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

The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

energymonitor.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#31

Post by dontlaugh »

mjevans wrote: post #24
chii wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question is whether it's cheaper because labour costs are cheaper or is something being compromised to make it cheaper (such as safety)?

Didn't China build a huge hydropower dam because the government dictated it would happen ? Even over the people that had to move and the changes to their environment? Nuclear power is expensive in the US because of stringent regulations, most of which should be kept. However there are lessons from existing installations, newer designs, and better technology to help design things now, than in the 50s and 60s.

That dam was necessary primarily to stabilise the path of a historically very destructive river. Many of the people that moved had suffered through floods in the past.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#32

Post by nickpp »

locallost wrote: post #30
jpgvm wrote: post #5

All I am seeing is a ton of reasons to build an absolute boat load of cheap nuclear power. None of these processes are even remotely possible without abundant essentially free energy.

Cheap nuclear is an oxymoron. Germany dropped it and now the tax payers are hit with over 100 billion in nuclear waste disposal costs. The operators paid 23 billion to legally wash their hands of the mess [1]. The worst part even the green party accepted it because they feared the operators would simply declare bankruptcy since there was no way for them to handle it themselves. This on top of the hundreds of billions…

Most of those costs are because of onerous regulations and lack of competition due to... you guessed it: onerous governmental regulations.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#33

Post by pydry »

nickpp wrote: post #32
locallost wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap nuclear is an oxymoron. Germany dropped it and now the tax payers are hit with over 100 billion in nuclear waste disposal costs. The operators paid 23 billion to legally wash their hands of the mess [1]. The worst part even the green party accepted it because they feared the operators would simply declare bankruptcy since there was no way for them to handle it themselves. This on top of the hundreds of billions…

Most of those costs are because of onerous regulations and lack of competition due to... you guessed it: onerous governmental regulations.

If the ~$800 billion cleanup costs of a Fukushima event werent fully borne by taxpayers then maybe the safety regulations wouldnt have to be as onerous.

But they are, and Ive never heard of a single pro nuclear advocate ever argue that nuclear power is safe enough that this enormous subsidy should be unwound. They generally pretend it doesnt exist.

Meanwhile solar/wind/storage is a lot cheaper even without taking this subsidy into account.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#34

Post by pydry »

bell-cot wrote: post #18
kolinko wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables are way cheaper and easier to scale.

Big picture, yes. Though they generally need much more power storage/distribution grid construction per GW, to actually deliver a reliable supply to users. Then you get to countries where the NIMBYs fight tooth & nail over even tiny grid construction projects...

Big picture is that theyre not just cheaper but 5x cheaper.

In fact it's so much cheaper that it's even more economic to use solar/wind to synthesize natural gas and burn that to generate electricity.

Never mind all of the cheaper short term storage options (pumped storage, batteries).

And this doesnt even account for the storage nuclear power would need (it's even less economic to use it for load following) or the need for taxpayer indemnification against catastrophe cleanup costs.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#36

Post by Schroedingersat »

nickpp wrote: post #32
locallost wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap nuclear is an oxymoron. Germany dropped it and now the tax payers are hit with over 100 billion in nuclear waste disposal costs. The operators paid 23 billion to legally wash their hands of the mess [1]. The worst part even the green party accepted it because they feared the operators would simply declare bankruptcy since there was no way for them to handle it themselves. This on top of the hundreds of billions…

Most of those costs are because of onerous regulations and lack of competition due to... you guessed it: onerous governmental regulations.

Cool. We'll start with removing the vienna convention.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#38

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

jpgvm wrote: post #27
chii wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question is whether it's cheaper because labour costs are cheaper or is something being compromised to make it cheaper (such as safety)?

Chinese don't compromise on safety. Their Gen 4 reactor designs are probably some of the safest to be built. They actually bought said design from Germany when they abandoned their nuclear aspirations. Instead it mostly comes down to: a) China being a frankly fucking massive place so land is already much cheaper than the US/EU/etc. b) More realistic regulations on waste processing/storage etc. China isn't scared of n…

Safe design doesn't mean safely built or operated. I don't doubt they are technically capable of doing it, I'm not convinced they will. They aren't really known for not compromising on safety. And seeing the direction they are going to I think that's not going to improve.

>China being a frankly fucking massive place so land is already much cheaper than the US/EU/etc.

China is virtually the same size as the US with 4x the population and more unhabitable land.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#39

Post by nickserv »

jpgvm wrote: post #27
chii wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question is whether it's cheaper because labour costs are cheaper or is something being compromised to make it cheaper (such as safety)?

Chinese don't compromise on safety. Their Gen 4 reactor designs are probably some of the safest to be built. They actually bought said design from Germany when they abandoned their nuclear aspirations. Instead it mostly comes down to: a) China being a frankly fucking massive place so land is already much cheaper than the US/EU/etc. b) More realistic regulations on waste processing/storage etc. China isn't scared of n…

So basically things are easier when you're running a brutal dictatorship.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#40

Post by m348e912 »

pydry wrote: post #26
jpgvm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is! Just not in Western countries sadly. China is building a ton of nuclear at very good prices.

China builds nuclear power not because it is cheap but because it shares a lot of the costs and skills base of their nuclear military. Iran builds it because it wants the option of having a bomb. Take out military concerns and it is economic for neither of them. Every country who builds nuclear power stations is either a nuclear power sharing military costs (France, UK, China...) or is taking out an option on quickly…

>>China builds nuclear power not because it is cheap but because it shares a lot of the costs and skills base of their nuclear military.

One of the previous commenters above mentioned that China abandoned their own plans bought their design from Germany, so it's conceivable that if China had no military nuclear program they could have still built a reactor. (That's of course if the western world allowed it)

Post reply on HN