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

211–220 of 248 posts

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

#211

Post by pfdietz »

nickik wrote: post #25
umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

No. Unfortunatly research and devlopment into all things nuclear has been systematically eradicated. Regulation that were put in place have essentially eliminated all progress specially progress that isn't incredibly incremental. The problem is that it is essentially impossible to bring these new technologies to market as a private companies. And government have shown zero interest in doing anything by themselves or…

Reprocessing made sense in an environment in which nuclear was winning and uranium was becoming scarce. In that environment, it could make sense to reprocess to extend fuel reserves.

But we do not live in that world. Uranium supplies are plentiful. It's cheap and simple to just store spent fuel in dry casks and put off worrying about if it will ever be reprocessed. Reprocessing is a net economic loss, in France and elsewhere.

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

#212

Post by pfdietz »

jhallenworld wrote: post #65

Solar is growing so fast that it is creating its own waste problem: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23... What happens when we add the necessary batteries (to replace the nuclear base) to this problem?

Ah, Shellenberger. Look at what he's saying and realize what his level of credibility should be.

You will notice that article is talking about cadmium from PV. Silicon PV, which has come to dominate the market (95+%) does not use cadmium. Nor does silicon PV require lead.

And he repeats the lie that PV uses rare earth elements!

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

#213

Post by pfdietz »

gravy wrote: post #14
AlwaysRock wrote: post #8

So many people are grossly unaware of nuclear power and it's potential vs its risks. Many people in the USA live much closer to a nuclear power plant than they realize. It has huge potential but its scare factor keep it from widespread adoption.

This is kind of why I'm a little concerned with how well HBO's Chernobyl is being received...I really hope it doesn't lead to widespread fears of nuclear plants.

If it's any consolation, the meme "nuclear is failing because of unreasonable fears" is wrong. Nuclear is failing because it costs too much, and that cost is driven by complexity and low learning effects, not regulation.

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

#214

Post by pfdietz »

nickik wrote: post #28
AlwaysRock wrote: post #8

So many people are grossly unaware of nuclear power and it's potential vs its risks. Many people in the USA live much closer to a nuclear power plant than they realize. It has huge potential but its scare factor keep it from widespread adoption.

What keeps it from widespread adoption isn't that people are scared. Its the regulatory framework that was put into place after the accidents. They have killed the industry and pretty much all progress.

The nuclear industry isn't very good at making reactors, but nuclear proponents are really good at making excuses.

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

#215

Post by pfdietz »

nickik wrote: post #180
asdff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what happens when the free market is the only method to drive change. The only thing stopping the US from using the navy to produce reactors for cities and not battleships is lobbyists from the oil industry threatening to primary any elected official who goes against good old fashion american capitalism for the sake of public good. I can see the attack ad now.

This is 100% wrong. The free market was driving the change pretty quickly and then regulations came in and made it illegal to do most of those things. Illegal to produce a proper prototype, incredibly restricted access to materials, incredibly high cost to entry and pretty much every other regulatory burden that exists. The nuclear industry is probably one of the un-freest markets ever. And whats stopping the Navy fr…

The free market destroyed nuclear, or rather recognized the failure of nuclear. This failure predates the regulations nuclear fans use to try to deflect blame from their energy waifu.

Nuclear power was NEVER going to be very cheap. Even in the 1950s, it was recognized that the cost of the common elements of coal and nuclear plants were going to restrict nuclear to being MAYBE 20% cheaper than coal, at best, and that only if everything broke the right way.

And that maximally optimistic scenario didn't happen. Nuclear plant construction turned out to be more difficult than thought. Even before increases in regulation -- which were going to happen, as new failure modes and near misses were identified -- costs and delays were escalating.

And now, nuclear has two feet in the tech grave. The tech base has decayed away, and continues to degrade. Hoped for cost reductions of Gen III/III+ reactors from experience would require impossible sustained subsidies. This is why hopes are being pinned on small Hail Mary Reactors. They're the only possibility of avoiding nuclear's extinction.

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

#216

Post by pfdietz »

lokimedes wrote: post #114

It feels like something out of Asimov’s Foundation trilogy. A telltale sign of a civilization in decline when the most advanced energy form accessible to mankind is being replaced by wood burning and windmills. Meanwhile people delusion themselves with arguments that renewable is more advanced. Our first energy source was renewable, but the energy density of wood is pitiful compared to nuclear. I Want my future back.

I don't think subsidizing a losing technology just to let you avoid having to deal with your misconceptions about the future would be good public policy.

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

#217

Post by hutzlibu »

petre wrote: post #200
aeternus wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe a bit nitpicking, but solar would even work better on moon and mars due to the lack of atmosphere. But yes, here on earth it is very location specific.

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

#218

Post by Tepix »

mbell wrote: post #19
Tepix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, quite the contrary. Just as an example, in Germany the search for the ultimate disposal place has just started over from scratch after decades of failed attempts. In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific: https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/a-dome-holding-nuclear-waste-... Here's another story from 12 days ago: "Years of mismanagement, delays at nuclear waste sites could pose risk, report says" htt…

> In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. This is the type of fear mongering that caused the current situation.

The post i was answering to was talking about nuclear waste in general. So was my response.

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

#219

Post by tpkj »

jessaustin wrote: post #193
tpkj wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's the formal definition of "exponential", and then there is "exponential" in the sense of completely disruptive and transformative as in the example Tony Seba gives. I am referring to the latter.

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

#220

Post by boomboomsubban »

jessaustin wrote: post #196
boomboomsubban wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

They seem to be saying that Iowa is closing their one nuclear plant because wind farms are cheaper. People primarily care about price, and don't want their government providing massive subsidies.

If price is what's causing them to turn away from nuclear, then they probably turned to cheaper oil. And they seem fine providing massive subsidies to further things like the Dakota Access pipeline.

Post reply on HN