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

481–490 of 709 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#481

Post by ncmncm »

cesarb wrote: post #65
anonporridge wrote: post #18

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…

> An adversary might still be able to take out the grid by targeting transmission infrastructure, but recovering from it should be relatively quick because the actual generators are all still intact. You underestimate the cost and lead times of the big distribution transformers found in grid substations. As an example, a fire two years ago on a substation transformer in the state of Amapá (while another transformer w…

Estimates are that when the (technically already overdue) Pacific Northwest earthquake and tsunami rolls in, it will take two years to restore power to most of the coastal and downriver areas.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#483

Post by adrianN »

franga2000 wrote: post #402
jillesvangurp wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solar panel argument is very weak, at best. There are some minor challenges with solar. And they are really very minor. Quite different to "don't touch the nuclear waste for the next few million or so years". Nuclear has several problems. The main one of which is simply its cost. It is complex technology that involves dangerous materials that need protective measures against both technical failures and security m…

That's a great comparison of producing, installing, maintaining and recycling, but what about the thing we're building this in the first place? Generating power? Let's say we shut down a coal power plant, which was 30% of a region's energy mix, and want to replace its output. What's the total cost and environmental impact of doing that with solar vs nuclear? This is the only thing that matters. Even if solar panels a…

Hinkley Point C will cost about 100pounds/MWh give or take 10%. Wind power in the UK has strike prices around forty pounds per MWh. That leaves a bit of room for storage before you're more expensive than Hinkley Point C.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#484

Post by ncmncm »

bob1029 wrote: post #32
anonporridge wrote: post #18

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…

> An adversary might still be able to take out the grid by targeting transmission infrastructure, but recovering from it should be relatively quick because the actual generators are all still intact. The most difficult part of the grid is the transmission infrastructure. The most valuable, high-lead-time part probably being the HV transformers that live near power plants.

Good planning would include keeping spares out of harm's way.

One wonders whether famously-protected Finland keeps spares.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#485

Post by ekianjo »

kuhewa wrote: post #106
ekianjo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine does not quality as "a large scale conflict" in any measure. If we had ww3, you'd be much more likely to die by actual nukes falling from the skies than residual radiation form destroyed nuclear plants.

> Ukraine does not quality as "a large scale conflict" in any measure. That is incorrect. Large scale != global or world war. It's a moot point though.

Large scale involves more than two countries focusing on a single region, typically. Otherwise words have absolutely no meaning anymore.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#486

Post by darkcha0s »

fho wrote: post #478
bionsystem wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, there is more. Nuclear needs water to cool, hot water then goes into rivers. This, until the river becomes too hot for the life in the water, then you cannot use your plant anymore (or you can, at the risk of killing all life in the area). Also water evaporates when it's hot and vapor is a greenhouse gas even worse than carbon dioxyde. This might sound like a minor problem in the short term but it might be a hu…

> Nuclear needs water to cool, hot water then goes into rivers. Can you back that up? From what I understand most of the cooling happens in the cooling towers by evaporation?

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...

It can't be that hard to google? That being said, only 14% of reactors use rivers to cool, so OP may be exaggerating a bit.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#487

Post by ncmncm »

anonporridge wrote: post #147
aet wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few? Here is another: mining “Many Navajo people have died of kidney failure and cancer, conditions linked to uranium contamination. And new research from the CDC shows uranium in babies born now.” https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/10/4735472...

Good thing renewables don't depend on dangerous mining... ...oh wait, https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complica...

Solar does not depend on rare-earths. Most wind, likewise.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#488

Post by ben_w »

ncmncm wrote: post #438
ben_w wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost and geopolitics. A worldwide grid is absolutely possible from a technical perspective even with boring non-superconducting aluminium and/or copper, it's just that the combined cross section needs to be in the order of 3m^2, which is 17 years of current global output of both metals combined and has a current cost of a few trillion USD: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32198057 (That said, my old linked estima…

Aluminum is abundant. If we need more, we refine more; it mainly takes electrical power, which is getting cheaper all the time.

Sure, I don't mean to imply it's not possible or anything even close to that, merely that it's something that will take a while rather than be ready this decade.

I'm kinda leaning towards expecting batteries (specifically batteries and not storage in general) to be the first way a continental power grid gets to 100% renewable, even though I prefer the aesthetic of a global grid. But I don't have any skin in the game, and wouldn't bet against e.g. a cheap high temperature superconductor grid or liquid hydrogen.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#489

Post by shakow »

ncmncm wrote: post #475
shakow wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped Have you ever heard of nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines?

Desperate, much?

Am I living in an alternate universe? US, UK, Russia, France have been putting nuke plants in submarines for half a century, most of these countries have done the same with surface ships, be it carriers or ice-breakers, Russia has built nuke plants on barges to provide power for remote areas; heck, the US even ran a nuke plant on a plane, and I am the one being desperate?

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#490

Post by ncmncm »

Panzer04 wrote: post #286
bob1029 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will grant you a hypothetical wherein the inverters are all perfectly synchronized by some central system and have no reliance on grid voltage as the primary signaling mechanism. But, this is a precipitous arrangement. If there is any drift in the clocks or some fault in the sync protocol, you can quickly wind up with a completely dead grid (because all your inverters will have killed each other). Spinning metal is…

I must admit to not being an expert in the matter - but it seems odd to expect inverters to spontaneously desync. Grid-tie inverters take their cue from the existing grid presence, so it's not like we'll have a grid full of inverters attempting to drive their own frequency slowly getting out of sync. I don't actually know how they work, but presumably they will attempt to match the available frequency at their output…

Inverters that see excess frequency make a point of lagging. Collectively, they can bring the frequency back in line, just as control systems in rotating machinery do.

The rotating machines are wholly as dependent on controls as the inverters.

Post reply on HN