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

141–150 of 231 posts

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

#141

Post by strainer »

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…

> 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

I think the flow battery can get even cheaper than this for 24hr storage. Recent price claims[1] were $150/kWh at 4hr, and $100/kWh at 8hr - this puts the cost of charge/discharge rate at $400/kW and the cost of the energy storage at $50/kWh.

1kW @ 4hrs = (400+ 50* 4) /4 = 150$ (50+400/4)

1kW @ 8hrs = (400+ 50* 8) /8 = 100$ (50+400/8)

1kW @24hrs = (400+ 50* 24) /24 = 66$ (50+400/24)

So it really was a bit crazy to estimate 500$/kWh for that storage, 200$kWh would be absolute maximum present price for flow battery, and under $75kWh seems likely.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18751639

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

#142

Post by jabl »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #102
thatcat wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If flyash disposal, mining, carbon emission, and fracking were equally regulated then these regulations create incentive to R+D nuclear technology, making it more affordable. The results of a rigged race don't prove anything.

That doesn’t address solar and wind being drastically cheaper than nuclear fission. It would be wasteful to continue to poor dollars into fission at this point, versus scaling up renewables and battery manufacturing further. Whether the race is rigged is irrelevant; the race is over.

Solar and wind are currently very cheap on an LCOE basis, but LCOE is a poor proxy for the entire system cost. Due to their variable nature, the value of these resources shrink rapidly as their grid penetration increases. That being said, in most grids there's still plenty of space for wind and/or solar before these effects become a problem.

The end goal is a lowest cost deep decarbonized grid. We should design policies to give us that ASAP. In many cases, nuclear has a robust role to play in such grids.

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

#143

Post by cm2187 »

ben_w wrote: post #137
cm2187 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I don’t get this untouchable concept. Lava is untouchable. Deep oceans are unreachable. Why is it a requirement that we have to be able to go and touch every single spot on earth? What is the problem with having one minuscule location on earth where you are not supposed to go and stock pile this material there? It is contained, we have full control over it, unlike the immense volumes of chemicals currently releas…

I am somewhat sympathetic to your points, but was responding to a comment that seemed to claim it was a non-issue. I’m only “somewhat” in agreement because humans are terrible at reading warning signs, especially from long-dead people. “Oh,” they say, “that was ages ago. It’s just a primitive superstition. Anyway, we’re special.”

Agree, but that being said you can walk around in Rome and read signs that were written 2000 years ago. Same characters, similar language than most european languages. English is the modern latin, and I would argue, with even more significance than latin given its global scope. I just can't think of a scenario where our descendants would not know what radiactivity is, and would have forgotten english.

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

#144

Post by ThomPete »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #134
ThomPete wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to reuse more and more will improve over time so yes it's perfectly feasible. Furthermore, the price of uranium is so cheap that it's financially feasible right now. It will be over time but that should also show you just how abundant and available it is as a resource. If we actually got politicians to sit down and go through the requirements with engineers and scientists they would realize how cheap and…

> The ability to reuse more and more will improve over time so yes it's perfectly feasible. Well, if that "counts", then solar power will become totally free and have a net positive environmental impact, we'll just plant some nanobots that grow and repair solar panels inside a marked area, and can be scooped up should we need them elsewhere, hence "100% free once we perfected them". They'll smell like vanilla, and ch…

You can say the same about solar which needs fuelcell technology we dont have. Nuclear waste is not problems that we have no idea to solve.

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

#145

Post by ThomPete »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #135
ThomPete wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, they aren't cheaper when you compare to output. Just to put things in perspective. Solar can do roughly 50W per m2 at best and I am being generous. Nuclear does 1000W per m2. Solar is not even close to being able to deliver stable energy so you would have to factor either coal, nuclear or oil into the mix too to provide stable delivery. Renewable can't deliver the needed energy not even close. Less than 1% rig…

Just to put things in perspective. Solar can do roughly 50W per m2 at best and I am being generous. Nuclear does 1000W per m2. Apples and oranges. We have plenty of desert land and /or roof space for solar. Granted solar is not with its enviro issues but nuclear stands apart. Also costs. A Nuclear power plants costs $20+billion to be built. But then solar by definition is only during the day

But we have no fuelcell technology and no grid and no signs of anything even closely resembling a solution thats possible to pay for, nuclear provides energy for a very long time and doesent need to be fixed all the time like dolar and wind.

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

#146

Post by ThomPete »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #127
ThomPete wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is the safest, most scaleable, greenest most reliable power source we know of bar none and blows every other alternative energy out of the water at 1000w per m2. Far less people have because of nuclear power in all its time than gets killed by nature in a year. The environmentalist not rationality kille nuclear.

> Nuclear is the safest, most scaleable, greenest most reliable power source we know of bar none That doesn't change the article we have here.

I was responding to the comment not the article

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

#147

Post by Jedd »

Yet another article about the complex subject of power generation that wilfully conflates fusion with fission. (Usually it's 'nuclear power' - here it's 'atomic power'.

That's assuming we're happy to think we have a power problem, not an an energy problem. Anti-solar types (who similarly conflate PVC with solar thermal) like to mix or muddle those. Fission apologists who think that because Lithium is mined, then mining Uranium should be just fine, also seem keen to blunt some semantic nuances.

Nuclear fission's time has been and gone - it's great for bombs, and was an interesting experiment, but the costs are way higher than anyone should reasonably expect to pass onto future generations.

(Plus they snuck in that nasty 'metric ton' construct. 1000kg is a tonne.)

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

#149

Post by [deleted] »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #82
chongli wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Launching waste into space with a rocket is a silly idea. We don't really care if the waste gets damaged as long as it doesn't break up and make a mess. Why not build a giant railgun to launch it?

It's cheaper and safer to store it in deep crystalline bedrock. I guess if we geologists can't convince we the people of that maybe the railgun idea would work, especially if you could hit the sun where the fast fusion neutrons would consume the hell out of it.

[deleted]

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

#150

Post by amsaleka »

Jedd wrote: post #147

Yet another article about the complex subject of power generation that wilfully conflates fusion with fission. (Usually it's 'nuclear power' - here it's 'atomic power'. That's assuming we're happy to think we have a power problem, not an an energy problem. Anti-solar types (who similarly conflate PVC with solar thermal) like to mix or muddle those. Fission apologists who think that because Lithium is mined, then mini…

Wow!! Really a nice Article. Thank you so much for your efforts. Definitely, it will be helpful for others. I would like to follow your blog. Share more like this. Thanks Again. iot" rel="nofollow">https://www.credosystemz.com/courses/iot-training/">iot training in Chennai | Best" rel="nofollow">https://www.credosystemz.com/courses/iot-training/">Best iot Training Institute in Chennai
Post reply on HN