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

661–670 of 818 posts

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

#661

Post by ncmncm »

User23 wrote: post #631
zdragnar wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinetic (water gravity, flywheel) or thermal (molten salt baths which can be supplemented with solar thermal). None of these things exist at a large scale except for pumped hydro / water gravity, and that requires very convenient topography and geology to work. Generally, any non-chemical storage system is overpriced (too inefficient) or a maintenance disaster.

Flywheels and molten salt both have pretty gnarly failure modes too. Not Chernobyl bad, but still no fun.

Underground flywheels are perfectly safe, and more easily kept evacuated. But they won't be used much at utility scale, because they are expensive per Wh stored. Maximum storage is dictated by tensile strength of the wheel material, and each wheel needs its own motor / generator.

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

#662

Post by ncmncm »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #435
ncmncm wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investment and improvement in nukes are falling, not rising. For reasons. There is no reasonable expectation for substantially better costs for nukes. Anywhere they have to compete with $0 opex renewables, they will run at well under 50% capacity, thus more than doubling their per-kWh cost, making them even less competitive.

Renewables are far from $0 opex, and your statement about 'no reasonable expectation' are somewhat unbased .

Nukes are concrete, steel, pumps, steam turbines, liability subsidy, decommissioning subsidy. None of those get cheaper.

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

#663

Post by ncmncm »

Manuel_D wrote: post #443
ncmncm wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may pretend all you like, but I will always correct you.

Correct me how? By insisting that storage is a trivial problem to solve, yet neglecting to actually share what your supposed solution is? By insisting that storage costs are falling yet neglecting to specify the cost and for what technology? By all means "correct" me all you like.

Other readers only need to know that you habitually promote falsehoods.

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

#664

Post by paulmd »

ncmncm wrote: post #319
paulmd wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scaling up capacity of the storage. There aren't that many sites that are geologically feasible for pumped storage (and it destroys a local ecosystem by flooding and draining it repeatedly) and batteries need rare earth metals (not actually that rare but environmentally toxic to produce). We need O(100x) current production to fully switch away from hydrocarbons. That's a lot of reservoirs or a lot of cobalt that have…

False. You have been corrected on this point before. Please stop posting what you know are falsehoods.

Can't say I remember ever interacting with you before, but either way this doesn't meet the HN standards of civility/graciousness.

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

#665

Post by ncmncm »

lelag wrote: post #653
ncmncm wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You make it sound like I'm anti-renewable. I'm not at all. I'm all for building as much capacity as we can as long as it makes economical sense and I will selfishly have solar panel and LFP batteries installed on my home as soon as I can and before price goes up as I expect they will. What I'm saying is that we should not put all of our eggs in the same basket hoping that wind and solar are silver bullets that will f…

They are silver bullets -- really, golden geese -- that are fixing it all, as fast as we spend to build them out. We could be building out much faster, if not for societal inertia and corrupt lobbying.

Each dollar spent on nukes is a dollar not spent on radically more productive renewables. Thus, each diverted to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.

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

#666

Post by ncmncm »

mlyle wrote: post #508
ncmncm wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shipping power 2000 miles is absolutely super-practical. China has a project to send it 8000 miles from solar farms they are building in Chile, for use during nighttime in China.

> Shipping power 2000 miles is absolutely super-practical. DC interconnect makes it more practical, and it's better than storage, but losses and costs accumulate. > China has a project to send it 8000 miles from solar farms they are building in Chile Chile has proposed a project to do just that. It is in exceptionally early conceptual planning stages-- but look at you acting like it's a fait accompli!

Chile does not drive massive energy projects. China is in the driver seat.

I doubt it will end up built, but that will not be because it is impractical. It will be because local generation and storage will turn out to be cheaper and less vulnerable to geopolitical upset.

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

#667

Post by ncmncm »

Manuel_D wrote: post #621
bob29 wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that you can understand this concept when its applied to development of grid-scale storage. But you think its easier and risk free to develop from where we are to R&D plus supply chain, operating procedures, and workforce for safe and cost effective nuclear power? Grid storage has no cost history. Nuclear power has a known cost history of being too expensive, and its had trillions of dollars of investment…

The grid storage that has actually been deployed like hydroelectric and battery storage does have cost history. But it's too expensive, and are geographically limited in the case of the former. The grid storage systems like hydrogen electric storage, or ammonia have not been deployed at scale and has no cost history. I'm not inclined to gamble the future of civilization on technologies that we have zero experience bu…

And, all more expensive to operate than alternative methods.

Which is why nukes are today uncompetitive, and get less so every day. The cost to build all those nukes would build far more renewable generating capacity and storage, far more than we will need. So, we will instead spend far less and get all the power we need. Existing nukes will shortly be too expensive to continue operating, and will be mothballed. Their eventual dismantling will consume a not insubstantial fraction of our much reduced energy budget.

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

#668

Post by ncmncm »

Manuel_D wrote: post #626
ncmncm wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I.e., you cannot identify any single stage of any of these extremely familiar industrial processes that would make it unsuitable for energy storage or retrieval, so instead invoke ghosts of fear and doubt. Do you imagine the ammonia knows why it is being synthesized, and would balk at being synthesized and tanked for energy storage or fuel? Do you imagine it will object to being burnt in a combined-cycle turbine? You…

Why are you all of a suddenly replying to a super-deep thread? Is pfdietz your alt? Regardless if you're asking about the technical shortcomings of ammonia and cryogenic air storage I'm happy the enlighten: Ammonia storage would first require a source of hydrogen. Currently almost all hydrogen is produced through steam reformation which releases carbon dioxide. So this has to be replaced with electrolysis, which is m…

You pretend that electrolysis has not been known for centuries. But nobody is fooled.

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

#669

Post by qsdf38100 »

californical wrote: post #601
WalterBright wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a fellow who is running a startup that moves a (very) heavy weight up a hill, and going back down it provides power. He says it is something like 90% efficient at energy recovery, whereas pumped water is far less due to friction in the pipes. He also said the inertia of a falling weight is enormous, and would help stabilize the grid.

This is a genius idea, especially because it could be done anywhere with a hill, which makes it a lot more geographically accessible (since most places have hills)

It’s actually not a good idea at all. When you do the math ( or rather the physics) gravity batteries need so much mass and height to compete with other technologies that it’s just not worth it.

Except if water, pipes and pumps are used, as water is heavy, and pipes and pumps can transport a lot of it very efficiently and cheaply. That’s called pumped hydro storage and is currently the #1 grid scale storage in the world.

Trying to do the same with solid materials can sound like a genius idea but it’s really not.

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

#670

Post by qsdf38100 »

WalterBright wrote: post #565
californical wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know there are options like pumped water, compressed air, spinning disc. No idea how feasible they are at scale, but I can imagine a world where physical storage like that could be lower maintenance & cost in the long-term compared to chemical batteries. Even if less efficient, you can get enormous potential storage from pumped water with relatively simple machines compared to massive battery farms.

I know a fellow who is running a startup that moves a (very) heavy weight up a hill, and going back down it provides power. He says it is something like 90% efficient at energy recovery, whereas pumped water is far less due to friction in the pipes. He also said the inertia of a falling weight is enormous, and would help stabilize the grid.

It’s actually not a good idea at all. When you do the math ( or rather the physics) gravity batteries need so much mass and height to compete with other technologies that it’s just not worth it.

Now if you use water, pipes and pumps, instead of solid materials, now we’re talking. It’s called pumped hydro storage and is the number one grid scale storage in the world.

Post reply on HN