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

481–490 of 666 posts

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

#481

Post by natch »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #436
arviewer wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Existing nuclear power plants are old designs, much less safe than a new one would be.

New ones will be just as centralized as old ones. Less democratic, more control of your energy in the hands of a big player, as compared to solar.

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

#483

Post by spangry »

roryisok wrote: post #317
ludston wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a worst case scenario, if we go full solar, but are unable to slow a climat change that induce more cloudy weather (because more global evaporation) we are actually solving nothing. In the worst case scenario, all of the nuclear reactors simultaneously explode (because more earthquakes), raining down a radioactive armageddon on the hordes of screaming peasants below.

There was a thread about nuclear power on here during the year, and some commenter had crunched the numbers on how many nuclear power plants we'd need to fully power the planet. It was in the tens of thousands. Even in the best case scenario, at this density we'd be looking at a Fukushima style disasters occurring regularly, not just every 30 years. That's best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that it gets more…

I'm not an engineer so I've probably got this wrong (would appreciate a correction). The Westinghouse AP-1000 (a Gen3+ reactor) produces 1,117 MWe of power. Say we want to replace all coal plants with nuclear.

2013 world electrical energy generation was 23,322 TWh, with 41.3% being coal (so, 9,632TWh from coal). Presumably consumption was somewhat less (overproduction, transmission losses etc.), but let's just use this figure as it's probably grown anyway in the last few years. So:

(a) Coal generation in MWh: 9,632 * 1,000,000 = 9,632,000,000MWh

(b) 1 AP-1000 running full-time: (365 * 24) * 1,117MWe = 9,784,920MWh

Number of AP-1000s needed to replace all coal plants = (a) / (b)

Total plants to replace coal = 984.4

That seems absurdly small, so I assume I've gotten a unit conversion wrong. Any engineers able to help me out here?

EDIT: If 984.4 is indeed correct, if an AP-1000 costs $7bn to build on average (using the expected cost of the two US Vogtle plants), this works out to $6.89 trillion. That doesn't seem too bad, particularly given US safety standards appear to be a fair bit better than the world average...

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

#484

Post by mkaziz »

mason240 wrote: post #442
patall wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I would prefer to live near a nuclear plant than within sight of a wind farm.

What's wrong with a wind farm, out of curiosity? I personally love driving by a windmill farm that's near a local highway.

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

#485

Post by fulafel »

dispose13432 wrote: post #253
fulafel wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to imagine many proposals that don't restrict access to washing machines. For example a per capita progressive CO2 tax would be one. We generally have the mechanisms to implement binding international agreements about these things, it's just a question of political will.

>For example a per capita progressive CO2 tax would be one You can't Carbon tax people by income (because people don't pollute directly). You'll target polluters. So you go to Apple and tell them that they emitted so many kg of CO2, pay ... tax, Which will undoubtedly find its way to rising phone prices, which means (poor) people don't get nice things.

There are several alternative ways to address this, for example products bought by consumers might account toward their CO2 emissions. Or just apply the CO2 tax to companies directly.

Anyway, let's not get lost in the details, I was just offering a trivial counterexample against the claim that

> Any proposal that significantly reduces energy usage almost certainly involves telling a large portion of the world "no, you don't get a washing machine"

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

#486

Post by coredog64 »

patall wrote: post #375
mseebach wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power.

In fact, I do have a nuclear power plant in my backyard (relatively speaking). Per Wikipedia, it's the largest power plant in the US by net generation. I'd be happy to see them add 3 more reactors to the site and double operating capacity to ~8GW.

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

#487

Post by coredog64 »

natch wrote: post #470
mason240 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer to live near a nuclear plant than within sight of a wind farm.

As long as we're exploring hypothetical choices, would you prefer to live near a nuclear plant over living in a house with energy provided by solar tiles on the roof?

Yes, because I like to have power at night ;)

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

#488

Post by Reason077 »

spangry wrote: post #322
robryk wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies (...) // I haven't watched the video. Would love to see a text version thereof if it exists. Is it per unit of power that can be produced under optimal conditions or per unit of power averaged over a year? Note that half of the time in a year it's dark, so in order to produce the same amount of energy in a year you need a solar power plant with…

It gets worse. Unless we develop viable (and affordable) grid-level battery technology, the intermittency problem of renewables makes most of them a non-starter from a cost perspective. To cover 'always on' baseload demand, you need about 5-6 time that amount of maximum generating capacity, optimally geographically dispersed to ensure at least one or a few are producing sufficient power while the others are essential…

and also the second safest form of power generation, according to the IPCC, over its entire life-cycle (from mining to waste disposal and remediation). Incidentally, hydro is the first.

I'm surprised that hydro could be considered safer than nuclear. That seems incorrect based on past experience.

Hydro dam failures have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths during the past 50 years or so. That's far more than Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters, even accounting for later deaths due to radiation-related diseases.

The Banqiao Dam failure alone in 1973 killed 171,000 and displaced more than 11 million people.

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

#489

Post by daveheq »

niels_olson wrote: post #3

My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…

It depends on how the nuclear reactor is managed. Have companies shown they care about the people over profit? Has government proven to not be inept at regulations and inspections and punishments? On top of that, a natural disaster can cause one to melt down.

If we move to thorium, it's almost impossible to have a disaster, but it can't be made into a weapon and the profits are low so nobody wants to build the best source of feasible big power known to man.

Post reply on HN