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

Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

carnegiescience.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#41

Post by Tepix »

fsflover wrote: post #35
LatteLazy wrote: post #26

As always with nuclear the questions are cost, time and waste. Until there is an actual breakthrough on (at least) one of those three issues we're going no where.

Those are non-problems: https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html and https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html .

Let's see, quoting from the second page you linked, under "New builds":

Recent new construction of nuclear plants in the west has been fraught with boondoggle. The troubles with the Westinghouse AP1000 have been the most distressing to me personally, since the design was to be the conquering hero of the Nuclear Renaissance I was so excited about in nuclear engineering undergrad back in the mid-2000s. The July 2017 cancellation of the two AP1000s at VC Summer, the astronomical delays and overruns at Plant Vogtle, and the bankruptcy of Westinghouse were all devastating.

Non-problems?

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#42

Post by [deleted] »

glogla wrote: post #34
kieranmaine wrote: post #17

These sentences sum up the article quite well: "Previous studies have shown that curbing 80 percent of carbon emissions can be achieved by ramping up wind and solar power harvesting installations" and "To nail down that last 10 or 20 percent of decarbonization, we need to have more tools in our toolbox, and not just wind and solar," The "more tools" may be nuclear or it may be storage, depending on the cost of both t…

I'm happy that this is getting some attention. There will never he "just renewable" power grid due to renewables intermittency. The realistic options are renewables + some other energy source, or renewables + a lot of storage. Renewables + storage has a problem: energy storage at scale is not a solved problem at all, either it is hard to build (pumped hydro) not scalable (batteries) or barely in PoC stages (various a…

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#43

Post by sokoloff »

shafyy wrote: post #23
Fishman343 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power may be kicking the can down the road, but burning coal is just leaving the can for our immediate offspring already in their 20s and 30s. The article says least-cost, we're fresh out of perfect solutions.

What are you talking about? Of course coal is worse than nuclear power. The discussion is about renewables vs. nuclear.

The discussion should be about all the ways we need to act to meet our energy needs (including efficiency measures to reduce overall demand). Pitting nuclear against only renewables offers the “nothing different can be done; continue to burn coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels” conclusion.

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#44

Post by teitoklien »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #21
cameldrv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes we do want to trade that. The toxic carbon byproduct goes into the air and causes massive disruption to the lives of billions of people. The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives.

Chernobyl and Fukushima disrupted more than a few people’s lives.

So did tons and tons of oil spills poisoning fishing grounds and coral attractions , gas leaks, rise in sea level causing many people to migrate, blasts of fuel containers, respiratory diseases from air pollution, crop destruction from acid rain, etc, etc.

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#45

Post by pydry »

glogla wrote: post #34
kieranmaine wrote: post #17

These sentences sum up the article quite well: "Previous studies have shown that curbing 80 percent of carbon emissions can be achieved by ramping up wind and solar power harvesting installations" and "To nail down that last 10 or 20 percent of decarbonization, we need to have more tools in our toolbox, and not just wind and solar," The "more tools" may be nuclear or it may be storage, depending on the cost of both t…

I'm happy that this is getting some attention. There will never he "just renewable" power grid due to renewables intermittency. The realistic options are renewables + some other energy source, or renewables + a lot of storage. Renewables + storage has a problem: energy storage at scale is not a solved problem at all, either it is hard to build (pumped hydro) not scalable (batteries) or barely in PoC stages (various a…

Pumped hydro is "harder to build"?

Fengning cost $1.8 billion for 3.6 gigawatts and took about 7 years to build.

Hinkley point C will be about $30 billion dollars for 3.2 GW and will take about 10 years to build.

Even prima facie I don't see how building a nuclear power plant could seem easy compared to pushing water uphill.

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#46

Post by naranha »

glogla wrote: post #34
kieranmaine wrote: post #17

These sentences sum up the article quite well: "Previous studies have shown that curbing 80 percent of carbon emissions can be achieved by ramping up wind and solar power harvesting installations" and "To nail down that last 10 or 20 percent of decarbonization, we need to have more tools in our toolbox, and not just wind and solar," The "more tools" may be nuclear or it may be storage, depending on the cost of both t…

I'm happy that this is getting some attention. There will never he "just renewable" power grid due to renewables intermittency. The realistic options are renewables + some other energy source, or renewables + a lot of storage. Renewables + storage has a problem: energy storage at scale is not a solved problem at all, either it is hard to build (pumped hydro) not scalable (batteries) or barely in PoC stages (various a…

Just want to point out that logically there is a third option: Renewables + storage + other energy source (nuclear). I wonder why discussions around energy always end up in false dichotomies like nuclear XOR renewables, when the most logical solution is to use every option we have to solve climate change.

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#47

Post by thejackgoode »

I am curious if there is anyone here who can answer this here.

What will happen if a fission reactor is blown as a result of warfare (by a bomb or missile)? Is it Chernobyl-grade hazard or not? Also, how strongly does the danger correlate with reactor size?

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#48

Post by tremon »

bipson wrote: post #13
fsflover wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There must be some stable backup for renewables. Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best by a long shot compared to anything else, according to statistics (including all disasters!).

Nuclear is a terrible "backup" for renewables. Renewables fluctuate. Nuclear is not great at scaling, and most reactors cannot be shut down without taking weeks and months for safe re-starting. Nuclear is good for base load. And countries that have a lot of (really expensive) nuclear to cover their base load, have zero incentive to invest into renewables, since its output would just become surplus. For broad adoption…

most reactors cannot be shut down without taking weeks and months for safe re-starting.

That's a design issue, not an inherent problem. There is no reason (other than cost) why the steam turbine can't be temporarily decoupled from the generator -- instant shutdown.

You could even design a generator where the rotor can be (partially) retracted from the stator coils. Retracting or inserting more of the rotor would give you continuously variable control over the conversion factor from steam pressure to electrical power.

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#49

Post by sokoloff »

adrianN wrote: post #28
bipson wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is a terrible "backup" for renewables. Renewables fluctuate. Nuclear is not great at scaling, and most reactors cannot be shut down without taking weeks and months for safe re-starting. Nuclear is good for base load. And countries that have a lot of (really expensive) nuclear to cover their base load, have zero incentive to invest into renewables, since its output would just become surplus. For broad adoption…

Modern nuclear is actually reasonably good at scaling. It's just that the capital costs are so damn high that you want to run your reactors at 100% all the time to have a chance of making profits.

It seems like subsidies (perhaps in the form of carbon taxes) could solve that problem entirely.

Re: Nuclear power may be the key to least-cost, zero-emission electricity systems

#50

Post by IAmNotAFix »

thejackgoode wrote: post #47

I am curious if there is anyone here who can answer this here. What will happen if a fission reactor is blown as a result of warfare (by a bomb or missile)? Is it Chernobyl-grade hazard or not? Also, how strongly does the danger correlate with reactor size?

They're designed to sustain an airliner crashing into it so I guess bomb or missile is okay, although that's another story if that would happen from inside the reactor.
Post reply on HN