Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear energy is clean

collectifission.nl

461–470 of 709 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#461
post #185
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…

Not sure what do you mean? In many countries nuclear is government subsidised and is the cheapest & cleanest source of energy available compared to say renewables. In fact countries build these because of the price of other alternatives: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/czechs-st... The caveat is indeed incredibly large CAPEX and very long time, but what is the alternative? At least then you are sec…

You contradict yourself. If it were cheap, it would not need to be subsidized.

Existing nukes will be mothballed as even their opex is uncompetitive. Governments will, in the end, choose to spend their money more wisely than propping up extremely expensive nukes. Buying their neighbors' renewable overproduction will be cheaper. Building out their own, cheaper yet.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#462
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the few good arguments against nuclear, especially large installations that produce a huge percentage of a region's power. Even if you can design it in such a way that an external attack is very unlikely to cause a meltdown, it's a juicy and easy target for an adversary to cripple your electricity production. A few dozen well placed missiles might be all you need to take an entire nation that's heavily…

Nuclear plants have containment buildings that can withstand strikes by artillery.

Nothing prevent us to put the grids safely protected under tons of concrete so they can't be destroyed to easily. Plus the bonus of isolate it better from water and flooding damage.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. So where can I see a cost comparison that factors in the cost of storage ? I've probably seen 20 people say this exact same thing and have never been able to find an actual cost breakdown that supports it.

The cost comparisons also don't include the cost of waste storage for nuclear. But it is also irrelevant, nuclear also needs storage or overcapacity. France is currently only operating to 60% capacity due to heat and maintance (although I saw some other news that they took all their plants offline for maintanance which I found hard to believe) so you need to overbuild of get storage for nuclear as well. On top of tha…

And, when they are mothballed early, unable to compete even on OPEx alone, even neglecting CAPEX, the cost of every kWh ever delivered will skyrocket as the CAPEX then has to be amortized over the total finally produced.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. So where can I see a cost comparison that factors in the cost of storage ? I've probably seen 20 people say this exact same thing and have never been able to find an actual cost breakdown that supports it.

Nobody knows what storage would cost because there is no technology that currently exists to make storage possible. Battery technology helps a lot to stabilize the grid over seconds to minutes or even hours, but the kind of storage that would be needed to be 100% solar and wind just doesn't exist. Pumped hydro is great but there are not many places where it is feasible. So the reality of the current situation is that…

Storage is trivial.

It will be built after there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#465
post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the problem with nuclear. It was the answer in the 1990s, but renewables have proven themselves. Now sure, if you could snap your fingers and build a new nuclear plant tomorrow, that would be great. But you can't. By the time a plant breaking ground today starts generating power, it will be too late to make sense.

And, if you could, it would still be massively more expensive. For the price you get many times as much renewable generation.

The market is free to make their decisions. With a global ban on fossil fuels in the European grid countries should choose for themselves if they want to build multiple cheaper renewables or build more expensive nuclear. Voters will then say theirs. Countries can always trade with each other so that which ever strategy end up as a winner will spread to the others.

Everything is a win-win scenario as long fossil fuels stays in the ground.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. So where can I see a cost comparison that factors in the cost of storage ? I've probably seen 20 people say this exact same thing and have never been able to find an actual cost breakdown that supports it.

You obviously need to factor in the cost of storage if you want to abruptly replace all electricity generation with solar and wind, but I’m also interested in the question “how much non-renewable power generation can we replace with solar and wind before we even have to start worrying about storage?”

You only build storage after you have renewable generating capacity to charge it from. By the time it is needed, its cost will have fallen to a trivial amount.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#467
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…

If workable (obviously crucial point!), I like the idea of using renewables, e.g. offshore wind farms, to produce hydrogen. This would solve storage issues, vehicles could be refilled pretty much the way they are now, gas boilers could be swapped for hydrogen, no need for polluting batteries, no major upgrades of electric grid, etc.

Not workable.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and is found in great abundance in all galaxies. It is particularly present in the Sun, which is problematic because it is not very accessible to us :) On Earth, there is also a lot of hydrogen in water and in hydrocarbons. However, it does not exist in free form, i.e. just hydrogen. It is always associated with something else, for example with oxygen in water, or with carbon in hydrocarbons.

There are, however, small sources of native hydrogen in the earth underground, but the quantities are nowhere near what we would need to use if we wanted to do anything significant with it. At least not beyond what we are already doing, because hydrogen is already used a lot these days. Nearly 100 million metric tonnes of this element are produced in the world every year.

To be transported, hydrogen must be kept under high pressure or extremely low temperature. This should already raises some question about the feasibility :)

Half of this production is used to de-sulphurize fuels and the other half to make fertilizers (Haber-Bosch process). Thus, hydrogen is already used extensively in the world, but there is a small problem: it is made from hydrocarbons, fossil natural gas, oil or coal, which represents 10 to 30 (metric) tonnes of CO2 per metric ton of hydrogen.

With the way it is made, should we go even further towards this fuel despite global warming? We could then imagine making hydrogen for other applications that do not exist today. For example, like you imagine, to power vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells or to make steel without emitting CO2.

There is a process for making iron with blast furnaces that do not emit CO2. There are also plans by steelmakers to make steel without emitting CO2 by converting iron ore into iron with hydrogen. The hydrogen then removes the oxygen from the iron ore, which is released into the atmosphere as water vapor. To do this, large quantities of hydrogen are needed and, for example, to replace a blast furnace, a nuclear plant is needed to generate the electricity that will enable the water to be electrolyzed, which is the only way to make "clean" hydrogen without emitting CO2. Something like a thousand wind turbines would be needed to replace a nuclear plant (and remember: wind turbines does not work all the time)

When you see the amount of electricity it would take to be able to produce carbon-free hydrogen in large quantities, you realize that there will never be much of it in transport. Not all the world's aircraft will be replaced by hydrogen-powered aircraft, for example. The applications that could then be made with carbon-free hydrogen would be to keep the production of fertilizers and carbon-free steel. Achieving this would already be a big step.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#468
post #430
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…

Let the market decide. You may be right and I wish you well if you're basing investment decisions on your projections. It does not seem plausible to me that nuclear would be uncompetitive on a free market. There are cost curves and economies of scale that may not be visible due to the regulatory burden and regulatory uncertainty.

Nukes have never been competitive. Every last nuke ever built depended utterly on subsidy coerced from taxpayers or ratepayers.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They saw the numbers. You can store electricity from day to night, but not from Summer to Winter. Months-long electricity storage will never make economic sense (or at least not in the next 30 years). where's your crystal ball?

They are correct about this bit, but not the wider conclusion. Months long storage of electricity is uneconomic compared with alternatives. Which is a shame for nuclear, as it would really benefit from it if you could just build enough for the average demand and run then 100% of the time. Instead, flexible demand is much cheaper. So you overbuild the nuclear and modulate the demand for making green hydrogen and ammon…

Not all overbuilding is the same.

This link [1] shows that solar energy generation is 6 times higher in the summer than in the winter in Germany.

The total electricity consumption varies is about 1.5 times higher in the winter than in the summer [2].

In other words, you need to overbuild nuclear by a factor of 1.5, and solar by a factor of 9.

[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/monthly-gener...

[2] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#470
post #453
post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Green hydrogen" is probably the least efficient form of energy storage talked about. The only reason it gets talked about at all is again , PR - because gas companies are keen on extending the life of their rather expensive capital investments. It's currently in the hypothetical stage and, being realistic, the gas companies promoting it probably just want to produce grey hydrogen for use with "green hydrogen" infras…

Please provide a link to a pumped storage that buy green wind power when the price is low and sell it when the price is high. I would be nice to have a working example of how much wind they buy and at what price point they sell, and how they managed to finance it (ie, how much subsidies was involved). The cost per kw/h is of particular interest. Grid scale batteries work great when you got 365 charge cycles. Each day…

>Please provide a link to a pumped storage that buy green wind power when the price is low and sell it when the price is high.

Not sure what you mean here. Like, a link to fengning? Kaprun? Snowy 2?

Also you dont buy "green power" on the grid. You just buy power.

We dont have much pumped storage right now coz (at least until feb) basically nothing could compete with gas as a peaker. Some is under construction though in anticipation of it being economic in a few years. With the subsidies nuclear eats for breakfast we could accelerate and bring online even more stable power than nuclear possibly could at lower cost.

>Wind doesn't have day and night cycles like that, but rather have periods lasting weeks or months of either good wind or poor wind.

It tends to anticorrelate with solar production which has a smoothing effect. Also the idea that whole months go by with little to no wind is a myth. Offshore in particular is a lot more stable than its reputation, topping out at 67% capacity factor, which is only slightly below France's 71% for its nuclear plants in 2020 (frances plants are getting decrepit).

Pro nuclear articles almost invariably avoid delving into this and comparing the economics and focus almost exclusively on safety because this isnt an argument it can really win.

>Since nuclear is presented as being the most expensive method to create energy, if you then store it in pumped hydro and add this additional storage cost, how in the world would that be economical viable?

Coz France subsidized the shit out of its nuclear industry in the 70s in reaction to the oil crisis. You can make anything economic if you throw subsidies at it. Whether those subsidies were well spent is another matter.

If you assume construction is a sunk cost, existing nuclear plants are economically competitive which is partly why new US nuclear legislation is focused on extending plant life. However, running decrepit old nuclear plants until the bitter end isnt particularly safe.

Hence why it's important to prime the public to think that it is with all those "nuclear power is the future!" articles. Consent must be manufactured.

Post reply on HN