New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light • Hacker News Board

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#201

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #158

skitout wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the fact is we have now cheap existing clean technologies, with a fast decreasing cost (decreasing cost of energy, and decreasing cost of managing intermittence)... It does not seems wise to bet that SMR will be cheaper than renewable in 10 to 20 years and wait and pray... SMR is not a viable option right now. That is an interesting possibility we should study and work on, that could be a good surprise later on,…

SMRs are being touted not because they are particularly promising, but because they are the last option nuclear supporters have. Traditional reactors have run out of chances, so now it's either the Hail Mary Reactors or give up.

Are there any known problems or difficulties with them? I guess the materials science aspect is extremely difficult as it is already a huge problem in conventional designs...

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#202

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

NextHendrix wrote: post #123

One thing to follow in terms of nuclear power in the UK is the work being done in small modular reactors (SMR). These are much smaller PWR reactors that are intended to be considerably cheaper and faster to build than the massive reactors at places like Hinkley Point, Sizewell etc, as well as being far less onerous to decommission. The designs will be such that components can be mass produced in an assembly-line like…

So who will bear the financial risk?

So far, it is obviously not sustainable to finance nuclear power plants from the electricity they produce. In other words, they are not even viable as a business.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/14/new-uk-n...

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#203

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #153

socialdemocrat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost matters. If you can build renewable power at a fraction of the price, why go nuclear? We can keep gas as backup until storage solutions are better developed. If money was no issue you could just build a ton of pumped hydro in Scotland and or batter storage. And if you absolutely want to spend on nuclear power, spend it in SMRs and molten salt reactors. ThorCon is probably not that far from a working solution if…

> If you can build renewable power at a fraction of the price We keep thinking of "building renewable power" as "we can produce this amount of watts at peak". What we should demand of these projects instead is "we can provide this amount of renewable power 24/7". There is a big difference. We're ending up in a situation where we can "build renewable power at a fraction of the price" for half of the time. For the othe…

> What we should demand of these projects instead is "we can provide this amount of renewable power 24/7".

Humans have always adapted to power being available in different quantities and forms over time. This is why we have corn stores, mills, corned beef, and cold houses. No farmer expects that the sun makes his corn grow in January. In the end, we adapt to our environment, and we have done that though all the ages. Today, we can make it technically much smarter, for example by adding a price signal to electricity, and generating hot water for doing laundry during strong-wind night hours. If this is cheaper and more efficient than battery storage, then why not do it?

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#204

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #198

grey-area wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a solved problem, particularly in the UK. Battery prices are constantly dropping and pumped storage is a proven solution. It requires investment, but far less than fission plants.

This is where a market solution should be used. Set up the conditions for minimum delivery of carbon-free power for a given period and let private companies bet on it. If people can deliver a battery solution that exclusively use renewable to charge them, and do this cheaper than nuclear, then they win the bid. They don't get to use natural gas as a backup. They also need to be held liable to maintain the minimum cap…

In the EU there is actually already a market of different contingents of electrical energy with different availability guarantees. Sources with high availability are more expensive and this helps to finance the required technology. And all this works rather in an evolutionary way. For example, we can, today, predict how much wind power will roughly be generated within the next days, and we can adjust reserve capacities with different costs to even that out. It is not only feasibly but also the economical thing to do.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#205

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

korantu wrote: post #60

lostlogin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Maybe it won’t be a lot once built, but fuel extraction and processing are energy intensive. Also, 10 years of construction and the vast quantity of steel and concrete are going to burn one hell of a lot of fossil fuel. It would be interesting to compare the lifetime fossil fuel usage of all power generators, including construction and disposal (a…

Fair comparison here is overall energy invested for energy obtained. For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh. Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options. For example for solar it is about 6, versus 75 for nuclear. [1] Also instructive to keep in mind just how energy dense nuclear…

> Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options.

Then, why is it not economically viable when fairly competing with solar and wind energy? Because it requires much more subsidies and nuclear developers cannot even bear the financial risks of their projects, as one would expect from a economically viable technology.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#206

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #90

belorn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Government should just set the conditions for new power and heating infrastructure. No fossil fuels. Zero carbon. A minimum and peak capacity based on current and projected demands. Private companies can bid, but they can't change the conditions. If a private company can more cheaply and faster build massive amount of battery and use exclusively win…

If the whole UK energy grid could become fossil free, and the only cost would be a 2x increase in costs, then that would be to me a fair price to pay. A large number of people would die as a result of such a policy. Fuel poverty is already a significant problem, the UK government gives out 'winter fuel payment' benefits to some, but doubling the price of energy would push a lot of elderly, infirm, and poor people to…

The combination of a carbon tax and universal basic income is the solution here.

It would also push adoption of non-fossil energy sources, since poor people have more than enough incentives to chose the economically best solution for them.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#207

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

konschubert wrote: post #100

belorn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Government should just set the conditions for new power and heating infrastructure. No fossil fuels. Zero carbon. A minimum and peak capacity based on current and projected demands. Private companies can bid, but they can't change the conditions. If a private company can more cheaply and faster build massive amount of battery and use exclusively win…

The easiest way to implement your policy is an emissions trading scheme, where the amount of issued certificates is reduced every year.

Emissions trading is a single gigantic failure. What we need is a stiff carbon tax.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#208

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

rllearneratwork wrote: post #7

belorn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless how expensive it get, it won't burn tons of fossil fuels. Government should just set the conditions for new power and heating infrastructure. No fossil fuels. Zero carbon. A minimum and peak capacity based on current and projected demands. Private companies can bid, but they can't change the conditions. If a private company can more cheaply and faster build massive amount of battery and use exclusively win…

If only countries could work together to institute a global carbon tax. Pollute too much - pay the tax. Don't pollute - great and, if you are poor/developing, here is help (funded by polluters) to stay that way while still being able to develop.

Each country can do this on their own and tax fossil energy imports at the border.

This should include embodied energy, or "gray energy", in materials like steel, aluminum and cement.

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#209

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #74

vkou wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So levy punitive tariffs against it, and anyone else who does not sign onto a carbon tax.

I don’t think the Europe Union really wants a trade war with the US. Basically, Germany is the weak spot in this. They are an export driven economy and a US embargo on Germany would be devastating.

> I don’t think the Europe Union really wants a trade war with the US.

Who bothers, the US already wants one. Why should the EU let determine the future of the planet by some political backwater?

Re: New nuclear plant at Sizewell set for green light

#210

Post by jnxx » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #96

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US isn't the largest CO2 emitter, though it used to be. China's emissions are approximately double the US's and growing.

China's per capita CO2 emissions are still 1/2 that of the U.S. More importantly, neither the Chinese government nor powerful Chinese politicians deny anthropogenic climate change. And they've recently recommitted to nuclear energy expansion despite growing public fear after Fukushima and a subsequent rise in costs as Chinese regulatory policies became more strict. Part of the reason for the gap in nuclear constructi…

Not entirely unrelated, China is also building a system of high-speed long-distance trains like few countries have. There will be a time after the individual gas-powered car. I guess it will be propelled electrically, but it's quite likely that the power will come from an overhead line.