Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#221

Post by option » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:05 PM UTC

lispm wrote: post #66

option wrote: post #3

and is a way to significantly reduce dependence on fundamentally authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, etc. One of the reasons France is like 75% nuclear generation was response to arab oil crisis in 70ies

Europe has a large dependence on Russia for nuclear technology. There are also Russian reactors in Europe. The countries who currently lead the deployment of nuclear technology are China and Russia, two authoritarian countries. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-just-cant-quit-russia...

Finland seems to have no issues launching nuclear without russians.

But you are right, Russia is big on nuclear. They are authoritarian but are not stupid.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#222

Post by uecker » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:06 PM UTC

illiarian wrote: post #212

uecker wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is exiting both nuclear and coal. In the time from 2010 to 2022 where 14/17 of nuclear plants were shut down generation from coal was reduced from 263 TWh per year to 181 TWh. Renewables increased from 105 TWh to 254 TWh. I also would have preferred to leave the nuclear plants running longer and exit coal faster, but in the overall scheme of things it does not matter too much. Nuclear is basically irrelevant.…

Too bad numbers don't work when it's a quiet night, and you have to burn gas, caol, and biomass to make up for those nuclear reactors you've shut down: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396

Sorry, I am not interested what a nuclear shill posts on twitter. Here is the source for my numbers (which are the official ones). Sorry, in German but I assume you can guess the labels: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/STR...

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#223

Post by illiarian » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

lispm wrote: post #214

illiarian wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is rare This literally happened just 6 days ago. > we have a diverse mix of electricity production. Yes, yes we do: coal and biofuel (so more burning), and corn for biofuel is taking up 6% of Germany's land area. > When wind gets more dominant, it will be offshore and connected to a larger North Sea grid So, some magical future > I'd guess that in ten years the max capacity for wind electrical energy in my reg…

> This literally happened just 6 days ago. On what day it happened is independent of how often this happens, for how long, with what demand and the amount of other electricity supplies.. > So, some magical future A nice slogan you have here. It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology. We heard this twenty years ago. This year the share of renewable energy for electricity production is 50%.…

> On what day it happened is independent of how often this happens, for how long, with what demand and the amount of other electricity supplies..

This was a regular sping night in a nation of 80 million people in the middle of Europe. Which means that for a lot of the rest of Europe it was also a quite night.

> It sounds cute, but essentially it is pessimistic and anti-technology.

No. It's realistic. Every time you show problems with intermittent generation by renewables, the answer is "sometime in unknown future we will surely build enough, and enough grid storage to boot".

> The 'new' finnish reactor is 8 billion Euros more expensive than planned

--- start quote ---

Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec...

--- end quote ---

Cost overruns are not unique to nuclear. Especially considering how underinvested nuclera has been for the past 20-30 people who keep spreading FUD.

When there's political will, there are results. Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant in China: 6.1 GW nameplate capacity. Built over 14 years at 1 reactor per 6 years. Operational. Estimated cost 16 bln USD.

> We also currently have not the wind dependence. In the future this will change.

I shudder to think about the future where we depend on whether or not the wind will blow at night.

> it has to do with investments into technology

There are also laws of physics and reality.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#224

Post by lispm » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

mdp2021 wrote: post #129

lispm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe has a large dependence on Russia for nuclear technology. There are also Russian reactors in Europe. The countries who currently lead the deployment of nuclear technology are China and Russia, two authoritarian countries. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-just-cant-quit-russia...

> Europe has a large dependence on Russia for nuclear technology. There are also Russian reactors in Europe That seems to be a legacy, not a necessary constraint.

That authoritarian countries are the main deployers and providers of nuclear is no surprise. The central government decides and there is no opposition. In most democratic countries nuclear is not competitive in the market anymore. For a country like Russia it's much easier to sell nuclear cheap into the market: they want to make European countries dependent on their energy delivery. Western countries have much higher technology standards and with market prices they are not competitive.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#225

Post by Manuel_D » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

haweemwho wrote: post #81

> Only nuclear power is carbon-free [...] You can stop reading right there as this immediately identifies this piece as disingenuous at best, more likely though propaganda. The whole process is definitely not "carbon-free". Uranium extraction, transport and processing produce emissions. Building the plants and maintaining them does. Eventually demolishing does. Transporting the used fuel as well as building and maint…

Correct, but transport, steel manufacturing, etc. are also required for solar, wind, hydro, and whatnot. The real question you're asking is, "what is the net carbon emissions of nuclear power?".

And the answer is that it's lower than most renewables: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and...

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#226

Post by ben_w » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

stuff4ben wrote: post #179

ben_w wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Soon you're going to run out of land for your renewables. No, you won't. > 'would require two billions tons of coal to produce the concrete and steel, along with two billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades. [And] more than 90% of the world’s solar panels are built in Asia on coal-heavy electrical grids.' Fantastic! The world burns that much coal every three months , so after 6 months we could close all…

Except you won't have enough solar and wind alone to generate the needs of the world's power demands. I don't get why some people like yourself are so against nuclear when combined with solar and wind its the best of both worlds? We're all in agreement that coal needs to go, but switching to just solar and wind is not the sole answer and never will be. You will run out of land at some point. No one wants to look at f…

I'm relatively positive about nuclear power: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35659464

Thing is, the best time to build it was the 60s. Now? There's a few cases where I think it's still the best option — ignoring politics, it would be great for shipping, and I'd be really happy if that somehow becomes a standard outside the military — but for most cases, it's just the most expensive solution to greenhouse gases, or joint-worst if you use LiIon as the storage solution.

And if you do want to ignore the political dimension, for example but not limited to the way that Israel will bomb any Iranian reactor just in case the latter might be weaponised, then to compare like-for-like you have to ask the same about a global HVDC grid — my fantasy-football solution, in that it's technically possible but still extremely unlikely.

> You will run out of land at some point

Ah, no. Not at present power use per person. Even England, which is not at all well-placed for solar, has enough land to be (electrically) powered by solar alone. Remember, civil infrastructure — buildings, rail lines, car parks, etc. — already has a huge footprint and PV can fit on almost any roof and between almost any gap.

(Also the wind can be offshore, apparently that's great for people who don't like the look of them on hilltops, less so for radar).

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#227

Post by retrac » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #166

retrac wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power supplies about 50 - 60% of electric energy in Ontario, with 18 reactors currently operating, built 1970s - 1990s. Activated water with tritium in it has been released accidentally a number of times, and small amounts of tritium and other gasses are released by any reactor, but no unapproved leaking besides that has ever been made public. There are of course ecological problems with the heat, but all the…

That’s an accurate but misleading description of what’s going on because Ontario is part of a much larger grid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_power_transmiss... It’s like saying a town next to a nuclear power plant is 90% nuclear, that’s “true” but only works because other areas don’t rely on 90% nuclear. Just like the town, Ontario exports power to other areas and imports non nuclear power. If everyon…

It's not just about the cost. The mix of nuclear and locally-available gas and hydroelectric makes for a self-sufficient energy strategy, and that has always been a major concern. Yes, Ontario is synchronized with the US grid but it could disconnect if necessary. Electricity is a valuable but not critical export economically.

As with France, a substantial influence on historic policy was to build surplus generation for economic security reasons. Could have just imported coal and oil. But Ontario does not have much coal or oil. Same with Quebec and hydroelectric.

Renewables provide the same sort of decentralized benefit, of course.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#228

Post by Brusco_RF » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

haweemwho wrote: post #202

schainks wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_All_ powerplants have those problems, not _just_ nuclear. I agree it's a bit sensationalist of them to not consider the whole picture and declare nuclear "carbon free". What are the total carbon emissions over the life time of usage including construction, operation, maintenance, and destruction of a nuclear plant vs a fossil plant? I wouldn't be surprised if a nuclear plant emits far less carbon overall than a foss…

"X is the only foo that doesn't suffer from Y!" "But it does!" "Well so does every other foo!" You see that this is not a good argument, don't you?

This is why we look at the actual amount of carbon released, not just a binary yes/no. I mean even if you had a magic power source that did not emit one single molecule of C02, a FUD spreader like you could use that exact same argument the first time a worker sparks a cigarette.

So tell me, how much C02 does mining uranium emit as compared to a coal station on a kg/Watt basis? six orders of magnitude less? seven?

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#229

Post by throw-4e451c8 » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:09 PM UTC

eric-burel wrote: post #12

As a French not expert in the matter but living near nuclear plants: - one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material - rivers are getting too hot to cool down nuclear plants correctly - nuclear plants are very unreliable, we almost got out of power this winter and next winter will be equally tough (only an abnormally hot winter avoid cuts...) - the government wants to simplify control organism and laws around…

"I am not against nuclear power" - this is litterally the calling card of a tactical hit, forum-wise. It very obviously means the opposite of what it says.

I generally look at how people perceive things like this as an IQ test. At the moment the HN visitors upvoting/downvoting things in this thread have failed my baseline IQ test.

How I wish all presumably well-intentioned but badly informed and ill-educated people who very often seem to have.. let's say, bad luck when thinking would just stop trying to spread their gospel via forums in this destructive way. Looking at you, vaguely-informed "friends of the planet".

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#230

Post by gcheong » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 9:09 PM UTC

haweemwho wrote: post #81

> Only nuclear power is carbon-free [...] You can stop reading right there as this immediately identifies this piece as disingenuous at best, more likely though propaganda. The whole process is definitely not "carbon-free". Uranium extraction, transport and processing produce emissions. Building the plants and maintaining them does. Eventually demolishing does. Transporting the used fuel as well as building and maint…

I think it's more disingenuous not to have quoted the rest that qualifies this statement compared to renewables:"...and able to meet growing U.S. calls for electrification and global needs for basic economic growth". The rest of the article goes into details about what you get for the amount of resources put into renewables vs nuclear and why nuclear outperforms once an investment is made.