Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#331

Post by antt » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:12 AM UTC

BluSyn wrote: post #292

wiggler00m wrote: post #207

Renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear, or will be imminently. Proponents of nuclear tend to ignore the long-run costs associated with nuclear (eg. waste transport and storage), and the potential for cost blowouts due to acute disasters like Fukushima (estimated cost to taxpayers: USD $100 Billion). The fact tax money is going towards Fukushima highlights another problem with nuclear power: the agency problem. The…

Somebody gets it! It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Even if you could guarantee 10 year build time at a fixed cost today (which you can't), by the time it is operational solar+storage will be even more economical than it is today. The cost curves are simply too favorable for any private market to favor nuclear over solar currently. Everyone in this thread keeps talking about the technology,…

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png

One should add wind and solar, both at around 0.5MJ/h per m2.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#332

Post by rocqua » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:13 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #217

wiggler00m wrote: post #207

Renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear, or will be imminently. Proponents of nuclear tend to ignore the long-run costs associated with nuclear (eg. waste transport and storage), and the potential for cost blowouts due to acute disasters like Fukushima (estimated cost to taxpayers: USD $100 Billion). The fact tax money is going towards Fukushima highlights another problem with nuclear power: the agency problem. The…

> Renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear, or will be imminently. Renewable energy at that scale is still theoretical and hasn't shown its downsides yet. Nuclear has shown all its downsides, and they have been 95% corrected. It's a mature, known technology.

We haven't even come close to seeing the downside of nuclear waste. All we've seen is countries fumbling trying to find solutions for nuclear waste.

It's already hard to find a safe solution for waste that'll survive for millennia. Simply because predicting what might happen over those time scales is hard.

Now factor in that it'll be paid for by humans with a lifespan left of 50 years, and usually a decision horizon of 4 years (i.e. politicians).

The chances off getting it wrong technically are non zero. The chances of getting it wrong for budgetary reasons are even bigger. Incentives do not line up.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#333

Post by antt » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:13 AM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #326

macspoofing wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Imagine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the extent that France did in the 60s and 70s - how many trillions of tons of CO2 would NOT have been emitted into the atmosphere? You can talk about Republican denialism, but it is anti-nuke lobby that will be held responsible for climate change. >by the time it is operational solar+storage will be even…

"magine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the extent that France did in the 60s and 70s - how many trillions of tons of CO2 would NOT have been emitted into the atmosphere? " I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late. As for the intermittent issues of power. I think there's a lot to gain from long distance transportation combined with reliable…

Don't build this trillion dollar proven technology, build this unproven trillion dollar technology instead!

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#334

Post by kortilla » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:14 AM UTC

wiggler00m wrote: post #207

Renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear, or will be imminently. Proponents of nuclear tend to ignore the long-run costs associated with nuclear (eg. waste transport and storage), and the potential for cost blowouts due to acute disasters like Fukushima (estimated cost to taxpayers: USD $100 Billion). The fact tax money is going towards Fukushima highlights another problem with nuclear power: the agency problem. The…

Proponents of renewables fail to take into account the need for baseload. It’s nowhere near being cheaper when you take into account the over provisioning and storage costs required to actually compete with the reliability of nuclear (and coal/gas).

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#335

Post by lispm » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:14 AM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #8

fakwandi_priv wrote: post #5

>Germany’s rate of adding clean energy relative to gross domestic product, it would take the world more than a century to decarbonize, even if the country wasn’t also retiring nuclear plants early. Why doesn't the article explain why the Germans are retiring their plants? I think these articles should go more in-depth regarding the pro's and con's. From what I read and hear Nuclear power is a great source of energy b…

> why the Germans are retiring their plants Politicians bowing to the wishes of an ill-informed public.

There was a decades long discussion about nuclear energy in Germany. You can bet that the public was much better informed about nuclear, than the politicians and the nuclear industry liked.

There were a bunch of failed nuclear projects like the pebble bed reactor, the fast breeder or the storage sites. Watching them made the decision to get out of that type of industry much easier. Germany had the same level of corrupt nuclear industry, which is known from Japan and which has been exposed there.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#336

Post by rocqua » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:15 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #327

macspoofing wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear, or will be imminently. Solar and wind are plenty cheap. That's not their problem. The problem, as the article stated, is that "they are not available around the clock, rain or shine, and batteries that could power entire cities for days or weeks show no sign of materializing any time soon." So now what do you do?

Passive solar design as a requirement for new construction would help reduce how much energy buildings require. It also makes them more comfortable, not less. Design cities for pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. This will help reduce heat island effect, thereby reducing the need for AC. I slept in a tent for nearly six years. I plugged in at the library during the day. I got by on battery power in the evening…

Even if the culture changes for that were to happen, cities roads anb buildings already exist. You can't replace all buildings and roads in 10 years.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#337

Post by antt » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:16 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #328

grecy wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also interesting to note the headline is "Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions.." Even if the US was totally committed, and decided to build a brand new reactor right now, how long would it take? A decade? We can slap up renewables in a fraction of that time, and spend the next decade reaping the rewards, not sitting around waiting for the magical payoff of a reactor that will cost…

> Even if the US was totally committed, and decided to build a brand new reactor right now, how long would it take? A decade? Totally committed? You sure? Ok. The US could bring at least two dozen new nuclear power plants online per year. It could do that with only modest impact on its massive economy. National security declaration (probably numerous). Bypass all environmental building concerns and impact reviews. Pu…

I always find it odd how the people talking about climate change being an extinction level event aren't even prepared to execute a few dozen CEOs of large fossil fuel companies.

If the fate of the world is in question then Ted Kaczynski is a rational individual who reacted with restraint.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#338

Post by macspoofing » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:16 AM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #326

macspoofing wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Imagine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the extent that France did in the 60s and 70s - how many trillions of tons of CO2 would NOT have been emitted into the atmosphere? You can talk about Republican denialism, but it is anti-nuke lobby that will be held responsible for climate change. >by the time it is operational solar+storage will be even…

"magine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the extent that France did in the 60s and 70s - how many trillions of tons of CO2 would NOT have been emitted into the atmosphere? " I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late. As for the intermittent issues of power. I think there's a lot to gain from long distance transportation combined with reliable…

>I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late.

I get that. But it's worth going through the exercise how bad well-intentioned policies can be. It's worth to consider that anti-nuke activism is much worse than Conservative denialism.

And if nuclear is too late now, then there's nothing we can do to replace carbon-based power.

>I think there's a lot to gain from long distance transportation combined with reliable output like hydro, existing nuclear, and perhaps later tidal.

Oh come on. Hydro is great if you can get it. Places that can get hydro, already get hydro. Most places can't get hydro. Ditto for geothermal.

So what's the solution to replacing carbon emitting power sources? I want someone to explain that to me. Because all I hear is how solar and wind one day will be cheap and prices are falling every day - even though price is not the problem with solar and wind. Variability is. We need power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, and power requirements keep growing. People want electric cars and trains, those need huge amount of energy. I hear how batteries will save the day, except that we are not anywhere close to having battery technology capable of storing city-sized power requirements for a few minutes, much less hours or days. It may not even be physically possible to create a battery like that. So what's left? Coal and Gas - and this is exactly what EVERY nation is doing if they are not investing in (or divesting from) nuclear.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#339

Post by kortilla » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:16 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #327

macspoofing wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear, or will be imminently. Solar and wind are plenty cheap. That's not their problem. The problem, as the article stated, is that "they are not available around the clock, rain or shine, and batteries that could power entire cities for days or weeks show no sign of materializing any time soon." So now what do you do?

Passive solar design as a requirement for new construction would help reduce how much energy buildings require. It also makes them more comfortable, not less. Design cities for pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. This will help reduce heat island effect, thereby reducing the need for AC. I slept in a tent for nearly six years. I plugged in at the library during the day. I got by on battery power in the evening…

Doesn’t work unless you live in a place that has no weather (e.g. the Bay Area). People in Minneapolis aren’t going to turn off their heater at night when it’s 30 below 0 because the wind stopped and their battery went dead.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#340

Post by xorcist » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:18 AM UTC

OisinMoran wrote: post #25

If this interests you, I would highly recommend reading this article on molten salt reactors [0]. TL;DR: Molten salt reactors are safer (can't have a meltdown if it's already melted), smaller (could fit on the back of a truck), able to run on more abundant materials like Thorium (which in turn come from more politically stable regions), and to top it all off: not only do they leave much less nuclear waste, they can a…

While it would certainly be welcome to get our electricity from something more modern than steam engines, it is also important to note that fundamental material science breakthroughs are required to actually build these things.

Molten salt reactors are interesting but more in the context of funding research than how we should put together the energy mix of a country. Especially considering how much funding fusion power have gotten, which is still in the basic physics stage and things like materials breakdown and heat transport is largely not even a known problem yet.