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

Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 731 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#151

Post by djakjxnanjak »

desuyone wrote: post #133

How about we put the reactors in the middle of the desert, then there is no danget of killing a city and no risk of nuclear material leaking into the sea. You really don't need that many people to staff a reactor and if you really do, you can always build a train so people don't need to live close. I know power transmission is an issue. But we have gotten a lot better at that as well, with things like that big DC und…

Is the resistance to nuclear power mostly at the state/local level or is there also a lot of federal opposition? I wonder if some western state with unpopulated land could make a lot of money by doing a huge nuclear project and sell the power to California with UHV lines.

The politics seem kind of similar to pipeline projects, but the ultimate goal would be to save the earth rather than burn it down so maybe there would be less opposition. Maybe you could even generate enough energy and wealth to convert some legacy fossil fuel businesses (and the politicians they own).

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#152

Post by loeg »

pfdietz wrote: post #18
loeg wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries and things like batteries serve shifting demand relative to slower-moving supply for nuclear even better than they fit unpredictable/irregular supply renewables. Unlike sunny or windy days, nuclear power is consistent 24/7 and output can be modulated (albeit, with delay) by raising and lowering control rods. Batteries (electrical or mechanical) can store extra nuclear-produced energy and use it to power the…

No. If renewables are cheap, then batteries and other storage will just serve to reduce the fraction of time renewables are not covering demand (why charge the batteries with nuclear if cheaper renewable power is available?) The smaller this fraction is, the worse nuclear does economically.

Renewables (and batteries) simply aren't that cheap. Even ignoring externalities like disposing of EOL solar panels.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#153

Post by DennisP »

pfdietz wrote: post #97
DennisP wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that would be insane, which is why I said to run the nuclear 24/7 and build enough solar for the extra demand during the day. Wind/solar is only that much cheaper if you ignore storage. Stop ignoring the possibilities of much cheaper nuclear and things look different anyway. South Korea is already 6X cheaper according to the article, and some GenIV designs are likely to do even better.

South Korea's numbers lack transparency, and I believe they assume very low interest rates (that is, they socialize the financial risk.) Is there a POSSIBILITY of much cheaper nuclear? Sure, anything is POSSIBLE. Is it LIKELY? Experience says "no". And surely it's not possible in the US right now. Who is going to suddenly build these much cheaper nukes here, the Nuclear Power Plant Fairy? The SMR companies are not in…

You believe that do you? Do you have a source? Because there's a recent MIT study that says they really are much cheaper, for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with assuming low interest rates.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/10/01/3-reason...

Maybe the U.S. will keep dragging its feet, but that doesn't mean the technology is inherently expensive, it just means we're bad at it in the U.S.

(And you're still ignoring storage savings in the solar/nuke scenario.)

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#154

Post by scarygliders »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #147
scarygliders wrote: post #128

Can we just get something straight about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant? Although it was a 1960's design, the reason it failed the way it did was because of one design flaw... Its backup generators were not placed up on the hills above it. Rather, the backup generators were situated below sea level underneath the reactor buildings. DERP. Fukushima Dai-ichi survived the Magnitude 9 earthquake. It did not s…

The problem is that "taking all disaster scenarios into account" is easy in hindsight, but maybe not in planning. But I believe that modern nuclear power reactors can be build intrinsically safe. For me, the real problem begins with the treatment of the waste: It's hard to find a good place to store it or reprocess it. Not so much because finding the actual place is hard, but because using that place will face hard o…

The positive thing about hindsight is that we the human race can learn from it and subsequently re-design things like nuclear power plants, amongst a whole swathe of other technology.

Situated in an earthquake/tsunami-prone land? Situate backup generators on higher ground, build tidal walls sufficiently high.

The human race is built upon hindsight. Who was the first human who unfortunately tried eating a poisonous plant? We subsequently learned which plants were safely edible and which were not, for example.

So don't go dissing those who speak with hindsight - we humans stand on the shoulders of those who, unfortunately, lost their lives for everyone else to have the knowledge to progress :/

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#155

Post by pfdietz »

desuyone wrote: post #133

How about we put the reactors in the middle of the desert, then there is no danget of killing a city and no risk of nuclear material leaking into the sea. You really don't need that many people to staff a reactor and if you really do, you can always build a train so people don't need to live close. I know power transmission is an issue. But we have gotten a lot better at that as well, with things like that big DC und…

| How about we put the reactors in the middle of the desert,

How are you proposing to cool them? Remember, 2/3rd of the fission energy in an LWR goes out as low temperature waste heat.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#156

Post by pdonis »

Retric wrote: post #86
pdonis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US never had the ability to build affordable nuclear plants. Sure it has. They're just getting used by the Navy, not by civilians. There's no reason why the same methods that have been successfully used to control cost and schedule for those reactors couldn't be used for civilian reactors.

Navy reactors are extremely expensive. They are worth it because of logistics around oil. Even when comparing to oil, Nuclear is still more expensive. “Specifically, total life-cycle costs would be 19 percent higher for a fleet of nuclear destroyers.” https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41454

They're expensive because of certain design features, yes. But their cost is predictable and we know how to build them on schedule. Those are the key skills that should be just as usable for civilian reactors.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#157

Post by pfdietz »

djakjxnanjak wrote: post #151
desuyone wrote: post #133

How about we put the reactors in the middle of the desert, then there is no danget of killing a city and no risk of nuclear material leaking into the sea. You really don't need that many people to staff a reactor and if you really do, you can always build a train so people don't need to live close. I know power transmission is an issue. But we have gotten a lot better at that as well, with things like that big DC und…

Is the resistance to nuclear power mostly at the state/local level or is there also a lot of federal opposition? I wonder if some western state with unpopulated land could make a lot of money by doing a huge nuclear project and sell the power to California with UHV lines. The politics seem kind of similar to pipeline projects, but the ultimate goal would be to save the earth rather than burn it down so maybe there wo…

The resistance is from those being asked to pay for it.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#158

Post by cubano »

ineedasername wrote: post #95
Ericson2314 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US cannot do infrastructure, or really any serious investment, period. Our laughable incompetance would seriously hinder any strategy. With other strategies, that is one of many impedements. With nuclear that is the only impedement. Hopefully US figures that our rampent cost diesese on sll the things is just embarrassing, and we need a "time out", a throwing away of the actuarial pessimism, and a command economy…

I don't think it's incompetence, it's a lack of political will. On energy, entrenched interests win out through regulatory capture and lobbying. On other infrastructure issues, most people and politicians simply don't care. Maybe once we get to a few bridge collapse per week.

Bingo. This is simply a political problem and nothing else. FUD and "not-in-my-backyard!" reigns supreme when it comes to the final approval process.

As things currently stand, no group of politicians could survive the political fallout of getting a reactor build in their district. How can anything get done if doing so buys you unemployment from the ultimate cushy job of being an elected representative?

Also, no one, not even the most ardent supporters, really wants a reactor built anywhere near them or their kids playgrounds. The anti-nuke-power crowd has just done too good a job on the older generation to ever hope things can change for them.

Let's hope the Millennials can do a better job getting these things built.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#159

Post by davrosthedalek »

scarygliders wrote: post #154
davrosthedalek wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that "taking all disaster scenarios into account" is easy in hindsight, but maybe not in planning. But I believe that modern nuclear power reactors can be build intrinsically safe. For me, the real problem begins with the treatment of the waste: It's hard to find a good place to store it or reprocess it. Not so much because finding the actual place is hard, but because using that place will face hard o…

The positive thing about hindsight is that we the human race can learn from it and subsequently re-design things like nuclear power plants, amongst a whole swathe of other technology. Situated in an earthquake/tsunami-prone land? Situate backup generators on higher ground, build tidal walls sufficiently high. The human race is built upon hindsight. Who was the first human who unfortunately tried eating a poisonous pl…

I'm not dissing anybody, but I believe that there are more ways something can go wrong than we have tried yet. Luckily, our progress is not only dependent on hindsight.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#160

Post by scarygliders »

skookumchuck wrote: post #137
scarygliders wrote: post #128

Can we just get something straight about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant? Although it was a 1960's design, the reason it failed the way it did was because of one design flaw... Its backup generators were not placed up on the hills above it. Rather, the backup generators were situated below sea level underneath the reactor buildings. DERP. Fukushima Dai-ichi survived the Magnitude 9 earthquake. It did not s…

Or just put the generators on stilts, in a bunker, or simply hardened them against flooding. There were other design flaws, too, like venting hydrogen inside the building rather than outside.

Indeed. I'll point out, however, that the Error Cascade began with the loss of the underground backup generators - hydrogen would not have been a problem if the backup generators were operative.
Post reply on HN