A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by ben_w » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #172

pfdietz wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar doesn't need fuel cells. Fuel cells are a high capital cost solution to the problem of turning hydrogen into electricity, at higher efficiency. That's not what solar or wind need -- they need low capital cost, mediocre efficiency backup sources.

And if they cant get that then they will never be a baseline energy source as you cant count on them, so keep dreaming.

On the contrary, current efficiency of even cheap-and-dumb electrolysis is 70% {1}, which means that cheap solar like the 2.155¢/kWh plant from 6 montgs ago {2} can easily provide baseline load.

This is pretty much entirely because PV keep getting cheaper faster than everyone expected — even as recently as five years ago, pessimism like yours wouldn’t have been unreasonable, and yet the problem is now essentially solved and all we need to do is build the stuff at the prices we can already afford.

{1} https://web.archive.org/web/20120322204531/http://www.grid-s...

{2} https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/14/new-us-solar-record-2-1...

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

#182

Post by marcosdumay » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

Twisell wrote: post #165

lando2319 wrote: post #163

Question, why do people talk so pessimistically about the potential for solar? I see lots of comments like, "there is not enough land for solar panels". People seem to have a fixed view about how much power can be drawn. Sure right now the payoff might be underwhelming in relation to the size requirements, but with more development wouldn't the technology improve? I imagine a future where the technology improves to t…

The point is that climat change is real and it’s coming fast. So from a purely pragmatic standpoint it seems more reasonable to deploy solutions as soon as possible with available technologies than to wait for a plausible technology improvements. Otherwise you risk being almost as inactive in the required efforts than an average climat change denier.

Hum... Do you have any actual solution? One that does solve carbon emissions, can be deployed in reasonable time, and does not involve people getting poorer?

The most pragmatic thing to do is to improve solar generation and all kinds of storage. Those can actually solve the problem. Nuclear can't be here on time (nor on budget), and everything else just won't happen.

We could have avoided a lot of problems on the last few decades if the nuclear countries decided to push for safer reactors with no proliferation problems. They didn't. They all kept going for more weapons. Now we have to live with those problems, and the nuclear economical window passed away, it does not make sense anymore.

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

#183

Post by strainer » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #168

strainer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 $50/kWh. 1kW @ 4hrs = (400+ 50* 4) /4 = 150$…

Is it really sensible to believe any press release about future batteries?

The press release contained current and next years prices - 200$/kWh @ 8hr storage is the current cost of flow storage.

Its not really sensible to price 24hrs of li-on storage considering li-ons charge/discharge rate capability is fixed. There is no use for the capability to charge and discharge 24hours of power within a couple of hours, but you cant avoid buying it with li-on. With flow batteries you price the discharge rate and the capacity separately. This is why flow batteries should work out a fraction of the cost even at todays price.

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

#184

Post by richardburden » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 4:51 PM UTC

ben-schaaf wrote: post #55

beaconstudios wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this might sound silly (and it probably is), but I don't understand why we don't build a hulking great cannon and shoot our nuclear waste into space.

I know others have addressed the dangers of this, but I had a little fun looking at the logistics. The UK alone produces 2Mt of radioactive waste[0] per year, ~9% is of "intermediate" level. Just sending those 18Mt into LEO would take 129,000 Saturn V launches per year. That's about one launch every 4 minutes. And LEO is not where we want to send anything. Lets assume a Trans-Lunar Injection is enough, bringing that…

2Mt is two metric tons, right? It surely is not 2 million metric tons. See the IAEA's estimates of total radwaste in storage or disposal worldwide: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...

Because of the extremely high energy density of nuclear fuel, the amount of waste produced per Gigawatt-year of electricity generated is very small.

A Saturn V has a payload of 140 Mt to low earth orbit. Total high-level waste is 22,000 cubic meters, possibly 220,000 Mt, assuming a density 10 times as great as water. 1,572 Saturn V launches would carry away all of that. All the high-level waste ever produced that has not been recycled. Most of it can be recycled in breeder reactors, so there is no need to carry it away!

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

#185

Post by acidburnNSA » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 4:59 PM UTC

Graham67 wrote: post #140

acidburnNSA wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers are clear. Nuclear lifecycle is 11 gCO2-eq/kWh, less than almost anything and on par with wind. The idea that uranium mining requires tremendous amounts of anything compared to the alternatives is ludicrous simply by the physical fact that there are 938 MW*days of energy in every kilogram of natural uranium. That's 2 million times more energy per mass than any chemical fuel, and that results in a very sma…

70 is a a lot closer to the truth. That 11 is a selective figure. None of these numbers includes the carbon used to bulldoze the East side of Japan, or Belarus. And again, as the first attempt was clumsy, and a minimum.

Which study are you using to suggest 70? That's on the high end on any study, but not the highest.

The IPCC has min, median, and max estimates on these kinds of things. See Table A.III.2 in [1], 12 being the median.

So worst case by any estimate is that nuclear emits 110 gCO2-eq/kg. Solar PV (utility) max is 180. Hydro is an astounding 2200 (twice as bad as coal, due to biogenic methane associated with large reservoirs). By any estimate, nuclear is a very low-carbon energy source, in a whole different class than fossil fuel and biofuels. In other words, it's one of the few low-carbon options we have.

The minimum for nuclear is not 11 but rather 3.7.

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

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

#186

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 5:00 PM UTC

simoneau wrote: post #123

I recommend Whole Earth Disciple by Stewart Brand. One of the founders of the environmental movement explains why he was wrong about nuclear power and other issues. “We are as gods, and have to get good at it.”

I am idly curious whether the environmentalist movement was deliberately seeded with anti-nuclear sentiment by the fossil fuel industry.

Could be coincidence, but it seems awfully convenient.

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

#187

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

Graham67 wrote: post #124

We have the opportunity now, to decide to not kill everything bigger than bacteria. We could shutdown nukes, and store the waste. Or we could go for broke - if we go extinct - everything goes extinct.

Seems like an exaggeration. I like your point but I don’t understand why you draw a line at bacteria.

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

#188

Post by acidburnNSA » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #112

acidburnNSA wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really true. Reprocessing is expensive and mining and enriching new uranium is just cheaper. It's a economic issue. France recycles their fuel once but they still only get 2% of the total energy out of the resource that's mined. Another super-reasonable thing to do with nuclear waste is burying it in large salt deposits or deep crystalline bedrock. Both are actually totally reasonable and practical solutions. Peo…

> Reprocessing is expensive and mining and enriching new uranium is just cheaper. That's true now, yes. But anyone who realizes this also realizes (as you do) that nuclear waste disposal is not an issue: you just store the spent fuel now, and at some point (in the not too distant future if we were actually using nuclear energy for a large portion of base load power), mining and enriching new fuel will be more expensi…

Yeah the reduction of long-term radiotoxicity achievable by partitioning and transmuting spent nuclear fuel really is astounding.

I'm not totally convinced that uranium mining will ever be more expensive than reprocessing. For one thing, (and especially when you go to deep-burn non-reprocessing breeder reactors) the required uranium is so minuscule that extracting the (near infinite and truly renewable) uranium from seawater is practical using tech that's 3-6x more expensive today than traditional mining.

On the other hand advances in industrial controls and robotics could conceivably reduce reprocessing costs.

Either option would be fine for a much expanded nuclear fleet providing 24/7 low-footprint carbon-free energy.

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

#189

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

throw2016 wrote: post #159

The recent piece by HCN on our nuclear past stands in sharp contrast. [1] Anyone reading that, environmentalists or not, will have reason for extreme concern and skepticism about a single generations ability to manage consequences that can last thousands of years. [1] https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.21/nuclear-energy-theres-no-ea...

The consequences of not using nuclear alternatives will last 1000s of years too. There’s no way out of consequences.

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

#190

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #128

mikestew wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power creates the most dangerous waste known to mankind From what I've been reading, seems CO2 tops that list. One can bury nuclear waste in the Nevada desert, keep everyone a few hundred miles away, and it'll be fine. From what I learned in high school chemistry class, a gas wants to expand to fill its container, so the CO2 produced by Chinese coal-fired plants eventually makes its way to me. The process of…

Was this included in what you've been reading? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste > One can bury nuclear waste in the Nevada desert, keep everyone a few hundred miles away, and it'll be fine. Yeah, for a million years. The ideas people have come up with to prevent future generations just blowing it up without knowing what they're doing, and irradiating the whole planet, are quite interesting. If you have…

> The ideas people have come up with to prevent future generations just blowing it up without knowing what they're doing, and irradiating the whole planet, are quite interesting. If you have a good idea, people will be all ears, because we don't have a plan.

We already have a plan. Publish the information on the internet. It will still be here in 1 million years. YouTube will outlast the Sun.