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

721–730 of 818 posts

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

#721

Post by ncmncm »

kwere wrote: post #708
ncmncm wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Rendering large areas uninhabitable is plenty of harm. And death is not the only detrimental health impact.

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

#722

Post by pfdietz »

ncmncm wrote: post #644
pfdietz wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your and Jeff's statements are wholly compatible.

True. :) I mean that the other approaches appear to have obvious showstoppers (mostly engineering ones for DT approaches), while Helion has at least a plausible path to practicality.

(plausible, adj.: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious.)

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

#723

Post by belorn »

nine_k wrote: post #487
philwelch wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The global supply chains for lithium batteries are already struggling to keep up just with current demand. Where are we going to get enough cobalt? Hopefully not DR Congo.

There is a number of battery chemistries more cheap and even efficient than Lithium-based, but with lower energy density. High energy density is important for handheld devices, for flying devices, even for cars. But stationary energy storage can be much heavier and bulkier per kWh stored, as long as it's cheaper, and can sustain more than a few thousand recharge cycles. Lithium batteries have the momentum and are dro…

Since you are 100% certain that such technology will emerge in an economical viable state to solve the storage problem for Europe, could you please provide a date so we can draft a EU law that forbids burning of fossil fuel in the European market by that date.

If you can do it by this winter it would solve inflation, enable a complete sanction packet against Russian oil and gas, solve several political conflicts within EU in regard to the Ukraine war, eliminate the food shortage problem and significant reduce the cost of farming, make a large dent in reducing global warming, improve GDP, and boost prosperity in general.

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

#724

Post by dang »

Jistern wrote: post #712

Quoted post unavailable.

Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines, such as with flamebait posts, ideological battle, and personal attacks? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. We ban that sort of account, and you've unfortunately been doing a lot of this already.

(Incidentally, this doesn't have to do with your views—I don't even know what they are. You've just clearly not been using HN as intended, and that's already a problem.)

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

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

#725

Post by synergy20 »

ncmncm wrote: post #635
synergy20 wrote: post #421

Best news for the day, I'm a firm believer that nuclear is the _only_ way for true green energy on earth at scale. it's a manageable risk(checking out what France is doing) and there is simply no other _true_ alternatives.

Self deception is a terrible scourge. I hope you can overcome it.

being judgmental is not good either.

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

#726

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

pfdietz wrote: post #713
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can hardly call nuclear energy to be a 'global failure'. True, 'green' groups had some success with scaremongering people to be afraid of nuclear energy, but it is generating 10% of energy globally (projected to rise to 15% by 2030 [1] ), with much higher shares in developed countries. If anything, the Fukushima effect has finally weared out, and we'll see new plants constructed which were halted because of that scaremongering.

[1]: https://www.world-energy.org/article/16596.html

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

#727

Post by Manuel_D »

ncmncm wrote: post #676
Manuel_D wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electric ammonia synthesis plants are right now under construction all over the world. Source? I'm not finding any result for electric ammonia synthesis plants under construction right now. The best I could find is this [1] but it's not a plant under construction, and there still significant challenges to overcome to make this viable. > You imagine that engineers are idiots who cannot direct existing, familiar proc…

Your search skills do not define the limits of investment or build-out.

There are no ammonia electric storage plants under construction. You write that there's many under construction, all over the world. Yet you fail to identify one such plant that's actually under construction.

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

#728

Post by Manuel_D »

thehappypm wrote: post #704
Manuel_D wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> First, it’s actually somewhat unlikely that lithium ion batteries are going to be the cheapest grid storage

Then please share what storage mechanism is going to be cheaper.

> 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).

Incorrect, as easily accessible reserves get depleted more and more remote reserves must be tapped. This increases cost of extraction.

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

#729

Post by bob29 »

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…

>build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve a 100% decarbonized grid

Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fossil fuels, and more fossil fuel energy than a fueled nuclear produces in electrical energy. Increasing 4x nuclear plants would increase fossil fuel consumption in the nuclear supply chain.

Nuclear isn't some secret technology you've just discovered thats being suppressed by environmentalists. It literally ended the biggest war ever and was pursued for decades afterwards. Unless you know a secret, if its feasible it would have been done.

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

#730

Post by mlyle »

ncmncm wrote: post #666
mlyle wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Chile proposes it, hoping that Asia invests a very large amount of money into Chile to make it happen. Thus far, this latter bit has not happened.

https://www.gob.cl/en/news/president-pinera-presents-proyect...

Any evidence it has progressed past the Chile-showing-other-countries-Slideware-phase?

You tend to uncritically read the most positive, tentative stuff about PV/storage and accept it as absolute fact.

Post reply on HN