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

641–650 of 818 posts

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

#641

Post by ncmncm »

mgfist wrote: post #106
otherme123 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulations are a nightmare for good reasons. Nuclear power is safe because regulations are a nightmare. Yes, we could build Chernobyl-like power plants with soviet-like regulations, that are cheap. That leads sooner or later to Chernobyl-like accidents. If nuclear power depends on lowering the safety regulations to be economically viable, it is not economically viable, at least for now. Take for example the infamous…

You're not necessarily wrong. At the end of the day we lost all nuclear expertise when the public turned against it 40 years ago. Per kwh fossil fuel disasters have killed more people and have caused more damage to the environment. Compare the public reactions to the Three Mile Island Accident vs the BP oil spill.

40 years ago, yet not soon enough.

Subsidizing solar and wind 40 years ago, in the amount nukes got, would have brought us to the present efflorescence of miraculously cheap renewable energy 30 years ago, and we would not today be facing imminent climate disaster and ocean ecosystem collapse.

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

#642

Post by ncmncm »

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.

Renewables could be built out much faster with only a little more political will.

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

#643

Post by ncmncm »

amacbride wrote: post #42
rectang wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Of those, only Helion has any hope of a useful outcome. But it is a long shot, not least because of the 3He supply problem.

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

#644

Post by ncmncm »

pfdietz wrote: post #266
jeffbee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's Helion, a supposed fusion power company, but everything about it screams "fraud".

I think Helion is the most credible of all the fusion companies.

Your and Jeff's statements are wholly compatible.

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

#645

Post by ncmncm »

Phlogistique wrote: post #33
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…

Did you mean fusion? Fission is certainly not irrelevant today!

Fission is decreasingly relevant. The faster, the better for us all.

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

#646

Post by ncmncm »

nickles wrote: post #80
jeffbee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state of California has built more battery capacity in the last six months than the entire nation has built of fission power plants in the last 25 years. It is extremely easy to build batteries for fixed service, and bulk semiconductor manufacturing is the #1 thing that humans are good at. These problems are absolutely solved, the whole industry thinks so, that's why the whole industry is behind pv+wind+storage,…

> However, much of this proposed capacity will not ultimately be built. Among a subset of queues for which data are available, only 23% of the projects seeking connection from 2000 to 2016 have subsequently been built. Completion percentages appear to be declining, and are even lower for wind and solar than other resources .

Projects not being built indicate the massive success of falling costs. Projects that fail to reduce cost enough to compete get cancelled, and the capital goes to others instead.

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

#647

Post by karmakurtisaani »

trashtester wrote: post #364
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How radioactive are covid vaccines?

They are bioactive, not very radioactive....

Then why bring them up here at all? I hope it's not to push some backwards anti-vaccine bs.

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

#648

Post by ncmncm »

IMTDb wrote: post #507
jeffbee wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so the basic physics problems are twofold: 1) You don't know how little lithium is contained in a li-ion battery cell; and 2) You don't know that li-ion is less than half the global battery market.

You are right, I double checked. 275 10^10 Wh are needed as per my comment above and there is 160g of Lithium in a battery per kWh of capacity [1] 275 10^10 Wh = 275 10^7 kWh => 275 10^7 kW * 160 g / kWh = 45375 10^7 g = 453 750 tons This is far less than half the resources of the planet, but it's still a non negligible 1/40. To power half the American, for half a day, assuming that we willing to mine all the Lithium…

Batteries will be a negligible fraction of utility storage, and lithium will be a negligible fraction of that.

So, your concern trolling about battery materials is misplaced.

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

#650

Post by ncmncm »

katz_ wrote: post #244

Nuclear is necessary for the near term. And it’s already a mature technology

"Mature" means its cost is not falling, while the competition has already plummeted far below, without slowing. So, your opinion about nukes' necessity will have zero effect on outcome. The rest of the world will act on cost, to even your benefit.
Post reply on HN