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

541–550 of 818 posts

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

#541

Post by pfdietz »

lelag wrote: post #251
thehappypm wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably easier to deal with sea level rise since it’s slow motion. If there’s a Fukushima every year.. wow.

I assumed 3 events in the next 80 years. There's been 25 years between Chernobyl and Fukushima, and assuming we build new reactor, there is no reason to imagine it would happen more frequently. Why do you think there could be a catastrophe per year ?

The world uses 18 TW of primary energy, which is about 6,000 1GW(e) reactors. This is more than an order of magnitude increase over current nuclear power reactors.

Also, many of those reactors are going to have to be breeders. Accidents in fast breeders are potentially even worse than Chernobyl.

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

#542

Post by Manuel_D »

pfdietz wrote: post #537
Manuel_D wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that none of these exotic storage systems have ever actually been deployed commercially. Yes, liquid nitrogen is used for things like cooling. But no one has deployed a grid-scale storage system using liquid nitrogen. Liquid hydrogen has been used in rocket launches, but has not been used for energy storage. These technologies are mature in applications besides energy storage . They are not at all mature in the…

Every air separation plant (you know, the kind used to make oxygen for steelmaking) employs expanders for recovering energy from cryogenic nitrogen. This is an off the shelf technology.

It's off the shelf technology for chemical processes. It's not off the shelf technology for energy storage.

We have plenty of experience with flywheels. I bet there's millions of cars built every year that have a flywheel in them. Does that mean energy storage using giant flywheels is guaranteed to be insanely cheap and way cheaper than the existing storage systems?

Just because we have plenty of experience using a given technology in one application doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be a smash hit in a different application.

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

#543

Post by pfdietz »

nabla9 wrote: post #361
ZetaZero wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Vogtle 3 & 4, the only nuclear plants coming online in the US, the construction costs are now projected to be $30 billion for 2.2 GW. We'd need ~1000 of these size plants to power the US. That's not going to cut it either.

Nuclear is needed for base load, not for all electricity needs. Nuclear is the most cost effective way to achieve base load.

Neither of these statements is true.

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

#544

Post by epistasis »

xienze wrote: post #404
pfdietz wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which raw material are you talking about? Be specific. I believe a global renewable energy system can be constructed using only elements available in essentially unlimited amounts, and using those elements at a modest scale compared to industrial society as a whole.

> Which raw material are you talking about? Be specific. Uh Lithium?

The lithium is there, it just needs capital investment.

Ironically ESG has guided capital away from extractive industries like this.

It's not a physical limitation, it's a timing of scaling limitation, and we haven't hit it in a hard way yet. Plenty of new lithium resources, and more being discovered all the time.

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

#545

Post by pfdietz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #542
pfdietz wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every air separation plant (you know, the kind used to make oxygen for steelmaking) employs expanders for recovering energy from cryogenic nitrogen. This is an off the shelf technology.

It's off the shelf technology for chemical processes. It's not off the shelf technology for energy storage. We have plenty of experience with flywheels. I bet there's millions of cars built every year that have a flywheel in them. Does that mean energy storage using giant flywheels is guaranteed to be insanely cheap and way cheaper than the existing storage systems? Just because we have plenty of experience using a g…

Air separation is not a chemical process. It's a physical process, involving compression, heat exchangers, and expanders. You know, just like an energy storage system using cryogenic gases. None of this is magical unknown technology. The components are literally in use today and have been for years.

Now, whether LN2 (or LAir) energy storage is practical is another matter. The efficiency seems poor unless you have a source of waste heat to juice the process.

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

#546

Post by pfdietz »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #527
pfdietz wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The fact". I think not.

There is an abundance of data, if one is willing to look. Just first links from DDG: "Has Russia Been Financing Western Environmentalism?" (2022) [1] "Putin Is Funding Green Groups to Discredit Natural Gas Fracking" (2017) [2] "German green group branded a Russian ‘puppet’ over Nord Stream II gas pipeline" (2021) [3] [1]: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-envi... [2]: https://www.newsweek.com/pu…

This is a load of conspiracy theoretic BS, starting from the nonsense position that environmental groups are the source of nuclear's failure.

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

#547

Post by pfdietz »

megaman821 wrote: post #530
pfdietz wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electrolyzers driven by otherwise curtailed renewables would have a capacity factor much higher than 10%. If I go to https://model.energy/ and solve for the optimal solution for the US for 2011 weather and 2030 cost assumptions, the capacity factor of the electrolyzers is 43%.

That is more of a what-if. If there was more wind and solar built out there would be enough curtailed energy to run electrolyzers at 43% capacity factor. I am saying today it doesn't make sense because there isn't a lot of over-provisioning taking place. There should be but what investors are going to jump first with a curtailed energy electrolyzer when curtailed energy is low.

It's a demolition of your nonsensical 5% number (which is also what-if).

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

#548

Post by WillPostForFood »

cycomanic wrote: post #386
philwelch wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world It's bizarre how anti-nuclear activists point at problems caused by anti-nuclear activism and ask, like Eric Andre, "how could nuclear power do this?"

Even a superficial glance would tell you that this doesn't make sense. We have had >70 years of peaceful nuclear power. A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues in the first 30 years? Moreover, why has France which hasn't had a significant antinuclear movement ev…

A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years.

That anti-nuclear movement was huge in the 1970s, and was successful in many states and countries at creating major roadblocks to new power plants. Their success in California back then is big reason why the last plants are going offline now, and there haven't been any new plants since Diablo Canyon, which was started in the 1960s. To say that anti-nuclear groups weren't influential until the 21st century is absurd.

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

#549

Post by Manuel_D »

pfdietz wrote: post #545
Manuel_D wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's off the shelf technology for chemical processes. It's not off the shelf technology for energy storage. We have plenty of experience with flywheels. I bet there's millions of cars built every year that have a flywheel in them. Does that mean energy storage using giant flywheels is guaranteed to be insanely cheap and way cheaper than the existing storage systems? Just because we have plenty of experience using a g…

Air separation is not a chemical process. It's a physical process, involving compression, heat exchangers, and expanders. You know, just like an energy storage system using cryogenic gases. None of this is magical unknown technology. The components are literally in use today and have been for years. Now, whether LN2 (or LAir) energy storage is practical is another matter. The efficiency seems poor unless you have a s…

Air separation is mostly used for chemical processes [1] to isolate certain gases like oxygen or nitrogen. This is what I wrote in my previous comment:

> It's off the shelf technology for chemical processes. It's not off the shelf technology for energy storage.

The while point I'm making in these last few comments is that just because a certain technology is effective for one application doesn't guarantee it's effectiveness for a different application.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation#Applications

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

#550

Post by pfdietz »

philwelch wrote: post #539
pfdietz wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complains about renewables handwaving at scale, then suggests seawater uranium extraction and breeder reactors. They have very high double standards in Nuclearstan.

We've had breeder reactors for decades, what are you talking about?

We've had demo reactors with various issues, none of which demonstrated they could compete even with burner reactors.

I remind you the double standard involved criticizing renewables "at scale", so a few problematic breeder reactors won't dispel the hypocrisy.

Post reply on HN