Live data from Hacker News

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

e360.yale.edu

141–150 of 249 posts

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

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Utilizing 28.36% of installed capacity" is what the linked map says about solar right now.

I just rewound the slider to 8pm yesterday and it says "35% renewable".

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

And what happens when there's a storm? Renewables alone can't provide all the power needed over extended periods of time without very significant storage, for which there is no large scale cost effective solution actually implemented.

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

#143

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 thing…

What counts as notable success? The entire base energy load for Ontario, Canada comes from nuclear (see: live.gridwatch.ca) and the provinces high energy costs (such as they were) were directly caused by investment in renewables through guaranteed high rates paid to producers. This is not a political point, I supported those mostly-now-abandoned investments. They took down just-erected windmills near my house in recent years (Prince Edward County, Ontario).

Seems like you are seizing defeat here.

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

#144
post #49
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…

I think you're mistaking Fukushima for the tsunami that caused the incident at the nuclear plant. Let's not forget the sheer magnitude of the earthquake/tsunami: most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan, tsunami waves up to 40.5 meters This fact sheet [1] from UNSCEAR (united nations agency) shows the impact of the nuclear incident itself: * Cancer rates to remain stable * Theoretical increased risk of thyroid…

It might have been the biggest tsunami ever recorded, but it's nothing new that tsunamis do occur in Japan, and still the plant was allowed to be built and operated directly at the seaside at a height of only 10 meters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...). And why? Because the nuclear lobby had a lot of influence in Japan.

I'm not sure where you get the 200,000 evacuated people from, but the only mention of 200,000 people being evacuated in the article you are quoting is in fact in the "Nuclear power plants" section...

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

#145
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just spent 2 decades saying this. I suppose we’re going to say it for another. that’s 30 years of emissions that could have been avoided.

We've also spent 30+ years trying to build nuclear plants on time and on budget and we've been unable to do that.

Even with that, 20% of US electricity is still from nuclear.

We managed to build these before the industry became expensive.

Now Germany and the United States are rushing to close the operating plants.

I’m not sure why we can’t figure out how to build a standard design and replicate it

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

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with nuclear power plants is that: You have to deal with very dangerous material and guarantee that this waste, which could very well outlive humanity, will not hurt your population? It is worth noting when considering this question that fossil fuels also leave dangerous and radioactive waste, but instead of being confined to a dense waste we understand how to contain, it is emitted as particulates into…

It's well known that coal exhaust isn't fairy dust, but it doesn't pose a storage problem [edit: on the scale of millenia], so your argument amounts to whataboutism.

Coal exhaust may not, but coal itself does, just google/ddg " coal slurry disasters" to see the impact when it goes wrong.

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

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. France, which doesn't really invest heavily in renewables is at 30% right now. Spain is at 60%, and most of Europe is around 40%. It's not exactly hard. Sure, Germany doesn't have some sources (hydro is an amazing source of power), but let's not p…

France is investing heavily: "By 2028, the European Union’s second-largest economy wants to double installed renewable electricity capacity to up to 113 GW, compared to 2017." https://ieefa.org/france-boosts-renewable-energy-spending-to... which btw also says "Meanwhile, 14 nuclear reactors in the country will be closed by 2035, two of which have already been shuttered at Electricité de France SA’s Fessenheim plant in eastern France this year."

100% solar is a strawman you constructed. Nobody is suggesting anything close to that. And don't pretend that uranium mining is a clean business.

Power to gas technology is still in its infancy, efficiency rates will improve as it is scaled up. Every technology starts out small.

Any nuclear project we start now won't be producing power for at least a decade, more likely two. We don't have that time. You might have had an argument twenty years ago, but arguing that we can defer renewable investment if we just build enough nuclear now doesn't make sense to me. By the time your proposed plants start to come online, the transition needs to be complete.

And if you're truly interested in debate, maybe you shouldn't compare your opponents to a murderous regime?

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

#148

I am in no way or shape against nuclear power per se. I know its technology, I have studied the engineering behind it etc. Still, any argument against nuclear is immediately categorized as "fearmongering" no matter how much it isn't based on the technology itself. Facts and an interest in truly bringing your country forward don't matter. Money and lobbyism is what rules the discussions. No matter how many subversive…

It's all nice, but where does the base load come in? From what I know Germany is decomissioning their reactors, and is replacing them with NEW coal power plants + importing energy from other countries (which is just sidestepping the problem) What's the real solution here? If all countries did what Germany does, we'll have a lot of coal power plants, why not instead have nuclear ones? I don't know a lot about this top…

> What's the real solution here?

I haven't spotted this in this entire thread: managing energy consumption and more efficient distribution. There's a massive demand for energy. Why? What's causing this? And is that demand really justified?

Vox did a really great piece about how managing consumption and distribution is a major part of the equation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfAXbGInwno

The controversial part is this: how do you do this? There are two totally naive approaches: either rely completely on free market dynamics, or heavily regulate how energy is consumed and conserved. Reality sits somewhere in between.

Then there's also a hard reality: optimization of consumption has a hard lower bound before the consequences become too painful. As a thought experiment, you could imagine a world with no electrical power plants whatsoever: but then you'd turn back the clock to how things were before the late 19th century. That's when you realize how electricity has shaped modern society over the past 150 years, but also how dependent modern society is on its availability.

Electricity is also a tradable commodity. It's a political and economical strategic asset. Part of why a radical shift isn't possible is because of existing interests who oppose anything that might cause a shift in power balances. I think it's important to recognize this as well. Especially in a discussion that promotes particular types of energy production over one another.

One potential scenario might be this:

Electricity has become superfluous. Nobody ever questions the intricacies of energy production and transport when they plug their smartphone charger in a socket. The vast majority of consumers are conditioned with the idea that a socket will always provide an infinite flow of power. It's only when power is cut off for whatever reason - brown outs, black outs, power is too expensive,... - that one starts to understand that this isn't always true. Having access to electricity isn't a human right after all.

The future might be painful in a sense that more and more people will be confronted with this painful truth. If not pro-actively and softly pushed through public debate; the circumstances - raising energy prices, availability,... - will force people to confront their own power consumption, the lifestyle they have build based on the assumption that power will always be available. It will also confront them with the inequities caused by all of this.

That's why I think it's a fallacy to perceive both nuclear and renewables as "silver bullet" solutions to avert such scenario's. Reality is far more complex.

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

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"four times as expensive as wind" This isn't a valid comparison, since wind isn't capable of base load supply. You would need to factor in storage costs to make the comparison valid.

Batteries are also getting cheaper and improving in capacity at immense rates too no? It seems like a double whammy against nuclear, unless there’s something I’m missing?

Triple whammy if you include the larger and larger capacity factor of ever growing wind turbines (and offshore). Even if you're overprovisioning 2x and fill in with battery capacity for some of the shrinking holes inbetween, you'll end up cheaper than nuclear.

Which, on the other hand also still does not factor in the externalities of the still-not-solved issues of final deposition of nuclear waste (some quote 38 billion still outstanding for just getting rid of the current ones that haven't been factored into historic electricity prices), defending against proliferation and antitrust issues due to the massive capital investment and minimum size of nuclear power plants.

I used to be pro-nuclear at some point, but just looking at the current wholesale prices and trends, it's basically game over for nuclear.

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

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is if , not only can we keep making them, we produce them at massive scales without inciting coups around the world for Lithium [1]. Because let us be honest with ourselves, the CIA has staged coups around the world many-a-times [2], and iirc but can't locate that some of said instances were done to support private entities. [1] https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/opinion/3735-we-will-c... [2] https://en.wikip…

Lithium for energy storage is not the only option. Pumped water already has been a thing for decades. Additionally other avenues are being explored like [1] pumped air and [2] lifting concrete weights. [1] https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/close/what-compre... [2] https://profittrends.com/energy-investing/renewable-energy/s...

Interesting solutions, especially the latter, absolutely brilliant, despite the reduction in efficiency, it probably trumps batteries wrt to first materials used.
Post reply on HN