All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected • Hacker News Board

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#361

Post by phicoh » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #315

mdale wrote: post #295

The most pragmatic solution is making high pollutant energy costly. Some small set of polluters are responsible for the majority of the emissions. (1) This is only possible because of being able to chalk the damage up to externalities. We need to set up systems to adding cost to emissions. A substantial PR rebrand modern Nuclear energy (maybe called something else) would be needed if you wanted to get traction on tha…

What you will then get is an unsustainable set of shortcuts that threaten your energy supplies at crucial times. ie, what's happening in Europe now[1] Germany went on a spree, dismantling their nuclear plants after being scared by Fukushima. Fossil fuel plants tool their place. Subsidies to unsustainable alternatives and penalties on polluters made it so it was not profitable to increase energy supply on sources such…

It strikes me as weird to blame a lack of natural gas all over Europe on Germany.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#362

Post by toomuchtodo » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #351

toomuchtodo wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HVDC transmission, pumped storage where the geography allows for it, and grid interconnectors allow for moving power between geographies. Seasonal deltas are solved for with overbuilding renewables and curtailment when there is oversupply. If nuclear was easy, it’d be done, but it isn’t because it is the more complex, more expensive technology. The sun is free and requires no human management. I cannot stress enough…

> If nuclear was easy, it’d be done It is done? It is easy? My power needs are completely served right now by hydroelectric and nuclear. Just because you don't have nuclear reactors in your neighborhood doesn't mean they're more out of reach than solar. HVDC is already widely available. Grid interconnects are mostly political. We looked at installing PV on a semi-remote home and it was not feasible. The roof was only…

Existing nuclear is of course valuable as a zero carbon energy source, its new nuclear that can’t get built. We should continue to support existing nuclear as long as can be done safely so carbon intensive generation doesn’t fill in for those generators if they’re retired early (Illinois recently enacted policy to subsidize Exelon’s aging nuclear merchant fleet in the state so that generation wasn’t replaced with natural gas, for example).

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#363

Post by dmitriid » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #6

chuckee wrote: post #3

It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…

> Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables.

What?

> Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide that.

--- start quote ---

Modern nuclear plans with light water reactors are designed to have strong manoeuvring capabilities. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode, i.e. they participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day

The minimum requirements for the manoeuvrability capabilities of modern reactors are defined by the utilities requirements that are based on the requirements of the grid operators. For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power Pr, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of Pr per minute

Most of the modern designs implement even higher manoeuvrability capabilities, with the possibility of planned and unplanned load-following in a wide power range and with ramps of 5% Pr per minute

--- end quote ---

https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#364

Post by phicoh » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

chuckee wrote: post #3

It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

The problem is that hardly anybody does a clear cost calculation of a nuclear powerplant.

We know roughtly what it costs to build solar or wind. There is a bit of subsidies and commercial parties take care of the rest. In the short term we need natural gas as a backup for solar and wind. But even that is not hard to build.

And then we have nuclear. Projects that are late, projects cost way more than projected. Building a nuclear powerplant takes so much time that financing the project is almost impossible.

Today, nuclear is just not a practical option. We need to build as much non-fossil capacity as we can and as quick as we can.

In future, we have to solve the storage problem for wind and solar. If that becomes a problem, then nuclear may make a comeback. At least, if somebody can figure out how to accurately project the cost and construction time.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#365

Post by dmitriid » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

ddulaney wrote: post #52

japanuspus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument does not make a lot of sense without detailing which power sources that can turn on and off quickly you are talking about. The only ones I can think of are hydro and gas-powered thermal? So you want natural gas over nuclear? On the other hand, your comment presumes that there is such a thing as too much power. Once hydrolyzers mature, we could use all of the current renewable power in Europe just for pr…

In addition to hydro and fossil fuels, (most) energy storage setups are quickly dispatchable. I don’t think the question is “is natural gas better than nuclear?”. It’s more “nuclear isn’t quickly dispatchable, which is what we need”. It’s not that gas is better than nuclear, it’s that they solve two different problems. Solar and wind need something to fill gaps when production fluctuates. Today that can be hydro or f…

> In addition to hydro and fossil fuels, (most) energy storage setups are quickly dispatchable.

Ah yes. We already have enough storage capacity to provide for hundreds of megawatts of daily power fluctuation. See Figure E.2 https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#366

Post by ninkendo » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

driest wrote: post #73

I am a fan of nuclear energy for various reasons, and it's obvious that the safety and waste problems can be solved with new technology like small modular reactors with inherently safe designs. However, even I realize that nuclear energy is not viable to significantly combat climate change due to the following reasons: * The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve…

Something I’ve never understood about the anti-proliferation arguments of small reactors.

Ostensibly the reason why bad actors (“terrorists” etc [0]) don’t have nukes today is because it’s hard to enrich the fuel.

Because small reactors with safer designs often have a side effect of creating enriched fuel as intermediary product. (Meaning such designs would make it easier to enrich fuel than building thousands of centrifuges.)

So, we decide not to build them.

But, what’s stopping the bad actors from building the smaller reactors themselves, as an “easier than building thousands of centrifuges” method of enriching fuel?

In other words, why would preventing the bad guys from using such tech, be a reason for the good guys to avoid building such tech? If it really does make enriching fuel easier, couldn’t the bad guys just build the reactors themselves?

If we were serious about non-proliferation, and the breeder/thorium/molten-salt/etc designs make enriching fuel easier… wouldn’t the idea of a reactors be the thing we want to protect? Rather than just the physical reactors themselves?

[0] Substitute “bad guys” and “good guys” with whatever group you want, the point is the same.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#367

Post by dmitriid » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

dv_dt wrote: post #196

japanuspus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument does not make a lot of sense without detailing which power sources that can turn on and off quickly you are talking about. The only ones I can think of are hydro and gas-powered thermal? So you want natural gas over nuclear? On the other hand, your comment presumes that there is such a thing as too much power. Once hydrolyzers mature, we could use all of the current renewable power in Europe just for pr…

Batteries turn on and off quickly

Because we all have enough batteries, right? You need enough batteries to provide hundreds of megawatts of quick power daily. See Figure E.2 https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#368

Post by dmitriid » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

nbraem wrote: post #117

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is totally economically viable. It's not viable in the current regulatorily climate. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will return profits for 80 years is an easy financial decision. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will be shut down by moonbats every 4 years when the next batch of princess unicorns is voted into office is not economically viable.

That is, if you leave the storage cost of the nuclear waste for the next 100.000 years out of your business model.

Nuclear waste is very compact and small.

Tell me about the storage and disposal costs of all the solar cells and wind turbines.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#369

Post by HPsquared » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

sva_ wrote: post #345

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you will then get is an unsustainable set of shortcuts that threaten your energy supplies at crucial times. ie, what's happening in Europe now[1] Germany went on a spree, dismantling their nuclear plants after being scared by Fukushima. Fossil fuel plants tool their place. Subsidies to unsustainable alternatives and penalties on polluters made it so it was not profitable to increase energy supply on sources such…

> What you will then get is an unsustainable set of shortcuts that threaten your energy supplies at crucial times. I like the idea of solar energy, but I also wonder about how safe it is to use. I'm thinking of events such as the 1815 volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora[0] which reportedly caused a "year without summer[1]". Presumably, something like this would have a major impact on solar cell energy output, and if w…

You "just" need to maintain a redundant backup fossil-based energy supply system that is not used 99% of the time, simple!

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#370

Post by vlovich123 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

Gwypaas wrote: post #319

vlovich123 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow this. Nuclear power is significantly less deadly than coal and that's just talking about accidents in power generation. If you include general death by radiation pollution, that difference grows more disparate (coal energy production emits an enormous amount of radiation into the atmosphere as pollution).

Why compare against coal? It's all about to be phased out simply due to the cost of the steam side, which nuclear shares. Compare against wind and pv.

China is shifting their entire coal production to nuclear. America is shutting down nuclear and replacing it with? Coal. Wind and PV cannot handle the load requirements so you end up having to build coal anyway.

I’m not against wind and PV. I’m just realistic about where the energy mixture has to look like to actually accomplish the goal of sustainable energy production. The earth can’t handle us dithering yet more on this argument.