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

701–710 of 818 posts

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

#701

Post by ncmncm »

sanderjd wrote: post #536
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.

Do you think those technologies will be scaled such that batteries are a "negligible fraction" of utility storage, or are you just giving examples of possibilities?

Numerous technologies will be scaled. Those mentioned adjacent are just very easily understood examples. Utilities will have criteria other than "easily understood", cost chief among them.

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

#702

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…

If heat capacity of air were too low to boil LN2, it would also be too low to condense nukes' operating steam. You don't get it both ways.

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

#703

Post by goodpoint »

ncmncm wrote: post #640
goodpoint wrote: post #295

It's appalling how these conversation on HN are made of people endlessly repeating only a handful of pros and cons. No progress in the conversation and no discussion of more subtle aspects, like centralization of control/power, systemic risk, nuclear proliferation etc.

The most reliable output of the nuke industry has always been dishonesty. It is a big chore countering it everywhere it blooms.

It's an intrinsic problem of any activity with a combination of huge financial interests, concentration of power, secrecy, national pride (and the ability to create invisible pollution).

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

#704

Post by thehappypm »

Manuel_D wrote: post #512
schiffern wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Global battery production is... Now repeat the same math for global production of new nuclear power plants, in GW/year. While writing your reply about how this isn't the right way to think about the future of nuclear power, realize that those exact same arguments apply to batteries, too.

No, the same arguments do not apply. Lithium ion battery production is essentially a chemical industry. It cannot become cheaper than its input materials. Most of the cobalt produced goes to lithium ion batteries [1]. Eventually, the battery industry hits the ceiling of what extraction industries can supply and shortages are already on the horizon [2]. Nuclear power plants are mostly steel, concrete, and copper. They…

There are two flaws with your argument. First, it’s actually somewhat unlikely that lithium ion batteries are going to be the cheapest grid storage. Second, natural resources almost always get cheaper to extract as demand increases, especially when they’re not actually scarce (there’s tons of Lithium out there).

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

#705

Post by trashtester »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #647
trashtester wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quite the contrary. It is based on the obvious premise that it's a good idea to get vaccinated.

Just because it is well known that vaccines come with a tiny, tiny risk of some complication doesn't mean we should not take them. They save a lot more lives than they take.

is the same as

Just because it is well know that nuclear power come with a tiny, tiny risk of some complication doesn't mean we should not use it. It saves a lot more lives than it takes.

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

#706

Post by jokethrowaway »

MisterTea wrote: post #100
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…

> A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap, Something I've been thinking about for a while: the best course of action to secure a nation is to build out renewables until the need for external fossil fuels is zero. Even if that means using renewables to make fossil fuels via a process like Fischer–Tropsch as a stop gap. I also think it would be advantageous to start thinking about how to drive t…

I don't think you understand the cost of implementing such a solution.

"Free" (as in, your taxes) energy for all is very likely to entirely wreck the economy.

Not to mention there are costs involved with maintenance which make that energy not free. Even ignoring the huge debt incurred by implementing such a solution, who will pay for the maintenance? Our taxes again?

What are the benefits of not paying energy? What innovation is not happening because the pesky electricity has a cost?

Most likely it would just become the country of choice to run computations (whether meaningful research or pointless crypto mining) - if we ignore the gargantuan tax rate this country will have.

Being independent is valuable, that's why I think everybody should source their electricity independently (eg. solar)

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

#708

Post by kwere »

ncmncm wrote: post #448
hushpuppy wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to Chernobyl style accidents is to not build Chernobyl style nuclear reactors. The design was bad to begin with and it really didn't have any sort of containment or bunker or anything like that to speak of. This is why they go on and about the "sarcophagus" required to keep it contained. They had to build a proper containment unit after the fact. You want that stuff built BEFORE you have a nuclear reacto…

> The solution to Chernobyl style accidents is to not build Chernobyl style nuclear reactors Or, indeed, any at all. Thus, also no Fukushimas, and no TMIs, and no Santa Susanas.

you know that "nuclear energy fear" is conceptually equal to "airplane fear" in trasportation?. Both are the most safe by output (kwh vs miles travelled) against deaths in their own categories.

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

#710

Post by kwere »

Brometheus wrote: post #159
gfodor wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is going to do it, and you seem to believe the safety profile of nuclear energy technology has been frozen for 50 years. It's extremely strange to think something as broad as the process of nuclear fission can be spoken about as having a universal, never changing risk-profile, regardless of technological advancement. We don't do this for any other technology. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/c…

China is building out mostly solar and wind.

source?
Post reply on HN