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

#491

Post by Kon5ole » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 8:51 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #402

Kon5ole wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Western nuclear power plants always had containment buildings, so no, this isn't a factor. You can't build a building that contains a steam explosion from a runaway reactor. If you could, the reactor could be made indestructible in the first place. Chernobyl has cost over 600 bn since 1986 and costs billions per year still, and will do so for the foreseeable future. The same goes for Fukushima. Such costs could appe…

> You can't build a building that contains a steam explosion from a runaway reactor. If you could, the reactor could be made indestructible in the first place. Wrong: we can, and do, build concrete domes that contain a potential steam explosion. The pressure vessel has to connect to steam generators, control rods, and more whereas the secondary containment does not. Furthermore, once the pressure vessel explodes, the…

> Got a source for these claims?

Sure! If you are honestly interested in the truth, it's quite easy to find information about all things nuclear. The veneer of falsehoods causing people to believe that nuclear is cheap and safe when it clearly isn't is very thin and will only affect those who don't really want to know.

Here's an estimate from 2016 for Chernobyl, the total back then was estimated to be around 700 bn USD but with some uncertainty. It's probably safe to say at least 600bn now, and it's ongoing.

https://uscglobalhealth.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/2016_che...

The yearly costs for handling Chernobyl (before the recent war) were over 5% of the national budget of Ukraine, and countries as far away as scandinavia still have ongoing costs.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/04/1037451

>Even the more extreme estimates claim $200B for Fukushima

200 bn is the actual estimate from the government. (Extreme estimates are already at 1000 bn).

82 bn was spent in the first 11 years, meaning the average is over 7 billion yearly.

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14762193

The 200 bn estimate is very clearly extremely _optimistic_. It's frankly unreasonable to think that another 15 years will see the end of expenses related to Fukushima.

Now imagine if we could spend all this money on energy storage instead. I think it could go a long way, we just need to do it.

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

#492

Post by quonn » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 9:04 AM UTC

illiarian wrote: post #173

pydry wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course and that needs to be factored into renewable supplies which massively increases their cost. It is and it does but being 5x cheaper means even a massive increase in cost still doesnt put it in the same league as nuclear power.

To cover the drop in generation for the night of April 15, even 400% wind capacity would not be enough. It was a rather regular, quiet, night in a nation of 80 million people in the middle of Europe. Which means that it was a quiet night across much of Europe.

As if there would be just one way to compensate this.

- More renewables can be added

- Storage can compensate for this

- Power can be distributed across large areas

- The amount needed at night is not fixed. It only appears fixed because we don‘t care so much. It can be reduced significantly by using devices and processes in a smarter way depending on the availability of power.

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

#493

Post by pydry » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 9:11 AM UTC

cyberax wrote: post #427

pfdietz wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the entries in that table (LTO) are for 20 year life extensiom of existing plants, not new plants.

And so what? Modern nuclear reactors are licensed for 60 years and are expected to last 80-100 years with maintenance (reactor vessel annealing, mainly). This is exactly a point in favor of nuclear.

France's are struggling to last 60.

Extending their lives to 100 will not only raise maintenance costs even further it will raise the risk of catastrophe quite significantly.

This would be a catastrophe for which e.g. American plants are insured only up to the level of 0.05% of 1 Fukushima level event.

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

#494

Post by Krasnol » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 9:12 AM UTC

evilos wrote: post #422

Krasnol wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany alone has 120.000m³ low and mid waste which needs to be stored. However only a small part of it is ready to be stored (in the safe and deep hole Germany still couldn't find). 2016 they had 15.000t of spend fuel. When all the plants are gone, Germany will have 300.000m³ of waste which needs to disappear for a long time in hope that nobody will ever get the idea of digging it out again. No nuclear company will…

Low/mid waste is mostly just normal trash after it sits for a year or two. Going through the trouble and expense of burying all of it like it's spent nuclear fuel is just wasted money. We spend billions of dollars pretending lightly radioactive material is going to kill someone. Not one person has ever died from handling nuclear waste.

Well I guess the German government should have just asked evilos on the internets and not bother with all those scientists and regulations. Crazy them.

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

#495

Post by olejorgenb » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 9:16 AM UTC

pydry wrote: post #394

Reason077 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ”Nuclear has a load factor of 95%” That’s very optimistic. Perhaps an ideal nuclear plant with a perfect operating record might approach 95%, but real-world load factors are lower as most plants end up requiring extended outages for repairs as some point in their lifetime. France’s lifetime load factors for its nuclear plants are around 77%, but that declined sharply in recent years to 72% in 2020-21 and even lower…

I didn't realize it went as low as that. Some wind farms can hit 65% https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/worlds-first-fl...

That's the same as saying nuclear can hit 95% while the real-world average is more like 80%. For wind that number seems to be around 40% (both land and offshore from a quick search). Guess the jury is out on how more extensive maintenance will affect these projects(?), but down time for wind turbines are probably a lot less than for nuclear plants.

Capacity factors for wind projects surely are highly dependent on location, not just technology. Remains to be seen how many premium locations are suitable?

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

#496

Post by pydry » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 9:21 AM UTC

simonh wrote: post #453

pydry wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realize it went as low as that. Some wind farms can hit 65% https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/worlds-first-fl...

True but with nuclear you can usually schedule the downtime well in advance. With wind it just stops whenever, whether you’re ready for it or not.

You have to fire up the gas generators either way to fill in the gaps.

Scheduled nuclear downtime isnt any greener than the a slow wind day.

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

#497

Post by Krasnol » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 9:24 AM UTC

illiarian wrote: post #471

Krasnol wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany alone has 120.000m³ low and mid waste which needs to be stored. However only a small part of it is ready to be stored (in the safe and deep hole Germany still couldn't find). 2016 they had 15.000t of spend fuel. When all the plants are gone, Germany will have 300.000m³ of waste which needs to disappear for a long time in hope that nobody will ever get the idea of digging it out again. No nuclear company will…

In France, for example, only 0.2% of nuclear waste is high level long-live waste and needs to be disposed of somewhere deep and safe. The absolute vast majority is low-level waste that we have not trouble with. See report on nuclear inventory: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/202... page 14 The FUD around nuclear waste is FUD and politics

It's not only high level long-live which has to be stored deep and safe. Your source shows it pretty good, and therefore it's not "just" 0,2% but 9% + an unknown amount of VLLW.

However, the best thing about this "report" is what's not in there: DECOMISSIONING :D

France will be so full of nuclear waste at the end of this ridiculous era, they're going to protests about that over and over. Mo matter where anybody decides to put the waste.

But who knows, maybe by then the war with Russia is over and they can make it disappear there again....I'm sure that's the best solution for humanity.

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

#498

Post by acidioxide » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 9:27 AM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #97

illiarian wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nuclear plants are very unreliable You mean, they are the most reliable base load and load-following power sources we know. > References are easy to find if you want confirmation It's just as easy to find confirmation that all the problems you listed are the result of neglect and politics of the past 20-30 years. > it has to be done properly and safely, which is certainly not the case around here. As in: France has…

Nuclear proponents when trying to sell nuclear love to shout about how successful France is. Someone from France is telling you that actually, it's really not that great...and now France's nuclear program is terrible and the result of 20-30 years of neglect and politics? Also, which part of "nuclear plants are sensitive to environmental changes" didn't you get? If there's no cooling water, or the water is too hot, th…

"The phasing out of the three large, baseload nuclear power plants will increase Germany's need to import electricity from its neighbors. At the same time, all available scenarios show that as a result of the (almost) simultaneous phasing out of the coal units, Germany will transform itself from an exporter to a net importer of energy as early as the mid-2020s. Adding spice to the matter is the fact that the country is particularly dependent on importing energy from France, which obtains three-quarters of its energy from nuclear power plants. Without the widespread availability of electricity from France, Germany's Atomausstieg would not be possible."[0]

Europe needs stable, centralized and long-term source of energy. Neither solar nor wind power fulfills these requirements. The main goal should be to abandon coal and gas power plants as quickly as possible, and Germany showed that it is very hard / impossible without nuclear power.

[0] https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/node/31458 (in polish, sorry, there is no english version of the article)

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

#499

Post by pydry » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 9:36 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #434

pydry wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's still massively cheaper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.365.6449.108

Cheaper how? From your source: > Last month, the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie estimated the cost to decarbonize the U.S. grid alone would be $4.5 trillion, about half of which would go to installing 900 billion watts, or 900 gigawatts (GW), of batteries and other energy storage technologies. (Today, the world's battery storage capacity is just 5.5 GW.) But as other cities follow the example of Los Angeles, tha…

$1 billion per GW is fantasy. Right now it's more like 8 or 9. Building out enough nuclear power for the whole country would easily blow through that $4.5 trillion mark - even if the price halved.

Moreover, $6 billion is buying a 6GW "pumped storage" battery in Australia. It's not theoretical it's happening right now. There is a huge amount of potential for this that is just starting to be tapped - mostly coz even at max capacity our solar/wind installations don't yet max out grid demand.

Furthermore, 1960s reactors were not safe.

Nuclear power can reduce costs by reducing safety and may well do so to compete. At the moment this cost is hidden, as plant owners' liability is capped at a very low level.

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

#500

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 9:44 AM UTC

epups wrote: post #460

Retric wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries fed cheap solar power can provide relatively cheap peaking power whenever you want. That’s going to effectively be the maximum daily wholesale price per kWh long term. Wind/Hydro and possibly some Nuclear might survive in that kind of an environment, but most industry insiders think Nuclear is basically doomed outside the far north without truly massive subsidies.

Small problem, we don't have enough batteries to power even one large city for a day and we won't have those for at least a decade.

[deleted]