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

To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 666 posts

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#371

Post by jsilence »

spangry wrote: post #350
jsilence wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The german term "Stromgestehungskosten" is a well defined standing term for the price you have to pay for power generation. This price has come down to 5ct/kWh and the estimation is that these costs will be undercut in the upcoming solar projects. So the "Stromgestehungskosten" for solar going to go down even more. Regarding storage and distribution the video reports on a current project in Utrecht/Netherlands where…

I couldn't agree more with your point about electricity car take-up. I've made the same point in the past but it's always gotten a lukewarm reception. In my mind, it's probably our best chance of achieving sufficient scale grid energy storage. It's also kinda brilliant on Elon Musk's part: he's selling people these 'mobile grid batteries' while also being super long solar.

And the cars are anything but boring golf carts. A stigma electric cars have had for a long time. These might even get you laid.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#372

Post by jerven »

evgen wrote: post #351
lispm wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Germany is a net exporter of electricity.

That relies upon other countries to handle its wide swings in production variance.

Yes and france depends on other countries for its incapability to quickly vary production. In other words the nuclear fleet of France has a significantly higher capacity factor than the average demand of the french grid because it can push power to other countries. If that did not exist the french nuclear power would be a lot more expensive (uranium is not free!)

Power demands fluctuate as do power generation capabilities. If your generation is inflexible, as nuclear and solar both are at this time (economically speaking right now in this year). You need quick reaction power (e.g. gas peakers) or e.g. pumped hydro.

The funny thing is a wholly nuclear grid needs storage as much as a full solar+wind grid does. Of course in a mixed grid both techs can play to their strengths.

For example in Lazard's 10.0 LCOE analysis solar plus battery is 92 USD per Mwh, while Nuclear starts at $97. That is smack in the middle of LCOE coal costs!

But the solar, will have a lot less of regulatory and construction uncertainty! And a much smaller financial risk. As 3 years from project start to completion is normal. With most projects being set up in independent financial contracts of about 100mw nameplate to allow cancellation if performance or market do not materialize.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#373

Post by sschueller »

techplex wrote: post #359

Dr. Leslie Dewan has developed a Nuclear Reactor that can run on the Nuclear Waste we currently have all around the world. Learn More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UXXwWOImm8

Isn't the problem with these the extremely corrosive salt liquid that needs to be contained and there isn't any reasonable solutions to do that at this time?

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#374

Post by arviewer »

mseebach wrote: post #332
afterburner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…

In 30 years, solar will have taken over. Using safe existing nuclear power plants is OK for me, building new ones seems stupid. For some countries, replacing an old unsafe one with a good new one seems plausible, but more seems a bad choice.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#375

Post by patall »

mseebach wrote: post #332
afterburner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…

It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant. So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows.

So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with radioactive waste, why would you chose that one? And while I agree that we need some back up plan to stabilize the net load, that also wont be nuclear power as those plants are not fast in start up managment either.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#376

Post by sandGorgon »

the future is Molten salt reactors - not because of this article, because it is the only abundant fuel for the two of the largest energy consumers for the next two decades: India and China.

India+China have the world's largest thorium resources. China is also investing more than a billion dollars in molten salt reactor research (led by the son of Jiang Zemin) [1]

Peter Thiel, who is pretty much the think tank for the new government, has a personal investment in Transatomic Power that is doing very interesting work here. I see no reason that this project will not receive a shot in the arm after January.

TLDR : India + China + Peter Thiel = Molten Salt Reactors

[1] http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-...

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#377

Post by lispm »

evgen wrote: post #351
lispm wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Germany is a net exporter of electricity.

That relies upon other countries to handle its wide swings in production variance.

That's temporary. New powerlines to south Germany are being built, a new HVDC line to Norway is under construction.

Additionally we will see a lot of new ways to deal with surplus electricity. Surplus electricity in the North will grow over the next two decades. Power to gas, Power to Heat, etc. will be feasible then.

France has the same problem, but different. Demand varies + production varies. On many weekends they have surplus power from the nuclear plants. In summer and winter nuclear power may not be able to meet demand. In hot summer weeks, the nuclear power plants overheat the rivers. In cold winter weeks, the electrical heating of French consumers creates more demand than nuclear electricity is available. This problem may increase, since France has aging reactors, but new reactors are not coming online - maybe one EPR - but when? 2018? 2020? 2022?

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#379

Post by ikeyany »

sureshn wrote: post #361

The article appears to be written in a biased manner and lacks Rational and logic , till now no body has ever been able to come up with a solution on how to deal with nuclear waste in a safe way or how to deal with a accident in a nuclear plant

Your comment inadvertently shows why we should be supporting fusion energy research (the problems you speak of are problems with fission).

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#380

Post by jessaustin »

hossbeast wrote: post #130
toomuchtodo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't. Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone. Its…

Until fusion comes online

That may be a decade from now or a century from now, but either way fusion power will have very little in common with the nuclear fission power that we have now. Different fuels, different waste products, different tech, different facilities. It's kind of pathetic, that today's nuclear technology attempts to bask in the PR glow of something that doesn't exist and which won't resemble it when it does exist. You don't hear solar advocates bragging about how great the Dyson sphere of solar-microwave satellites will be, five hundred years from now.
Post reply on HN