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

An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

m.dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 247 posts

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#131

Post by vcdimension »

aksss wrote: post #70
toshk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To everyone being a proponent of this modern new nuclear plants you dream about I ask: would you want to live in a village where they would build a new nuclear plant next to it?

I would have no problem with building one outside our city. And frankly compared the land clearing one would need for solar/thermal or the blight of enormous windmills, I’d prefer it. What you may be really asking is whether people are comfortable with the risk of turning into the next Chernobyl. I feel that risk is quite low, especially for new builds.

I cannot understand how anyone would prefer an enormous grey concrete building with a large exclusion zone and large cooling towers blocking the skyline, to otherwise untouched natural or agricultural landscape dotted with wind turbines. Wind turbines allow you to enjoy more of the countryside because they take up very little space (you can walk around them). Furthermore, they seem to be quieter: https://youtu.be/zKgN2G9d0dc https://youtu.be/hEMImNj_c44

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#132

Post by fuoqi »

Trombone12 wrote: post #112
cheaprentalyeti wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, everyone was happy about how Texas scrapped so many coal plants and built so many windmills until it reached a cascade failure point and then the narrative shifted to "OMG, look at all the deregulation!"

Texas had no power because they forgot everything they learnt the hard way from their "once-in-a-decade snow storm" they had 2011. Coal piles freezing solid because there is no roof, gas valves impossible to operate because nobody would put a box around them, no water too cool reactor cores because the pipes froze: these are not failures somehow cascading from the fact they build some windmills.

When I learnt that turbines on Texas nuclear plants stay under the open sky I was REALLY surprised. It was the reason behind the single failure, otherwise nuclear plants have weathered this crisis perfectly.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#133

Post by worik »

leereeves wrote: post #126
jillesvangurp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hours, not minutes. Elon Musk ships MWH solutions conveniently packaged as in container form. The largest battery currently being planned is a 1.2GW setup in Australia. That's a big buffer. Demand for solutions providing power for days simply does not exist currently. Hours is good enough. This business is about providing lots of power quickly. You are right that they typically are only used for a few minutes to…

> The largest battery currently being planned is a 1.2GWh setup in Australia. That's a big buffer. Apparently "Total electricity generation in Australia was estimated to be 265,117 gigawatt hours (GWh) in calendar year 2019"[1], which works out to about 30 gigawatts continually for a year. So a 1.2GWh battery could power Australia for about two minutes (...at average use. Longer in the middle of the night). Maybe a h…

"So a 1.2GWh battery could power Australia for about two minutes "

It is one battery in, if memory serves, the state of Victoria.

It is not being asked to power all of Australia.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#134

Post by worik »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #65
akvadrako wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon didn't make any grid-scale energy storage . The largest grid battery installation in the world can only supply power for a couple minutes – that's a buffer at most. Edit: removed first sentence.

It's hours, not minutes. Elon Musk ships MWH solutions conveniently packaged as in container form. The largest battery currently being planned is a 1.2GW setup in Australia. That's a big buffer. Demand for solutions providing power for days simply does not exist currently. Hours is good enough. This business is about providing lots of power quickly. You are right that they typically are only used for a few minutes to…

And of course it is the wrong sort of battery for the application. Flow batteries/fuel cells are better suited.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#135

Post by fuzzfactor »

sneak wrote: post #100
pydry wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it particularly noteworthy that an anti nuclear article was written by an anti nuclear author or am I missing something?

I believe that GP intended to imply ideological bias.

Could be true.

but from an above comment:

>Not disputing, but in the interests of full disclosure, the presenter is (per YT About):

>* Professor David Ruzic

>* Abel Bliss Professor of Engineering

>* Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering

>* University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Professors usually don't gain these qualifications because they started out anti-nuclear.

Something must have reversed his opinion somewhere along the line, no doubt he has greater domain expertise than all but a few others sharing similar deep knowledge.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#136

Post by jillesvangurp »

leereeves wrote: post #126
jillesvangurp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hours, not minutes. Elon Musk ships MWH solutions conveniently packaged as in container form. The largest battery currently being planned is a 1.2GW setup in Australia. That's a big buffer. Demand for solutions providing power for days simply does not exist currently. Hours is good enough. This business is about providing lots of power quickly. You are right that they typically are only used for a few minutes to…

> The largest battery currently being planned is a 1.2GWh setup in Australia. That's a big buffer. Apparently "Total electricity generation in Australia was estimated to be 265,117 gigawatt hours (GWh) in calendar year 2019"[1], which works out to about 30 gigawatts continually for a year. So a 1.2GWh battery could power Australia for about two minutes (...at average use. Longer in the middle of the night). Maybe a h…

That's a battery capable of supplying 1.2 GW peak demand. Or about 1/30th of the energy capacity in Australia if your numbers are correct. Massive buffer.

Those TWH factories are being built right now. Multiple of them. Production ramp up is going to take a few years before they actually produce that much. But you can sort of do the math based on the number of cars they are selling. About half a million last year so that would be roughly a quarter TWH if you assume 50KWH batteries. Ballpark enough to keep Australia running for about a year if your numbers are correct.

That's last year. It's easy to see how they would grow production to a few million units in the next few years. So, at that point they are using TWH of production capacity that they are building right now in Texas, Berlin, Shanghai, and soon possibly India.

Of course the broader industry is growing quite rapidly to probably a few million unit sales this year and tens of millions by the end of the decade. So, definitely already into TWH/year territory right now. Taking care of Australian energy storage needs is not going to be an issue. About a million EVs would do the trick easily. Sadly, they are a bit behind on jumping on that band wagon but they'll catch up soon enough.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#137

Post by fuzzfactor »

>nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

Could be if it delays or prevents addressing the real roots of the problem such as overpopulation and extreme lack of energy conservation.

Fukushima is nature's way of reminding us to conserve or live to regret it eventually.

No one has yet been able to even locate the still-molten fuel, I know its only been 10 short years and it's not supposed to be easy or even possible with today's limited nuclear technology. Good thing it has such a long half-life so there's plenty of time remaining to figure this out over the next 24,000 years. As all engineers know, when deadlines are too short it can lead to unaddressed consequences.

Regardless since the nuclear option exists there will always be a significant faction of enthusiasts who will die eventually without regretting it at all.

Most regrets will occur in a future these enthusiasts (or anybody else) can not accurately visualize, but it doesn't matter to them anyway.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#138

Post by StavrosK »

ingsoc79 wrote: post #101
pydry wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it particularly noteworthy that an anti nuclear article was written by an anti nuclear author or am I missing something?

Yes, as it establishes the potential bias of the article author. If this article was written by typically a pro-nuclear author it would be much more noteworthy.

Is it bias when you have an opinion and share it? The article can contain some of the reasons he's anti-nuclear, instead of the other way around, where his bias causes him to write the article.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#139

Post by Hammershaft »

vcdimension wrote: post #131
aksss wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have no problem with building one outside our city. And frankly compared the land clearing one would need for solar/thermal or the blight of enormous windmills, I’d prefer it. What you may be really asking is whether people are comfortable with the risk of turning into the next Chernobyl. I feel that risk is quite low, especially for new builds.

I cannot understand how anyone would prefer an enormous grey concrete building with a large exclusion zone and large cooling towers blocking the skyline, to otherwise untouched natural or agricultural landscape dotted with wind turbines. Wind turbines allow you to enjoy more of the countryside because they take up very little space (you can walk around them). Furthermore, they seem to be quieter: https://youtu.be/zKg…

When you compare the energy densities & land required there is nothing at all enormous about a nuclear plant. It is by far the most space efficient energy source we have (especially once you factor in the upstream footprint of mining & shipping ops)

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#140

Post by mamon »

lamontcg wrote: post #127
ingsoc79 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as it establishes the potential bias of the article author. If this article was written by typically a pro-nuclear author it would be much more noteworthy.

It is possible to be both biased and correct. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_bias

Broken clock shows the right time twice a day. Biased people being correct is an exception, not the rule. We should be suspicious of people with know biases.
Post reply on HN