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

Nuclear energy is clean

collectifission.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 709 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#261

Post by pfdietz »

p_l wrote: post #90
entropicgravity wrote: post #43

Nuclear power if necessary but not necessarily nuclear power. Over the past decade the economic environment of nuclear power has entirely shifted due the huge drop in the cost of solar and wind. Not only is solar/wind cheap but because these can be built in a year or two, as opposed to decades for nuclear, governments accountants will much prefer them over nuclear. Nuclear will have some niche segments and I see a sm…

A big problem with solar and wind is that they aren't dispatchable. A 100 MWe nuclear power plant fitting in the space of small local power plant isn't equivalent of a 100MW solar or wind plant - for my local area, the equivalent solar/wind plant is about a combination of few Gigawatts of nameplate capacity of solar and wind plants (allowing for very optimistic storage tech, it gets "down" to 1180 MW solar + 410 MW w…

Nuclear isn't dispatchable. If it's not always running the cost/kWh escalates dramatically. Solar and wind with storage are somewhat dispatchable, because you can decide when to discharge the storage systems.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#262

Post by liuzs »

donny2018 wrote: post #222
_Algernon_ wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In peace time CO2 emissions from nuclear are at the same order of magnitude as hydro. Similarly, the number of deaths per twh produced is also similar to hydro. Both are at least an order of magnitude lower than coal. A hydro plant can be attacked in a war situation just as much as a nuclear plant, so I don't see how that should be weighted as highly as you seem to imply. In fact, I'd argue that energy dependence on…

Also, we can build a nuclear plant in a desert country (where I live), but not much hydro. In fact, our hydro plants are generating less and less energy every year as our rivers are drying up.

Sadly nuclear plants cannot run without cooling water from rivers or sea.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#263

Post by pfdietz »

mcronce wrote: post #258
pfdietz wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Globally solar and wind are blowing away the competition. Is that ALL subsidized? Of course not. They have really gotten cheaper.

If you ignore the fact that wind and solar work when they want to, you're absolutely right.

That problem inflates the cost of solar and wind a bit, but it's not enough to save nuclear.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#264

Post by runarberg »

tamaharbor wrote: post #36
cesarb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power has a paradox with respect to pollution: it's a highly dangerous form of pollution (heavy metals which are also radioactive), but in normal operation, it's completely contained (and nuclear power operators tend to be very paranoid about it; minor amounts of radiation which would be considered harmless everywhere else are treated as unacceptable outside the designated radioactive areas). So depending on…

The energy it takes to refine the uranium is also not zero.

And uranium mining operations are also known for leaving a bit of a mess around them, polluting nearby rivers, etc. Suspiciously often close to indigenous lands as well.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#265

Post by aemreunal »

mcronce wrote: post #255
joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

This presupposes that economics are the most important thing. That isn't really the case. It doesn't matter how much money you have when the climate burns to the ground around you, while energy sources that work when they want to fail to provide for your needs.

This is often the unspoken part but I agree that it's one of, if not the most important aspect for our energy needs. I understand economics can't just be thrown out of the window but I feel like a lot of governments don't see the big picture and invest in these solutions "at a loss" now so we can not have climate catastrophes that make our planet uninhabitable, at least to large chunks of the population.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#266

Post by fisherjeff »

joak wrote: post #165

There is this idea that nuclear is not being deployed because people have a wrong perception of risks. However, the main reason is the economy. The costs of solar, wind and batteries are dropping exponentially but the costs of nuclear are not improving. We can blame regulation and the hypothetically wrong public perception about safety, but the reality is that costs cannot go down easily because of the innovation dyn…

I agree with you completely. However, I do think it’s important to point out that the people complaining about risk perceptions are also right but the effort of correcting those perceptions faces the huge headwind of human psychology.

Of course people are going to overweight the outcome and underweight the probability when estimating the EV of something - that’s how we work! That’s why Powerball exists!

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#268

Post by m2fkxy »

pfdietz wrote: post #263
mcronce wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ignore the fact that wind and solar work when they want to, you're absolutely right.

That problem inflates the cost of solar and wind a bit, but it's not enough to save nuclear.

But... it's not about cost.

It's about having energy available.

If weather reports show overcast and low winds, and your grid runs on wind/solar power only, who cares about their electricity bill? There won't be any kWh available to consume.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#269

Post by dron57 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #206
afterburner wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don’t need innovation in nuclear The Nuclear industry will need that innovation, in order to remain even remotely competitive with the alternatives. It's not improving faster than those alternatives though.

The nuclear industry has had three quarters of a century to be innovative, with enormous public funds pumped into it only because of its defense applications - nuclear weaponry and naval powerplants. At a certain point you have to say "sorry guys, you had your try" and let the existing plants wind down. That's what's happening. Nuclear is being replaced by green generation at 6x the rate it's being lost.

Renewable energy is great, but sun and wind are intermittent. Grids cannot base themselves on renewable energy without some sort of impractical battery storage scheme or major advancements in creating renewable Green Hydrogen for fuel cells.
Post reply on HN