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

China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

johnmenadue.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#21

Post by ajross »

WalterBright wrote: post #12

In the Pacific Northwest, I see rooftop solar panels half-covered with mildew. I wonder how that affects the power generation, and how often one would have to climb up on the roof to scrape them clean.

The article is about industrial generation, not home solar which is largely a vanity thing still. Go look for mildew on a big solar farm on the other side of the Cascades.

You'll need to dig through all the wind turbines and dams to find them though. The PNW has better choices than solar anyway.

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#22

Post by afiori »

MostlyStable wrote: post #13
aurareturn wrote: post #2

On HN, there are a lot of nuclear proponents. Any comments from them on this article? Just curiosity from me because I don't know much about this topic.

its short and mostly just a description of whats happening. Not much to comment on. Except for the last sentence that says that nuclear "can't" compete with renewables. Firstly, it's actually competing with coal, which is what is going in instead, and secondly, any regulatory regime that slows nuclear deployment so much that you instead install coal is deeply, deeply flawed. Nuclear is orders of magnitude more safer…

I agree with your point but as feedback on phrasing saying

> Nuclear is orders of magnitude more safer than coal, and has been for 50+ years

might cause some skepticism as Chernobyl was in 1986. I am not saying that it is false, but I am saying that it will sound false

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#23

Post by pydry »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #20
pfdietz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety features aren't essential to power generation?

Yes, but after a certain point it becomes a matter of risk tolerance. Apparently some radiation standards in nuclear power plants work out at millions/billions of dollars per year per life saved https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-is-too-saf...

Ok then let's repeal the Price-Anderson Nuclear indemninty act and make nuclear power plants liable for ALL clean up costs if something goes wrong.

For Fukushima that number is circa $800 billion.

If it is as safe as you think it is with a minimum of safety standards then the market will still provide. Sophisticated insurers will be capable of calculating the risk and shouldering all of it for a reasonable fee.

Right?

The act exists, of course, because it definitely isnt safe enough to do that and sophisticated private insurers who are capable of calculating risk better than you or I know this all too well. They won't touch nuclear power without a ludicrously low liability cap.

The ironic thing is that even with this gargantuan implicit subsidy (yes, taxpayer funded insurance that pays out $800 billion in an emergency is a big subsidy), nuclear power still isnt cost competitive with solar and wind.

But, I'm all in favor of letting nuclear plants determine their own safety levels. IF they can get the insurance to cover ALL the costs of dealing with a disaster. Free market, baby.

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#24

Post by bboygravity »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #10

It’s very difficult to estimate the true cost of nuclear power because so many resources are spent on safety features rather than the basic stuff essential to power generation. New construction cost per energy out can vary by 5x, even against the grain of expected purchasing power parity advantages: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-britain-is-building-...

It's also very difficult to estimate true cost of solar at a massive scale.

Most/all solar panels that exist currently can not be recycled in a way that makes ecological or economical sense. Their operational lifetime is NOT "sustainable", nor is their economical lifetime.

Then there's death's per kWh, required energy storage (with its own ecological and economical issues), mining, transportation, CO2 per kWh, etc etc.

IMO nuclear is a pretty clear winner (as a continious energy source), but it's a complex analysis where important details are easily missed.

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#25

Post by asddubs »

pydry wrote: post #23
spacebanana7 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but after a certain point it becomes a matter of risk tolerance. Apparently some radiation standards in nuclear power plants work out at millions/billions of dollars per year per life saved https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-is-too-saf...

Ok then let's repeal the Price-Anderson Nuclear indemninty act and make nuclear power plants liable for ALL clean up costs if something goes wrong. For Fukushima that number is circa $800 billion. If it is as safe as you think it is with a minimum of safety standards then the market will still provide. Sophisticated insurers will be capable of calculating the risk and shouldering all of it for a reasonable fee. Right…

I know you're making a point but of course realistically, nuclear businesses would just try to structure themselves in such a way that in the event of a fallout the company can just go bankrupt without disrupting those benefitting from it majorly

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#26

Post by llm_trw »

afiori wrote: post #22
MostlyStable wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its short and mostly just a description of whats happening. Not much to comment on. Except for the last sentence that says that nuclear "can't" compete with renewables. Firstly, it's actually competing with coal, which is what is going in instead, and secondly, any regulatory regime that slows nuclear deployment so much that you instead install coal is deeply, deeply flawed. Nuclear is orders of magnitude more safer…

I agree with your point but as feedback on phrasing saying > Nuclear is orders of magnitude more safer than coal, and has been for 50+ years might cause some skepticism as Chernobyl was in 1986. I am not saying that it is false, but I am saying that it will sound false

The average coal power plant kills a few dozen people a year in normal operation with first world safety standards.

It's just that these people are spread over a wide geographic area and can be blamed on things like smoking and car exhaust.

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#27

Post by opmac »

henry2023 wrote: post #19

To this day I think that nuclear is the best way to produce clean and abundant energy. There only one problem. Only governments build nuclear reactors and if you want to innovate in this space you need to deal with these institutions which adds a lot of complexity. Solar on the other hand appeals to the public and can be deployed in large scale facilities. Large scale economics apply directly and we can see that by l…

There's a lot of inconvenient truths one needs to accept if they want to advocate for widespread nuclear energy. Specifically, there are very real nuclear proliferation concerns which cannot be ignored. Alternative clean energy sources, which are safe on the global scale, can made widely available with proper investment. That should be the future.

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#28

Post by goatlover »

pfdietz wrote: post #17
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is slower and more expensive to deploy than solar or wind. Nobody should dispute that. We should deploy the latter as quickly as possible. In addition , we should build nuclear plants, certainly until we’ve phased out coal and oil for primary generation. The article describes China scaling back new plants at a slower pace—about 5 a year instead of ten–but that’s still a multiple of anything we’re doing.

The analysis I've seen doesn't support the position we should also be deploying nuclear. We come out ahead rolling out renewables and storage as fast as possible, driving these technologies down their experience curves. Any new nuclear added will likely close early when it can't even make an operating profit.

Nuclear energy is a lot more dense, therefore requiring less land, and doesn't depend on the sun or wind. It also doesn't depend on future breakthroughs in storage and transmission.

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#29

Post by hangonhn »

janalsncm wrote: post #9

It is telling that a country with basically none of the American barriers to nuclear (NiMBYism, slow construction) is also shifting focus to solar and wind. It’s just simpler. You can put up a solar panel tomorrow and start generating power. A solar panel is a self-contained prefab power generating unit. Even with all of the advancements in nuclear, we still don’t have anything like that.

I was going to say... if a country like China, with its massive engineering/building capacity and authoritarian "efficiency" cannot hit their nuclear construction targets, it is quite telling how difficult it must be in reality to build nuclear reactors in general.

I am still very pro-nuclear but it seems PV + wind + battery storage are coming down in price much faster than people expected and it just makes sense to build more since the incremental cost is so low, especially compared to something like nuclear. That said, there's no reason to not pursue both options, which apparently China is doing but at a slower pace for nuclear.

Re: China's quiet energy revolution: the switch from nuclear to renewable energy

#30

Post by spacebanana7 »

pydry wrote: post #23
spacebanana7 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but after a certain point it becomes a matter of risk tolerance. Apparently some radiation standards in nuclear power plants work out at millions/billions of dollars per year per life saved https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-is-too-saf...

Ok then let's repeal the Price-Anderson Nuclear indemninty act and make nuclear power plants liable for ALL clean up costs if something goes wrong. For Fukushima that number is circa $800 billion. If it is as safe as you think it is with a minimum of safety standards then the market will still provide. Sophisticated insurers will be capable of calculating the risk and shouldering all of it for a reasonable fee. Right…

The natural objection is that the Fukushima response was a significant overreaction.

Counting that cost is like including Iraq war costs for oil usage (perhaps fair for the first gulf war, but the expense of the second was an independent policy mistake)

[1] (least bad Forbes article I’ve read in years) https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11...

Post reply on HN