Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear energy is clean

collectifission.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 709 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#391

Post by Krasnol »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #379
Krasnol wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don't believe nuclear waste would pose a significant problem. There are many ways of containing waste as well as reducing. And than all you bring up is some technology which is in testing proving OPs argument. Sure there are ways of reducing highly radioactive waste...at the cost of creating more waste you still have to store...and yeah sure you can dispose some of it in the sea. Also it costs a hell lot of…

The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy , the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium . And we went pretty heavy on Nuclear. Overall, I wouldn't say the problem is insignificant. But it is certainly a small problem, compared to building, maintaining, and renewing all the nuke plants themselves.

> The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy, the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium.

Which is surely just the fuel. Which itself is a tiny amount of the whole amount of waste a nuclear reactor is responsible for in his lifetime.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#392

Post by locallost »

m2fkxy wrote: post #179
joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

> In conclusion, (...) nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive What do you mean? 50+ reactors are under construction as we write [1], and almost twice as much are planned [2] (with even more proposed). Furthermore: > A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped Marine nuclear reactors (of which 200-ish are in active service) and Chukotka's floating nuclear power plants are notable co…

The capacity of plants built now is about the same as it's being retired. This will only accelerate in the future as old plants get more and more decommissioned. I'm comparison there is almost 300GW of capacity in renewables added every year. All nuclear capacity being built now for the next decades is less than what's added in renewables every year, and that's even considering the capacity factor.

So they are not being built in any significant way. Percentage of nuclear went down from 20 to 10 percent and it will continue to go down, until it becomes economical or we figure out we can't get renewables to work. I personally wouldn't bet on either of those, but that's just my opinion. There is a third option of course that is very realistic, and that is that the nuclear lobby buys itself a business model through FUD and other means. Currently they realistically don't have one.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#393

Post by robertlagrant »

Gwypaas wrote: post #387
jokoon wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't transmit energy efficiently over very large distances, power lines will have too much loss power due to resistance.

That's a solved problem today. China has a 12 GW 3,300 km (2,100 mi) HVDC line in use for a couple of years now. The loss is 2-3% per 1,000 km depending on the voltage of the system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

If you add in "rebuild all the transmission lines" to the cost then that would be good. Comparing some costs of renewables to total cost of nuclear is a fun pastime, but doesn't help the debate.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#394

Post by Krasnol »

bilekas wrote: post #377
Krasnol wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don't believe nuclear waste would pose a significant problem. There are many ways of containing waste as well as reducing. And than all you bring up is some technology which is in testing proving OPs argument. Sure there are ways of reducing highly radioactive waste...at the cost of creating more waste you still have to store...and yeah sure you can dispose some of it in the sea. Also it costs a hell lot of…

> The topic is renewables vs. nuclear though. I'm only commenting on a portion of the argument against nuclear based on its waste. The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy from a nuclear reactor Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables I'm personally of the opinion why not both. So I'm biased of course, but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of.…

> The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy

It doesn't matter how much energy it "returns". It doesn't make the waste less worse for generations.

> Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables

You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. I don't even get how this is relevant. Especially because of the issue with constantly running nuclear reactors in an old grid clogging it up so cheap renewable energy needs to be turned off.

> but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology.

Those jumps you make here from unfunded claims about waste disposal over derailing into fossil, whitewashing of that waste and old school baseload myths make me thing you're the one who's afraid of technology.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#395

Post by simmerup »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #357
jokoon wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables are not baseload. If you add batteries to the mix, nuclear is better. Not to mention the quantity of power produced. Nuclear is expensive because it's long term investment. Renewables also cost more in resources (concrete, steel, copper), there are sourced charts about this. Renewables are better than coal and gaz, but not better than nuclear. There's nothing wrong with renewables, but it's not enough to o…

It doesn't have to be batteries, it can be pump storage plant or similar installations. Problem that those don't work aren't technical. There are often legislative in nature or the infrastructure for energy transportation is inadequate. We don't know how feasibly we can get Uranium. The market is unstable right now because of political problems. The topic is very complex, there are disadvantages with every form of en…

I’ve heard using offshore wind turbines to create hydrogen that can be burned is a good way forward

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#396

Post by YawningAngel »

jokoon wrote: post #384
raxxorraxor wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be batteries, it can be pump storage plant or similar installations. Problem that those don't work aren't technical. There are often legislative in nature or the infrastructure for energy transportation is inadequate. We don't know how feasibly we can get Uranium. The market is unstable right now because of political problems. The topic is very complex, there are disadvantages with every form of en…

Uranium is easier to find than copper and other rare metals, because by weight, it can generate more power. There is uranium in sea water, and I bet it's efficient enough to filter that uranium.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...

It's more expensive than mining but not by an order of magnitude

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#397

Post by Gwypaas »

mirzap wrote: post #327
otherme123 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And again, the article does the same mistake they always do: attack wind and solar more than fossil or hydro. Instead of selling nuclear as the ideal companion to solar, it's always a sad try to convince us that we are wrong investing in solar and eolic, and the money should be going to more nuclear. My guess is that utilities are not happy with the decentralization of PV. They like fossils, hydro and nuclear because…

I really can't understand how so many smart people fall for wind/solar promises. If you just think about it you have to realize it is not reliable solution for 21 century, it is not scalable for ever increasing (exponential) energy demand, population growth, land needed for expansion. It is simply stupid to rely on energy produced from sources that are by nature unpredictable (like wind, or sun). Solar/Wind can and s…

I don't know why statistics scares you? The interesting thing is the correlation factors and then choose an uptime requirement.

> South Australia is at the vanguard of the global energy transition, having transformed its energy system from 1% to over 60% renewable energy in just over 15 years.

> By 2025/2026, the Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts this could rise to approximately 85%.

> South Australia’s aspiration is to achieve 100% net renewables by 2030. In 2021, South Australia met 100% of its operational demand from renewable resources on 180 days (49%).

https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/industry/modern-energy/le...

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#398

Post by Gwypaas »

mirzap wrote: post #335
adrianN wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a long way to grow before solar energy is not enough for our energy needs.

It is not enough already. Its output is not reliable already. It takes huge space, land that could be used differently (like say expansion, so housing becomes cheaper, or farming, etc.), it has huge environmental impact (nothing lives anymore where solar farms are built). No thanks. I'll take nuclear any day.

If land use is the hill to die on a much better target is the beef industry.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#399

Post by Blammar »

TedShiller wrote: post #381
jaredklewis wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with some of your criticism of the article, but I disagree that nuclear waste is a problem. Yes, we have to store it somewhere. But all US plants combined make ~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year. To put that in perspective, the strategic oil reserve is 100 million cubic meters. A single aircraft carrier is 2 million cubic meters. Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem lik…

> Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem like a massive problem. How about your backyard?

If I can access the fuel remaining in the rods, sure! I always wanted a 15kw thermal reactor in my back yard... just need a few cubic meters of Peltier pods...

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#400

Post by slavik81 »

smartmic wrote: post #347
jaredklewis wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with some of your criticism of the article, but I disagree that nuclear waste is a problem. Yes, we have to store it somewhere. But all US plants combined make ~5k cubic meters of nuclear waste a year. To put that in perspective, the strategic oil reserve is 100 million cubic meters. A single aircraft carrier is 2 million cubic meters. Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem lik…

You just considered one axis of the waste properties. It must also be in the equation that the waste will remain radioactive and toxic for thousands of years, far beyond the time horizon of what a normal human brain is capable of processing. Also, the effects (spatial, biological) if the waste is released for whatever reason (which we may not even know now). So the debt we transfer to future generations goes far, too…

Spent fuel will remain toxic forever. Uranium and plutonium are heavy metals. They will have to be treated as dangerous substances from now until the end of time, much like lead or mercury.
Post reply on HN