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

A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

hcn.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 231 posts

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#11

Post by qball »

mimixco wrote: post #2

No. Nuclear power creates the most dangerous waste known to mankind and we have no way of mitigating or eliminating it. Nuclear isn't cost effective on an ongoing operating basis (compared with natural gas). When you add the costs of closing and "cleaning up" a plant site, which run into the billions of dollars for each plant, nuclear just doesn't make sense. Nuclear is far from "carbon neutral." The process of extra…

> No. Nuclear power creates the most dangerous waste known to mankind and we have no way of mitigating or eliminating it.

You can't have this both ways. Either CO2 is the most dangerous waste and must be dealt with severely, or it is not.

>When you add the costs of closing and "cleaning up" a plant site, which run into the billions of dollars for each plant, nuclear just doesn't make sense.

Solar and wind are going to require billions of dollars for the same output as well, plus additional lithium mines for batteries since the sun doesn't shine every day (and reprocessing when the cells run out), plus those who are going to get killed in construction/maintenance (roof work is dangerous). We've just externalized the consequences for some of that since we don't bother to tax products based on how badly the source country destroys the environment through the manufacture of the product.

Life creates waste, and it's time to accept that reality; you won't get a perfect solution so maybe it's time to start accepting merely good ones instead. Saving the environment is too important to wait.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#12

Post by aeternus »

treya wrote: post #5

This is a ridiculous and fundamentally flawed proposition. The obvious omissions and lack of consideration of other factors threatening the planet belies this author's bias/naivete/stupidity/other motivations. First, the demand for energy is only a small fraction of numerous ways the planet is being compromised - irrevocably. Satisfying all energy demands worldwide cleanly will not "save the planet". Second, carbon-f…

>The obvious omissions and lack of consideration of other factors threatening the planet belies this author's bias/naivete/stupidity/other motivations.

The vast majority of problems facing the planet can be solved given extremely cheap energy:

- Need clean drinking water? Simply desalinate ocean water if you have enough energy.

- Need clean air? Various catalytic converters can remove most and in many cases all harmful molecules, they just cost energy.

- Need to sequester carbon? Sure we know how to do it, provided you have enough energy.

- Need to feed the world? We already grow enough food, the main problem is transportation of that food. Again, easy with enough energy and electric vehicles.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#14

Post by imtringued »

With a new projected cost of 25 billion USD the cost overruns of the Vogtle Plant are worse than I thought. There is a reason why nuclear is losing to natural gas and coal. It's too damn expensive and takes too long. If this money was instead spent on building more storage capacity we'd have solved our energy problems a long time ago and even if we started today we'd be done long before the nuclear plant is online.

The nuclear plant consists of two units each with 1200MW production capacity. Let's be pessimistic and assume that we need 24 hours of storage or roughly 57600MWh. A modern redox flow or lithium ion battery can cost as little as $100 per kWh but Tesla's grid battery with 129MWh cost 66 million which is around $500 per kWh so we will use that.

Well it turns out 57600MWh * 500$/kWH is exactly 28.8 billion USD. No power grid on earth needs a 24 hour battery but even with this crazy assumption grid storage isn't significantly more expensive than nuclear power.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#15

Post by charlesju »

kartan wrote: post #3

I'm writing this from Japan. I do not have the numbers, but as I cross the country in the Shinkansen I see a sea of solar panels. Fukushima has been a lesson here. Strategically, Japan has to import it's energy, except for solar energy. With a float of trains electricity is already at the core of their transportation system. Here, at least, nuclear doesn't look like it's the future.

I was interested in your statement, and a brief search on wikipedia says that Japan has slowly been restarting their nuclear power plants and is planning on growing nuclear power as a total percentage of power over the next several decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

I don't think the sentiment on nuclear power, even after Fukushima, is as clear cut as you're presenting.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#16

Post by pdonis »

mimixco wrote: post #2

No. Nuclear power creates the most dangerous waste known to mankind and we have no way of mitigating or eliminating it. Nuclear isn't cost effective on an ongoing operating basis (compared with natural gas). When you add the costs of closing and "cleaning up" a plant site, which run into the billions of dollars for each plant, nuclear just doesn't make sense. Nuclear is far from "carbon neutral." The process of extra…

> we have no way of mitigating or eliminating it.

Sure we do: reprocess it, like every country except the US that uses nuclear power does. The only reason the US doesn't is stupid politics.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#17

Post by thatcat »

imtringued wrote: post #14

With a new projected cost of 25 billion USD the cost overruns of the Vogtle Plant are worse than I thought. There is a reason why nuclear is losing to natural gas and coal. It's too damn expensive and takes too long. If this money was instead spent on building more storage capacity we'd have solved our energy problems a long time ago and even if we started today we'd be done long before the nuclear plant is online. T…

Your cost analysis neglects replacement, disposal costs for batteries, long term costs of carbon emission, and coal flyash disposal. The only reason nuclear is losing to gas and coal is because the externalities of the mess they make are dumped on the public, whereas nuclear pollution and waste processing is heavily regulated.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#18

Post by hunta2097 »

mikestew wrote: post #4
mimixco wrote: post #2

No. Nuclear power creates the most dangerous waste known to mankind and we have no way of mitigating or eliminating it. Nuclear isn't cost effective on an ongoing operating basis (compared with natural gas). When you add the costs of closing and "cleaning up" a plant site, which run into the billions of dollars for each plant, nuclear just doesn't make sense. Nuclear is far from "carbon neutral." The process of extra…

Nuclear power creates the most dangerous waste known to mankind From what I've been reading, seems CO2 tops that list. One can bury nuclear waste in the Nevada desert, keep everyone a few hundred miles away, and it'll be fine. From what I learned in high school chemistry class, a gas wants to expand to fill its container, so the CO2 produced by Chinese coal-fired plants eventually makes its way to me. The process of…

Great insight.

I am fond of the phrase "final generation nuclear". We need 30 years of nuclear fission before we can sustain fusion.

I think we're already past the point where some nuclear risk is acceptable. It's not a zero sum game - fossel fuels are already being used with risk.

We need to take some (calculated) risks again.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#20

Post by TrainedMonkey »

imtringued wrote: post #14

With a new projected cost of 25 billion USD the cost overruns of the Vogtle Plant are worse than I thought. There is a reason why nuclear is losing to natural gas and coal. It's too damn expensive and takes too long. If this money was instead spent on building more storage capacity we'd have solved our energy problems a long time ago and even if we started today we'd be done long before the nuclear plant is online. T…

The missing link is to build up solar capacity to refill your battery.

To refill the battery you need to generate 57600MWh each day. Assuming that we get 12 hours of sunlight per day at 50% efficiency, you that comes down to 2 (efficiency factor) * 57600MWh / (12 hours / day) = 9600 MWh solar installation.

At $1 / Watt, 9600 MWh solar installation comes down to $9.6 billion.

Assuming my math is correct, this seems pretty competitive. In particular, I am assuming that $1 / Watt means $1 per Watt of electricity at max luminosity. If $1 / Watt means $1 per 1 Watt of absorbed solar energy, the efficiency should be 10% - 15%.

Large scale installation cost per watt: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/doe-officially-...

Post reply on HN