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

Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 249 posts

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#121

Post by i_am_proteus »

ketzu wrote: post #73
Rokid wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are not the best arguments against nuclear imo. Chernobyl was underbudgetted in terms of safety. For instance no protective dome was places around the reactor housing as done in other countries. Add that to a suboptimal design to start with and sheer bad luck... Fukushima on the other hand is a better comparison. But on larger scales, such as Europe or the US, surely it must be possible to pla…

> hernobyl was underbudgetted in terms of safety. I think that is something we should expect to be the default and is a problem in maintenance as well. Leaky pipes and more are common problems for nuclear power plants. e.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/radioactive-leaks-found-at-75-o... > Fukushima on the other hand is a better comparison. But on larger scales, such as Europe or the US, surely it must be possible to…

The article you reference is a bit of a scare job, and you're conflating here on-site storage facilities with the actual operating reactor. Note that levels of tritium do not exceed limits in drinking water.

Because of nuclear physics (gamma energy levels, isotope half-life), it's very easy to identify when any contamination, even amounts that have no effect on human health, escape from a nuclear plant. Meanwhile, fossil fuel emissions (not just carbon-- soot and other particulates cause near-term health problems for humans) continue.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#122

Post by jerven »

yodelshady wrote: post #87
justatdotin wrote: post #72

....."ultimately be a matter for markets to decide". done.

Yeah, they decided really well in Texas at $ 9,000 / MWh.

Do you think that the organizations that couldn't bother to take into account a 1 in 20 winter would build safe and secure nuclear?

Also consider the amount of battery storage arriving onto the Texas grid in the next few years. If that would have been commissioned already, reconnecting neighbourhoods would have been much easier.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#123

Post by dalbasal »

Nuclear energy, for generations now, always has a stronger theoretical case than a practical one.

Going on first principles, nuclear is amazing. Abundant. Clean. Cheap. Constant. When we build cities along the kuiper belt, they're obviously going to be nuclear powered.

Practically... Nuclear energy has been around for 60+ years. There have been massive investments. Many plants in many countries trying different things. It's rarely been a notable success. It rarely been especially cheap. Not that nuclear energy projects always fail, but...

To riff on the author's own analogy: nuclear never had a coal_vs_wood moment. It didn't ultimately matter that the clergy hated coal. Coal was better than wood by a big enough margin that it would win regardless. Nuclear was never practically superior enough to replace coal, and many countries that invested in nuclear divested later.

Renewables OTOH, despite their first principles problems are on an economic trajectory that nuclear never had in practice.

Long term, nuclear is a good bet. Practically, it's that bet rarely never paid off to date... and many bets have been made.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#124

Post by ElKrist »

derriz wrote: post #63
GlennS wrote: post #28

I feel like this is a prime example of someone failing to update their beliefs with new information. For decades it would have been a reasonable position that governments should override political objections, embark upon mass nuclear power programs, and try to drive costs down through economies of scale and process improvements over time. 20 years ago it was arguably a correct and very strong position to take? 10 yea…

Exactly, people are repeating decades old argument without incorporating what has happened with technology over the last 10 or 20 years. In the last decade, grid scale battery costs have declined by 75%. Wind turbines and solar panels have declined by 80% and 90% respectively. These declines are actually accelerating at the moment - grid scale battery storage has halved in price over the last two years. In contrast,…

"The industry is moving so fast that arguments become stale very quickly but people are slower, it seems, to update their opinions."

How fast is it moving? "For the first time in nearly a decade, annual installations of energy storage technologies fell year-on-year in 2019. Grid-scale storage installations dropped 20%" [1]

[1] https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-storage

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#125

Post by beowulfey »

_nalply wrote: post #118
roenxi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're comparing two neighbourhoods. One has less deaths and less robberies. It is the one with nuclear power. Chernobyl has done less damage and had less impact on those millions of people than the totally routine burning of coal. I grew up in a coal mining region; I fully expect more people suffer negative health outcomes when coal works as expected than in a Class 7 nuclear catastrophe. We just don't count the heal…

Accidents are bad but left-overs are even worse. I wish people would think more about long-term problems with spent fuel rods. I don't think that burying them is a viable solution as the Asse mine in Germany shows. https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-l... The salt mine was deemed to be safe for thousands of years. But then people discovered ingress of water. And salt water is corrosive. I am su…

but, if coal burning continues to pump out carbon dioxide into our atmosphere and eventually completely upend any semblance of stable environment... wouldn’t it be preferred to make not doing that a priority?

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#126

Post by _nalply »

beowulfey wrote: post #125
_nalply wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accidents are bad but left-overs are even worse. I wish people would think more about long-term problems with spent fuel rods. I don't think that burying them is a viable solution as the Asse mine in Germany shows. https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-l... The salt mine was deemed to be safe for thousands of years. But then people discovered ingress of water. And salt water is corrosive. I am su…

but, if coal burning continues to pump out carbon dioxide into our atmosphere and eventually completely upend any semblance of stable environment... wouldn’t it be preferred to make not doing that a priority?

It's not about nuclear vs coal but about nuclear vs renewables.

Just shut down both coal and nuclear!

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#127

Post by mFixman »

fsflover wrote: post #77
JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #61

My main issue with Nuclear power is my lack of trust in regulators over time. Nuclear done well is safe, clean and has an extremely low carbon footprint. But, where profit incentives exist, lobby groups exist. And the US government has shown itself incredibly pliable with enough donations and time given. So for me, give it 10-15 years, or less, and the safety margins will erode over time as people get too comfy with…

You can already see what effect nuclear has when the safety is not done well (Chernobyl and Fukusima). But even those cases kill less people than coal done well.

They kill less people than coal if you make a very gross average of total deaths per kWh.

30 years after the Chernobyl disaster there are two uninhabitable subdivisions of Ukraine that will require control for the rest of human history. "Average deaths" doesn't matter when the people living near nuclear power plants have to be in constant preparation for total evacuation.

I agree with the parent comment in that I wouldn't trust Western countries in maintaining nuclear plants for 40 years and safely disassembling them afterwards. Luckily for us, renewables exist so we don't have to.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#128

Post by AmericanChopper »

roenxi wrote: post #7
legulere wrote: post #6

> Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies. This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die. Chernobyl and Fukushima had drama…

We're comparing two neighbourhoods. One has less deaths and less robberies. It is the one with nuclear power. Chernobyl has done less damage and had less impact on those millions of people than the totally routine burning of coal. I grew up in a coal mining region; I fully expect more people suffer negative health outcomes when coal works as expected than in a Class 7 nuclear catastrophe. We just don't count the heal…

The WHO estimates that 4,200,000 people die every year from ambient air pollution. That’s one death every 7.5 seconds. That’s one Chernobyl death toll every 18 to 125 hours (depending on which estimate you’re looking at).

The argument about land being uninhabitable is equally silly, because land permanently submerged in the ocean tends to be uninhabitable as well.

The perception of the risks associated with nuclear is so dramatically misaligned with reality. The only conclusion I can possibly draw is that anybody who is anti-nuclear can’t possibly be taking climate change seriously.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#130

Post by gmueckl »

lorenzhs wrote: post #117
ohgodplsno wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This transition can _never_ be finished. There is no reality in which, in 2025, or 2030, or 2040, Germany is running 100% on renewables. Let's have a quick look at the german energy mix: https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DE As I write this: * Germany has 68GW of wind capacity. Only 3GW are currently producing, because there's no wind. * Solar is doing just as bad, with 9.11GW active out of 53GW * Even worse, in the…

Your use of "green energy ayatollahs" tells me you're more interested in ranting than debate. Yet even in the current low-wind, low-sun scenario, 37% of German electricity is from renewable sources according to your link. Your conclusions don't match your own data.

Right now, the southern half of Germany has clear skies and thus a bright, sunny day approaching noon. These are optimal conditions for solar energy. This is why renewables get to approx. 40% of the energy mix right now. Let's have another look at those numbers around sunset (approx. 6 hours from now) and see where that goes.
Post reply on HN