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

Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

iea.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 248 posts

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#191

Post by jessaustin »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

> 20 years ago was essentially a zero point for the statistic they cite. It was less than 5 gigawatts, anyway. It grew by over 100 times in that 20 years, and it will be "unprecedented" to grow by 5 times in the next 20? Do you expect the growth rate of Google over the next 20 years will be the same as it was between 1999 and today? As things mature you don't get the same level of exponential growth. Meanwhile the su…

Was this reply intended to go here? I made no predictions. I complained about the word "unprecedented". Are you holding IEA to the same standard you're attempting to apply here? ISTM you've steelmanned their deception to the point that it no longer resembles TFA. They didn't include any of this sophistry.

Have all the factories that got us to this level of (obviously) installed capacity burned down recently? Have the investors who invested in them and the engineers who built them all died?

OK, I'll make a prediction. Solar capacity will rise to 100% of today's total capacity, and it still won't displace lots of other energy sources. Why? Because when power is cheaper and has fewer negative externalities, we'll use more of it.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#192

Post by jessaustin »

abalone wrote: post #57
jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

Yes and it's interesting to quote the rest of that paragraph, which ends up arguing that clean energy transitions "would end up hurting consumers through higher electricity bills."[1] The use of the term "hurting" here is a tell. Yeah, you know, maybe fixing the planet will require a mobilization on the scale of going to war and result in higher prices. That's not hurting people; that's helping our children live on a…

Haha, this may be the first time in history that nuclear enthusiasts have pretended to give a damn about ratepayers. I'd bet that most of their "$1.6 trillion" figure comes from decommissioning dangerous nuclear plants. We've already spent that money, assholes...

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#193

Post by jessaustin »

tpkj wrote: post #160
ben_w wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has taken off exponentially. That’s what the growth curve you’re looking at is called. :)

No, it has not taken off exponentially yet in the way the Tony Seba video demonstrates with a picture of 5th Ave in NYC in the year 1900 where there are lots of horses used for transportation, and only one car, compared with a picture of the same street in 1913, where the street is full of cars, and there is only one horse to be found.

Scroll down the page I linked to the graph "Exponential Growth of Solar PV". A straight line on a log graph is exponential by definition.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#194

Post by jessaustin »

singularity2001 wrote: post #168
jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

The growth rate for solar is x10/8 years, so in 20 years we are at >90% solar.

I'd believe 90% of current capacity, but it won't get to that portion of total capacity. Solar isn't perfect for every situation. Even so, when energy is cheaper with fewer negative externalities, we'll use more of it.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#195

Post by jessaustin »

jobigoud wrote: post #74
Cederfjard wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grandparent comment mentioned modern recycling. Perhaps Belgium is operating old types of reactors that aren't amenable to modern ways of dealing with waste? A quick search yielded that all of Belgium's reactors were built in the 70's and 80's.

But then if we need to replace all the old reactors by new ones, the argument that renewables are just ramping up is moot.

If that argument could convince investors, it would have already.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#196

Post by jessaustin »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #127
bilbo0s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants. The problem is the renewables. In Iowa, they are in the process of shuttering their nuclear plants. Now no one in Iowa was out protesting the plants or anything, but here's the issue. Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere. (Seriously, drive through I…

>Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere. Why are you sure this is the reason? If the price tag is the main concern, the North Dakota oil boom and ongoing pipeline projects are probably the primary cause.

What are you saying here? Why would additional supplies of energy cause the price to rise?

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#197

Post by jessaustin »

isolli wrote: post #36
jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

It reminds me of this: https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/866313289306963969/p... tl;dr The International Energy Agency kept predicting, year after year, in the face of all the evidence, that solar production would plateau.

At least they're consistent. If linear growth is the only thing they can imagine, then they definitely can't imagine exponential growth.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#198

Post by petre »

epistasis wrote: post #185
gwbas1c wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that part of moving away from carbon is replacing oil and gas heat with heat pumps (or resistive heat.) And furthermore, heating is needed when days are the shortest. We aren't going to heat our homes with solar power.

There have been some efforts to make residential geothermal heat pumps price competitive in many markets. In which case, winter insolation with clouds may actually be enough to heat houses. I would guess that we'll see far more thermal storage (refrigerators, water heaters, etc...) in households as appliances get smarter.

They won't be just because you have to drill a borehole, or two, or lots of ditches >6ft deep.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#199

Post by waste_monk »

magduf wrote: post #163
blackbrokkoli wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, nuclear reactors are very safe except of dangerous-tech-xA45b which we only know is deadly after one or two incidents?

Actually, yes. 1) Don't use crappy Soviet reactors like Chernobyl; this should be a no-brainer. 2) Don't locate a nuclear power plant in a place where it can be flooded easily. Other than the crappy Chernobyl reactor, I don't know of any inherently dangerous reactor designs, especially in Western nations.

AFAIK most modern designs are fail-safe, e.g. with passive features like control rods suspended with electromagnets over the reactor - if activated (or if power fails) they simply fall in and kill the reaction.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#200

Post by petre »

aeternus wrote: post #165
andrekandre wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't really work because solar can't produce at night photovoltaic no, molten salt yes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_... btw, driving by them at daytime is pretty weird... the collectors look literally like close-up stars floating above the surface

Are those actually more environment-friendly than nuclear? Seems like those would take up lots of land area and easily fry and possibly blind animals, especially birds that get too close. They do look cool though.

Depends on a case by case basis. You'd need a desert, the South of Spain, Greece or Texas. Just like geothermal, it's very location specific, whereas one could deploy a nuclear reactor on the Moon or Mars.
Post reply on HN