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

Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

nationalinterest.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 568 posts

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

#371

Post by option »

lispm wrote: post #299
option wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are making a stupid mistake 99% of Westerners make when dealing with Russia. You are projecting your values and rationality on them. I am actually from Ukraine, my family is still there and I now leave in USA. I hate russian gov just as much or more as any normal human being. The Western view is that West and Ukraine are winning because of costs russian people and army are suffering. But another view, closer to r…

I don't talk about winning. Russia lost almost all political influence in Europe. In exchange for small parts of the Ukraine which are now minefields. > their original goal Their original goal was to conquer the whole of the Ukraine in a few days. What happened was that the parts they have conquered are destroyed. They lost >100k soldiers (dead or wounded). They exposed their military capabilities to be way worse tha…

again, you think it is stupid and I think it is stupid.

But from their perspective (and their perspective guides their actions) they are the only ones gaining territory in the world, restoring what they think is historically just for them.

Again, projecting “common sense” values on putin’s government failed so many Western politicians.

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

#372

Post by evilos »

dale_glass wrote: post #268
Manuel_D wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, nuclear doesn't always get cheaper. Chernobyl happened, how do we fix that? Containment building. That costs money. Western nuclear power plants always had containment buildings, so no, this isn't a factor. > Fukushima happened, how do we fix that? Better backup plans. Most places aren't subject to magnitude 9.1 earthquakes, so no such plans are needed. Nuclear power benefits from economies of scale. Buildin…

> Western nuclear power plants always had containment buildings, so no, this isn't a factor. The point is that nuclear is safe because we've been making it safer over time, and that rarely makes it cheaper. The specific ways in which that's done isn't the point. Mass production in general is made cheaper by simplifying and cutting corners. Nuclear isn't terribly friendly towards this, you can't just go "How about we…

Everyone is assuming/hoping that a majority renewables national energy system is possible/economical. I don't think it is, but even if you do it's a gamble. No one is sure because it's not been done before. At a minimum you'll have to build several thousands of miles of new transmission and millions of panels/turbines. Those panels/turbines will last maybe 30 years. Batteries aren't going to cut it, you'll need underground hydrogen storage. That's never been done for energy storage before. And hydrogen is a lousy battery, you'll get half your energy back out at best. There's too much uncertainty.

Nuclear fits our existing grid paradigm, and it can be built quickly if we let ourselves. Japan's median reactor build time was under 4 years. France built out their nuclear fleet in 15 to 20 years. It's literally been done before.

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

#374

Post by admax88qqq »

cyanydeez wrote: post #365
throw-4e451c8 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really thought HN was smarter than that french anti-nuclear college kid trying so very hard to appear super vague/undecided... but still clearly anti. Guess not.

Or the pro nuclear egos who knows nothing about the poor state of almost every nuclear waste disposal plan

What is the problem with current disposal plans? My understanding is that there's rough consensus around just encasing and burying it as being safe enough.

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

#375

Post by throw-4e451c8 »

q1w2 wrote: post #357
eric-burel wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:( no really I try to stay open-minded and found contradictory answers interesting, if only because they are well documented. My reply is also to the initial article, which is on the contrary way too optimistic. Nuclear energy is not black or white, I think sharing personal experience as someone living near a plant, in a country relying mostly on nuclear energy, is relevant.

You misrepresent tritium coming from a plant as a "radioactive leak". That's just dishonest nonsense.

Please remember; Eric is very open to both the positives and the negatives. But do keep in mind the negatives.

Also, did you know that french nuclear power plants sometimes are taken down for maintenance. That seems super sketchy, doesn't it?

/s

This f*****g thread.

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

#376

Post by Reason077 »

cyberax wrote: post #347
Kon5ole wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Still, amortized over more than half a century they've ended up being the second-cheapest source of power in the province Even after 50 years you have accumulated only a small percentage of the total costs related to the plant. They will most likely cost more money after they have been decommissioned than they did during operation.

This is a straightforward lie. Decommissioning a nuclear power plant down to a "brown field" can cost about 10% of its construction cost. Even grossly mismanaged decommissioning projects are at about 25%. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating...

Nuclear decommissioning costs in the UK are estimated to reach £260 billion[1]. It would be interesting to compare that to the inflation-adjusted construction costs for the plants. My suspicion is that it’s significantly higher.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/23/uk-nucle...

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

#377

Post by quickthrowman »

Kon5ole wrote: post #339
Manuel_D wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical generation while wind and solar are the cheapest. Except if you add the cost of 12 hours of batteries to solar it's massively more expensive. You can't just compare an intermittent source and a non-intermittent source, without factoring in the cost of storage.

>Except if you add the cost of 12 hours of batteries to solar it's massively more expensive. Nobody knows what nuclear costs, because nobody knows what it will cost to handle the waste 10 years from now, let alone 100 or 1000 years from now. The solution to this for most nuclear operators has been to pay a symbolic fee and let the taxpayers cover the rest "in blanco". When accidents happen, costs also arrive very sud…

> Nobody knows what nuclear costs, because nobody knows what it will cost to handle the waste 10 years from now, let alone 100 or 1000 years from now. The solution to this for most nuclear operators has been to pay a symbolic fee and let the taxpayers cover the rest "in blanco".

We have a fairly good idea, Finland built a nuclear waste storage facility deep in bedrock for €818M:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...

> The estimated cost of this project is about €818 million, which includes construction, encapsulation, and operating costs.

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

#378

Post by dale_glass »

Manuel_D wrote: post #286
dale_glass wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Western nuclear power plants always had containment buildings, so no, this isn't a factor. The point is that nuclear is safe because we've been making it safer over time, and that rarely makes it cheaper. The specific ways in which that's done isn't the point. Mass production in general is made cheaper by simplifying and cutting corners. Nuclear isn't terribly friendly towards this, you can't just go "How about we…

> The point is that nuclear is safe because we've been making it safer over time, and that rarely makes it cheaper. The specific ways in which that's done isn't the point. Er, no it is the point. We've always been using the safety mechanisms you specified, so it's not going to affect costs because those safety features have always been there. > Everything does, but nuclear benefits less. Precisely because of what you…

> Er, no it is the point. We've always been using the safety mechanisms you specified, so it's not going to affect costs because those safety features have always been there.

Again, the point is a generic one. When we find a problem with nuclear, we add extra safety systems. Those cost money. This is something much rarer with say, solar or wind because there's less that can go wrong, less backups needed, and breakage is much more acceptable.

> We make alternators for all kinds of products, so doubling the production of wind turbines doesn't remotely double the market for alternators because wind turbines are only a small segment of the market for alternators.

But it does mean there's factories already pumping them out, plentiful production capacity, competition, and cheap prices.

> People want solutions right now, and intermittent sources are not a solution until cheap and scalable energy storage is invented.

I don't think you're still quite getting what I'm getting at.

Consideration on the level you speak of doesn't exist. Nobody is in charge of the whole system, so a full functional system doesn't matter.

People will build intermittent sources because they're cheap to build, and because intermittency isn't the provider's problem.

Then things break, and people will seek solutions. There will be a rush and various patchwork solutions being implemented in a panic.

You're thinking like a sane person, trying to transition to a different stable system and ensuring it will work properly from the start. I think that won't be the case. We will keep pushing until things break, everyone will blame everyone else, and we'll need to fix things in a hurry.

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

#379

Post by _ph_ »

wyager wrote: post #96
mistersquid wrote: post #85

Nuclear reactors are desirable targets for hostile forces, like Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant which was targeted by Russia. [0] [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-ukraine-she...

Any electrical infrastructure is a strategic target. If it's not a power plant, it's a substation.

Yes, but the consequences are different. If Russia destroys an Ukrainian nuclear reactor, there are grave, long lasting consequences for the Ukraine and possible larger parts of Europe, we still have enough contamination from Chernobyl still. Russia did destroy large parts of the rest of the Ukrainian power infrastructure, as they targetted it, when they weren't shooting at hospitals. But the power infrastructure is mostly back up, at least partial repairs were achieved. So quite a difference.

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

#380

Post by dale_glass »

zdragnar wrote: post #343
dale_glass wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Western nuclear power plants always had containment buildings, so no, this isn't a factor. The point is that nuclear is safe because we've been making it safer over time, and that rarely makes it cheaper. The specific ways in which that's done isn't the point. Mass production in general is made cheaper by simplifying and cutting corners. Nuclear isn't terribly friendly towards this, you can't just go "How about we…

> Mass production in general is made cheaper by simplifying and cutting corners This is painfully wrong. Go shopping for pretty much any industrial part, and you'll pay through the nose for a few. Order a few dozen, and you get massive discounts in price for identical products. It takes time and effort to configure machines and tooling to produce something. Those are fixed costs- the more you order, the per-unit pric…

> That's not gonna happen. No climate model is predicting a doomsday event.

I'm not talking about the climate. I'm talking about the grid.

My prediction is that we'll keep on building renewables until renewables break the grid, then patch it up in a hurry, and nuclear will still not be built in the end.

Post reply on HN