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

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

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 249 posts

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

#191

Post by dispat0r »

bjourne wrote: post #163
revax wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Upgrading them to conform to modern safety standards isn't cost-effective. Why that? In France nuclear power plants are kept to the newest safety standards. Everything in a nuclear power plant can be replaced apart from the reactor vessel and the containment building.

Because many of them were built before TMI and Chernobyl, in the 70's using designs from the 60's. It's similar to how maintenance on a car from the 70's probably isn't worth it. Nuclear isn't working very well in France either. The reactor in Flamanville had an initial projected cost of 3.5 billion euros which has now ballooned to 12.4 billion euros and the project is over a decade late. https://www.reuters.com/arti…

You're arguing in bad faith. Yes the new reactors are expensive and late but also a new class EPR. There is also no plan from France to transation away from nuclear.

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

#192

Post by pif »

derriz wrote: post #55
pif wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't understand the downvotes you got. You pushed may be a bit on political stereotypes, but other than that you just stated the facts.

Are the downvotes really hard to understand? Claiming that renewables are untenable without unavailable fantasy technology is clearly ill-informed. Renewables are already contributing a significant proportion of generated electricity globally - even in the US it's over 20% versus 8% for nuclear. In many European countries, renewables provide over 30% of the consumed electricity. Renewables are already a big part of e…

> In many European countries, renewables provide over 30% of the consumed electricity.

That fraction is not very important, unless you can name at least a country who is ready to devote all its renewable enrgy to 30% of their people/services/industries and permanently disconnect them from traditional energy sources.

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

#193

Post by DaedPsyker »

toyg wrote: post #187
jerome-jh wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal consumption is may be down in Germany but it is still huge (the 4th in the world). Of course GDP is up since coal is very cheap! Germany is the elephant in the room of Europe. Because of it, it is impossible for Europe to pressure India and China to lower their coal consumption. And EU could pressure them: it is China's largest customer and outsources quite a bit to India. Overall coal is the major factor leadin…

Europe and US would still not have an ideological high ground even if they fully decommissioned coal. They built their wealth on coal, so from the perspective of BRIC and other still-industrializing countries they would (and in fact already do) appear like they are just trying to pull up the drawbridge. Pressuring developing countries to stop using coal is a lost cause, and will only increase enmity. What we really h…

It's not a fair comparison, coal was pretty much the only game in town and at a time when understanding of pollution only related to local level.

Yes its unfair but at the end of the day its the developing countries that will be hit hardest by climate change, not the west. I do agree we should subsidise clean energy around the world though.

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

#194

Post by pif »

cygx wrote: post #109
realusername wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where we are at right now, just stating the energy facts are considered political... There's no realistic scenario at the moment where renewables can be used alone to build a grid for a full country unless you are betting on future tech which doesn't (and might never) exist.

Because it's overstating the facts ("no other source", "seen only in Star Trek", "as much understanding of energy as flat earthers do of geography", "ridiculous"), contradicting any study on the topic I've seen (which, to be fair, might have been a biased sample). This was my take-away when I looked into it a couple of years ago: Going 60% renewable is not much of a problem. 80% needs investment into infrastructure,…

> There's nothing that prevents us from doing so with the technology of today if we're prepared to ...

We are not prepared to, neither do we want to.

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

#195

Post by pif »

derriz wrote: post #55
pif wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't understand the downvotes you got. You pushed may be a bit on political stereotypes, but other than that you just stated the facts.

Are the downvotes really hard to understand? Claiming that renewables are untenable without unavailable fantasy technology is clearly ill-informed. Renewables are already contributing a significant proportion of generated electricity globally - even in the US it's over 20% versus 8% for nuclear. In many European countries, renewables provide over 30% of the consumed electricity. Renewables are already a big part of e…

> Until the 80s

You mean until Chernobyl?

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

#196

Post by pif »

olau wrote: post #66
pif wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on most of your comment, apart from: > maintain what we have until it can be replaced with renewables We cannot be sure renewables will ever be able to replace nuclear/fossil/hydroelectric, thus we should be a bit more conservatives in our plans for the future.

Why don't you think we can use renewables to reach 100%? People have done calculations on it using existing tech? For my country, those calculations were done by a government body in 2014, and they estimated that the total cost would be somewhat higher, but not astronomical. But since then, the prices have fallen much faster than they anticipated.

> Why don't you think ...

It's not what I think: it's what we can be sure of!

If we ever get to the point where we can keep the same living standards as of today, with no fossil and no nuclear, well: let it be!

Should we push for it? Yes, we should!

Should we pay more taxes in order to push for it? Yes, we should!

Should we bet on it and risk our living standards? No, thank you!

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

#197

Post by bryanlarsen »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #184
hntrader wrote: post #59

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.

> wind isn't capable of base load supply. I'm sorry, but really: Citation required on that claim. There's plenty of counter positions[1][2][3] which say that if you assume 'base load' is a genuine thing, that renewables, including wind, are capable of meeting all our power generation needs - through a mix of energy sources, and also energy storage. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-ene... […

Base load generation is unnecessary, the only type of power that's needed is dispatchable or peak power. If you can meet demand at peak, you can meet demand in the trough too. All other power types are added to the grid to increase affordability, reliability or green credentials.

Neither wind nor nuclear are suitable to use for peak power.

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

#198

Post by bryanlarsen »

sjwright wrote: post #88
olau wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you think we can use renewables to reach 100%? People have done calculations on it using existing tech? For my country, those calculations were done by a government body in 2014, and they estimated that the total cost would be somewhat higher, but not astronomical. But since then, the prices have fallen much faster than they anticipated.

Unless there’s a massive breakthrough in battery tech, the manufacturing of sufficient batteries would be a guaranteed environmental disaster.

Lithium mining has an impact similar to oil extraction. (On average -- oil sands and fracking are worse, conventional oil production is better).

But since batteries can be used a few thousand times and then can be recycled efficiently, the volume required is a tiny fraction of the petroleum requirements.

Other materials are used in even smaller quantities. Cobalt is a disaster, but grid batteries don't use cobalt, they generally use nickel & iron.

It is a large environmental impact. But compared to the alternative, it's very green.

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

#199

Post by bryanlarsen »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #161
amai wrote: post #155

"a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources" Since when are Pulitzer prize winners experts on nuclear energy? A sentence like this is shows he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about: "Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem in the U.S., is not any longer a technological problem." see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU "A final compla…

The pricing analysis assumes that costs for renewables scale linearly as they approach 100% of grid capacity, but they do not. Other comments in this thread speak to this phenomenon well. Without viable energy storage, operating in parallel with something like load-following nuclear is necessary for wind and solar to remain as cheap as currently quoted. If viable scale energy storage is invented, it will not be free.

Batteries for energy storage is already viable.

Batteries are already cheaper than high voltage power lines.

https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/12/27/the-future-of-...

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

#200

Post by dispat0r »

DaedPsyker wrote: post #193
toyg wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe and US would still not have an ideological high ground even if they fully decommissioned coal. They built their wealth on coal, so from the perspective of BRIC and other still-industrializing countries they would (and in fact already do) appear like they are just trying to pull up the drawbridge. Pressuring developing countries to stop using coal is a lost cause, and will only increase enmity. What we really h…

It's not a fair comparison, coal was pretty much the only game in town and at a time when understanding of pollution only related to local level. Yes its unfair but at the end of the day its the developing countries that will be hit hardest by climate change, not the west. I do agree we should subsidise clean energy around the world though.

wind energy is so cheap why are india and china still building new coal plants?
Post reply on HN