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

Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 165 posts

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#111

Post by mpweiher »

pfdietz wrote: post #62
zaphar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact is that we probably need all of the following to have any hope of reaching carbon neutral: 1. Nuclear for base load 2. Wind and solar with storage for supplemental 3. Carbon capture and storage Any discussion that tries to exclude one of them is in my mind non-serious and the ultimate form of greenwashing. In practical terms it's not going to be possible to get there without some form of all of the above.

We don't need nuclear for base load. Nuclear and renewables don't play together well either.

We don't need unreliable renewables when we have reliable nuclear. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But it can be nice on top for things that can be deferred or that align with availability.

For example, solar seems really sweet for running air-conditioning units in hot/sunny climates.

And you can probably schedule charging your EV for when the wind is blowing.

But stop an aluminum smelter for more than 6 hours and the factory is kaput. And if we're going to heat our homes using electricity, I'd rather not have that be contingent on whether the weather is feeling like it today.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#112

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

mpweiher wrote: post #106
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Hinkley Point C that is only generation. No delivery. Add another 10 - 20 cents for delivery depending on if it's a city or rural.

That cheap green German electricity is currently > 40 cents per kWh. Last I checked that was with the subsidies (in use most places right now) that buffer the Russia-induced energy crisis. These are running out, partly because the way all the different subsidies were being hidden was unconstitutional.

Now you don't know what you are talking about.

German wholesale electricity prices are both cheaper than French and in line with the rest of Europe.

For the public there are quite high taxes to encourage energy efficiency, which the industry of course does not pay.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#113

Post by peterfirefly »

Krasnol wrote: post #102
peterfirefly wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not just did it not have containment, it was intrinsically unstable. I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. > thriving wild-life reserve I know. > where you might have a slightly higher statistical risk of cancer. I know. > In Chernobyl as well. I know. > In both cases the negative health effects of the evacuation were far more severe than the negative health effec…

> I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. Why did you do it then? I didn't. Also, the argument that "event x is not valid because it can't happen this way anymore" is as useless as the initial promise of safety. Some things don't happen this way. Others can still happen, and it can still end up being disastrous. There is always the human and nature factors. You just c…

> People who usually play those games accuse their adversaries as ignorant, when in fact they are the ignorant ones.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#114

Post by Manuel_D »

Krasnol wrote: post #107
Manuel_D wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, people have been allowed to return since 2022. We're not just talking about soil.

How is this supposed to be reassuring that you can return after 11 years? Or even after 1 year? Are you joking? Can you imagine telling the whole of Luxembourg that they have to just stop existing for 11 years? Or just Antwerp? In what mad world is this supposed to be uplifting news or an argument pro nuclear? Especially with far safer, cleaner and cheaper alternatives already there and being rolled out in months ins…

Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#115

Post by bryanlarsen »

peterfirefly wrote: post #88
bryanlarsen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive in most markets. That's not even close to being true. Uruguay is 100% wind + storage. 90% - 98% from wind, with 2% - 10% from hydro. The US has two advantages that Uruguay doesn't: a continental sized energy grid and a mix of wind & solar. Plus the advantage of building it out in the 2020s rather than the 2010s when both solar and batterie…

Uruguay has dams in the mountains for its hydro. The country can choose how much electricity to generate from them to compensate for low winds. That's only viable with mountains + valleys + sufficiently low population density (206th in the world). It's not something that generalizes to the entire lower 48 (but it will work fine in parts of California).

The US gets 6% of its power from Hydro. The Uruguayan experience makes it clear that it has enough Hydro energy capacity (not sure whether it has enough Hydro power capacity, but that's a lot easier to add than energy capacity). Build enough solar & wind so that you get enough power with either solar or wind if the other is not producing, and fill in the holes with hydro and the existing nuclear.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#116

Post by pfdietz »

mpweiher wrote: post #111
pfdietz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need nuclear for base load. Nuclear and renewables don't play together well either.

We don't need unreliable renewables when we have reliable nuclear. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But it can be nice on top for things that can be deferred or that align with availability. For example, solar seems really sweet for running air-conditioning units in hot/sunny climates. And you can probably schedule charging your EV for when the wind is blowing. But stop an aluminum smelter for more than 6 hours and the factory is kaput. An…

The renewables end up cheaper though, especially as you project established experience curves for renewables, batteries, and electrolyzers into the future.

The case for nuclear is built on an every expanding foundation of wishful and magical thinking. All contrary evidence is waved away by conspiracy theoretic dismissal involving regulators and all powerful greens.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#117

Post by Krasnol »

peterfirefly wrote: post #113
Krasnol wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. Why did you do it then? I didn't. Also, the argument that "event x is not valid because it can't happen this way anymore" is as useless as the initial promise of safety. Some things don't happen this way. Others can still happen, and it can still end up being disastrous. There is always the human and nature factors. You just c…

> People who usually play those games accuse their adversaries as ignorant, when in fact they are the ignorant ones.

I like how you went for this and didn't even touch the actual topic anymore.

Pretty representative.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#118

Post by Krasnol »

mpweiher wrote: post #110
Krasnol wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imho we're today already at a point where investing in nuclear is a waste of (taxpayer) money. Base load is no issue anymore in a grid which is large enough. There is always wind/sun/water somewhere.

That turns out not to be the case.

No it doesn't.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#119

Post by laszlojamf »

mpweiher wrote: post #70
rightbyte wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same way the Concordes were the safest passenger jets, until they suddenly weren't.

Nope, this is including two accidents. And Concorde was retired because they could no longer operate it, for example no spare parts.

And also didn't it just turn out that people weren't really interested in spending a lot more money to get to where they were going a little bit faster?

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#120

Post by laszlojamf »

analognoise wrote: post #76
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why is one example from the other side more convincing Because it’s a Gen III+ design. > the last sentence seems to agree that the evidence is weak It’s a new design. > people who just care about getting the best outcome, aren't on a team that has drawn a predetermined conclusion, and are working with the data Very few people who have done this conclude we should go all in on a single solution. Nuclear, natural gas…

Why do you need natural gas in that mix at all?

I think the parent was thinking of the US. There, natural gas is an abundant predictable, and cheap base energy source. Not so much in Europe. In Sweden the mix is nuclear, water, and the rest, but we're still suffering from the rest of Europe not having a cheap base alternative, since the markets are interconnected. Europe would _love_ to have it's own natural gas source right about now.
Post reply on HN