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

221–230 of 248 posts

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

#221

Post by AlwaysRock »

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.

I don't think this is true. Ask people how they feel about nuclear energy. Then ask them how they feel about living near a nuclear plant. Regulations are difficult to navigate but if there is sufficient want and need then they will be navigated. See any government contract work.

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

#222

Post by auiya »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #10
ilaksh wrote: post #3

I grew up in San Diego. I have seen a very encouraging amount of solar deployment on houses there. But there is still a massive potential for more residential solar. When I visited my brother in Ft. Worth I saw almost no residential solar. I also noticed that there was a massive supply of wind blowing around the neighborhood. Is it really not feasible to harness solar and wind better? Maybe it requires moving to a mo…

Ft Worth is fed by a massive supply of cheap wind energy from West Texas as well as natural gas and coal plants. Roof top solar isn't that viable here. Not many people want a $20-30k installation on top of a $200-400k house and the energy prices just aren't high enough to substantiate it.

A big problem is solar installations aren't seen as equity items in homes through Texas and indeed the southeast US the same way they are on the west coast. I'm not sure why this paradigm exists though, considering these homes come with essentially free energy utility for the lifetime of the panels. You'd think that would be a major selling point, but it isn't.

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

#223

Post by _ph_ »

asdff wrote: post #172
_ph_ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German here - it is not because of panic over a tsunami, but about the complete incompetence shown in the Fukushima disaster. The plant had construction faults, the operations after the disaster failed to prevent a preventeable disaster. Yes, we won't have a tsunami at any our nuclear power plants. But whatever else has been overlooked during their construction, where are the operating companies maybe cutting too man…

I assume you've stopped flying on airplanes decades ago.

No, and I have no reason to assume, that large regions become contaminated if the airplane crashed.

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

#224

Post by pfdietz »

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.

We don't need to replace old reactors by new ones. Replacing the reactors with new ones is an option, but only an option, and almost certainly not the economically optimal one.

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

#225

Post by pfdietz »

jjoonathan wrote: post #16
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…

Would this waste have been moved to Sequoia Mountain had Obama not torpedoed it to get support from Harry Reid?

Yucca Mountain.

Realize this thing is a sideshow. Having it open would not have helped the market acceptance of nuclear power. Even if waste disposal costs are totally ignored (as the Lazard levelized cost numbers do) new reactors are totally out of the running economically.

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

#226

Post by pfdietz »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #151
beat wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And considering the usual ways giant industries choose to "reduce costs", it's a bit unnerving for the rest of us. Blaming the costs on regulatory compliance bureaucracy is one of those things that pro-nuclear people really need to stop saying, even to the extent that it's true (which is less than they think). Distrust of big corporations is as high as distrust of government, and for good reason. No one wants to live…

> That said, nuclear will never, ever be able to achieve either the real or the apparent risk levels of a wind farm or a bunch of rooftop solar panels. I'm going to go ahead and point out that more people die falling off their roofs installing solar per kWh than have died per kWh from decades of nuclear operation [1]. Denigrating that data as mansplaining seems pretty anti-scientific. Both death/kWh rates are nearly…

The "falling off the roofs" argument is bogus in at least two ways.

First, most PV installs in the US are now large scale, where the PV modules are installed on the ground, not on roofs.

Second, deaths of workers in an industry are different than deaths of the general public. Workers made a choice to work on roofs; the public has no choice if a reactor near them has a problem.

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

#227

Post by pfdietz »

sprash wrote: post #201
bcatanzaro wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the earth's rotation, this webpage disagrees: https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Drivers "The rotation of the earth does have an effect on the direction of the wind, but it does not create it. Wind is primarily driven by differences in air pressure. These variations in air pressure are due to temperature differences caused by variations in solar energy received at the surface of the earth."

Conservation of angular momentum doesn't care about the origin of those winds. If you harvesting net average west wind you are slowing down earths rotation.

I think you need to retake that physics course where you learned about conservation of angular momentum.

Use of wind energy has zero effect on the total angular momentum of the Earth + atmosphere. It might cause a glitch as it ramps up and reduces average wind speed, but after that conservation of angular momentum ensures it cannot cause any further change.

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

#228

Post by sprash »

pfdietz wrote: post #227
sprash wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservation of angular momentum doesn't care about the origin of those winds. If you harvesting net average west wind you are slowing down earths rotation.

I think you need to retake that physics course where you learned about conservation of angular momentum. Use of wind energy has zero effect on the total angular momentum of the Earth + atmosphere. It might cause a glitch as it ramps up and reduces average wind speed, but after that conservation of angular momentum ensures it cannot cause any further change.

It is more complicated than that. The effect is minuscule and won't matter for the next million years.

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

#229

Post by pfdietz »

sprash wrote: post #228
pfdietz wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to retake that physics course where you learned about conservation of angular momentum. Use of wind energy has zero effect on the total angular momentum of the Earth + atmosphere. It might cause a glitch as it ramps up and reduces average wind speed, but after that conservation of angular momentum ensures it cannot cause any further change.

It is more complicated than that. The effect is minuscule and won't matter for the next million years.

So, are you claiming wind can change the total angular momentum of the Earth + atmosphere?

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

#230

Post by acidburnNSA »

pfdietz wrote: post #226
acidburnNSA wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, nuclear will never, ever be able to achieve either the real or the apparent risk levels of a wind farm or a bunch of rooftop solar panels. I'm going to go ahead and point out that more people die falling off their roofs installing solar per kWh than have died per kWh from decades of nuclear operation [1]. Denigrating that data as mansplaining seems pretty anti-scientific. Both death/kWh rates are nearly…

The "falling off the roofs" argument is bogus in at least two ways. First, most PV installs in the US are now large scale, where the PV modules are installed on the ground, not on roofs. Second, deaths of workers in an industry are different than deaths of the general public. Workers made a choice to work on roofs; the public has no choice if a reactor near them has a problem.

So if a technology kills workers but not the public, that's ok, because the workers made that choice? I don't think that stands to much scrutiny. Most workers choose careers of opportunity.

Besides, the direct short-term deaths from commercial nuclear nearly all came from Chernobyl first responders, where staff and firefighters were the ones who got ARS (they chose hazardous careers too).

For the "up to 4000" latent deaths from Chernobyl, I think you have a good point. 1960s nuclear is worse than wind and solar in latent deaths. I'm hoping advanced nuclear with passive decay heat removal and low pressure coolants will even that out.

I also didn't mention the reasons behind deaths from wind, which include hazardous maintenance and ice throw. Deaths from these things are exceedingly low per kWh, just like they are for nuclear. That's the point I'm trying to convey: nuclear is roughly on par with wind/solar in terms of deaths/kWh.

Anyway, where is the best data on what kind of solar is currently being built?

Post reply on HN