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

711–720 of 818 posts

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

#711

Post by kwere »

ncmncm wrote: post #205
fartsucker69 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is afaik true about nuclear power plants in general. They are one of the least cost-efficient energy generation sources out there because of their insane construction and running costs. In some countries they never make their money back, even if run by private companies, and only exist because of subsidies when they were built. However, they are by far the most practical and safe way to generate ludicrous amount…

Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer. Starting a new nuke means burning coal for an extra decade, and at the end of that decade getting much less power per euro, displacing correspondingly less CO2, than if you had built out renewables instead. There is simply no contest. Even refurbishing a nuke instead of building out renewables is a losing proposition. Just continuing to…

you dont need 10 years to build a nuclear plant, most of delays are due to " political limitations" and construction/design inexpertise. South Korea build them on 56 months on average. Scale matter

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

#713

Post by pfdietz »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #613
pfdietz wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah right, "Independent fact-checkers said the information is false". The greens in Germany have consistently worked on destroying Germany's nuclear energy generation, and now it is completely dependent on gas import from Russia, funding Putin's war with Ukraine.

I can fully agree that green groups have opposed nuclear.

I call bullshit on the absurd idea that the global failure of nuclear is due to these groups.

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

#714

Post by kwere »

logifail wrote: post #210
lelag wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's in large part due to the work of the german-influenced green movement which did manage to get France to stop building reactors for 30 years or so. In the meantime, the french nuclear industry lost the competency to build new one as demonstrated by the struggling EPR project in Normandy. But at least the many older reactors have been producing low-carbon power since then... Germany's electricity production has…

> In the meantime, the french nuclear industry lost the competency to build new one as demonstrated by the struggling EPR project in Normandy. If the French (of all people) can no longer get it together to build new reactors even remotely on time and on budget, then maybe we just need to be honest and give up on the "build lots of new nuclear plants, quickly" as a credible medium-term component of a plan to deal with…

Koreans and Russians (political refugees) have still the skills to build reactors at time and "costs"

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

#715

Post by kwere »

adrianN wrote: post #64
Jorge1o1 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasons are political… just like in the United States. HBO with their Chernobyl miniseries single-handedly undid years of progress in the perception of nuclear energy.

Or perhaps the reasons are economical. Recently nuclear construction projects became a lot more expensive and took a lot longer than initially planned.

scale matter expecially with brand new designs and constructions teams/tecnologies

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

#716

Post by pfdietz »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #696
pfdietz wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a different claim. It's looking at trends rather than at a specific point. Solar historically declines in cost by 24% for each cumulative doubling of production (of the solar hardware). Solar is about 4% of global electricity production now, so scaling it to saturation (just for current electricity demand, which will grow as the world becomes richer and more electrification replaces fossil heat) would drop the c…

> Solar historically declines in cost by 24% for each cumulative doubling of production This only worked while panels were the lion's share of the cost of a solar installation. These days, costs of real estate, installation and grid connection far exceed the cost of panels -- and those costs go up every year with labour costs rather than coming down.

Costs of installation only go up? There has been steady improvement there, particularly at utility scale. No more expensive poured concrete foundations, just screw earth anchors into the ground.

Or are you talking labor-intensive installation onto residential rooftops? Well, stop doing that, it's kind of stupid.

Real estate costs are a tiny fraction of the cost of installed solar in much of the US, and in much of the world. A solar powered global economy will not be putting many panels on the small fraction of the world's surface that's unusually expensive, but will focus those panels on places where it's cheaper. It's the same reason we don't grow wheat in Manhattan.

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

#717

Post by thereddaikon »

ncmncm wrote: post #412
thereddaikon wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what that has to do with nuclear plants or solar farms. My original point was that complaining that uranium isn't evenly distributed is a red herring because you don't build power plants on top of the mines. Whereas you do have to build solar farms where the sunny days are plentiful.

And you can deliver that renewable power wherever it is needed, for a one-time up-front cost, free thereafter.

No you can't. Transmission lines have upkeep.

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

#718

Post by karmakurtisaani »

trashtester wrote: post #705
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying!

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

#719

Post by ben_w »

ncmncm wrote: post #697
ben_w wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I looked at this, antipodal HVDC was several (2? 3? Can't remember) orders of magnitude cheaper than batteries at the scale of continental electrical requirements; the limit is needing so much metal you become a dominant player in the world metal mining industry just for this project.

Batteries are the most expensive storage. A negligible fraction of utility storage will be batteries unless some new battery chemistry is very, very cheap. Almost all current utility storage is gravity. That probably won't change.

Hmm. Last time I suggested that[0], I was quickly shot down. I still don't really know why, but as I'm no geologist or civil engineer, I'm willing to believe either a yes or a no at this point.

I definitely don't see any other gravity batteries being useful on this scale.

[0] specifically I suggested that there was a lot of room for a lot of additional pumped hydro — I don't mean my more recent claim, which is merely that existing pumped hydro is cool

Post reply on HN