, and it's been operational for one year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HVDC_Europe.svg

Lots and lots are under construction. UK just committed to a 10 GW cable from Africa, that will be expanded later.

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

#340

Post by ncmncm »

adrianN wrote: post #158
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? They worked reliably and efficiently, and cost very little.

Maybe I'm misinformed. Which Thorium reactors worked reliably and cheaply?

Indian Point tried thorium. They abandoned it, for reasons.
Post reply on HN