Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#51

Post by rsj_hn » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:15 AM UTC

jyounker wrote: post #18

qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to the "Friends of the Earth" and "Natural Resources Defense Council" for pushing us to coal, natural gas, and blackouts... Also raising rates to pay for the premature decomissioning. ' https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-scrambles-to-find-el...

The blackouts are because of fire-risk from transmission lines, and this is largely because PGE paid out bonuses instead of paying for needed repairs to the transmission system. This group of corrupt execs are the same people entrusted to make safety and maintenance decisions for Diablo Canyon.

While it's true that the bonus scandal is a thing, that's about trimming trees in urban areas near powerlines, and is unrelated to the problem of how one can run lines through millions of acres of forests that should never exist in California.

The state has ~150 million dead trees ready to ignite, and needs to reduce the size of its forests by roughly the size of Maine in order to get back to a safer fire risk. That is just irresponsible forest management.

When you are in that situation, needing to run power lines across a tinderbox that should have never been allowed to exist, then you're not going to be able to have reliable power no matter the bonus scandal.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#52

Post by natmaka » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #43

gefhfff wrote: post #14

Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm

See, you can't "believe in climate change" and be against the cleanest, most abundant energy source we have: nuclear. It's just not a logically consistent position, a litmus test to determine if one's environmental advocacy is real or merely performative. That is why China has announced they're building 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years. The US will _inevitably_ have to follow suit to remain competitive.

China:

* 50GW nuclear already in place, producing 5% of the gridpower. Previsions: up to 200GW in 2030.

* 790GW renewables already in place, producing 26% of the gridpower. Previsions: 1200GW in 2030.

In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of windpower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#53

Post by derekjdanserl » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #15

kitsune_ wrote: post #6

We can't build reactors fast enough. And electricity is only a part of what generates emissions. It's no where close to a solution. Looking up the world's energy numbers, how much of total energy production and emissions are from electricity, how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant, how many nuclear power plants are built per year etc. will show you this.

If it were important to us, we could build modular reactors on a massive scale. There are several manufacturers with serious designs. And yes, electricity is "only a part", but it's a big part. A solution needn't be a singular one to make a huge difference. Personally, I think nuclear isn't our best choice. But it is a viable choice and we could make it work.

I disagree with this. Capitalism stands between what is important to us in the aggregate and what we actually do.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#54

Post by ekianjo » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:22 AM UTC

elihu wrote: post #50

I'd be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper, that's what's going to get built. Also, renewables don't require a high degree of trust in the human operators to manage risks appropriately. I think that's really the main sticking point with nuclear; reliable reactors can be made, but how do you manage the humans who maintain the plants in a way that's not susceptible to corru…

> d be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper

Cost is not just a single factor. Energy density is very important too. Solar farms take huge amounts of space to produce very little energy compared to a nuclear plant.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#55

Post by arberx » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:23 AM UTC

TheDudeMan wrote: post #9

California is prematurely closing its perfectly good nuclear reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Clos...

It's near two fault lines...

"Though it was built less than a mile from the Shoreline fault line, which was not known to exist at the time of construction, and is located less than three miles from the Hosgri fault,"

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#56

Post by corban1 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

KarlKemp wrote: post #35

The International Monetary Fond, not known to be populated by treehugging hippies with naturalistic fallacies as a major character trait, published this beautiful graph: https://blogs.imf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/eng-april-4... Nuclear now costs three times as much as solar & wind! And that data ist from 2017. Both technologies are also not showing any slowdown in improvements, while nuclear tends to get more e…

So you are comparing two energy sources, one that provides constant power 99.999% of the time and one that provides volatile power ~35% (if best) of the time?

These price graphs hide the obvious fact. Normalize solar and power by adding the price to make the source constant(shitload of ESS maybe?) and removing government incentives.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#57

Post by natmaka » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

derekjdanserl wrote: post #34

ed_elliott_asc wrote: post #8

It is a shame that I see a title like this and my first thoughts are “who is paying for this article to be published” - is it genuinely someone with the right answer or an agenda - I would need to read the article then try to understand the particular points of view, instead I’ll do something else

What would someone have to gain out of this? And who? The biggest barrier to nuclear power is the initial cost and time required to turn a profit.

It also is the potential "phase-out chain reaction": after most accidents more nations begin a nuclear phase-out (closing plants before they could be profitable).

Each accident also adds to the financial risk, for a nuclear investor, induced by a legal action against a nuclearized neighbor initiated by a non-nuclearized nation, claiming that it is unduly exposed to a risk.

There also is a feedback loop there because more and more nations phasing it out reducing the market, to the point of more and more nuclear companies folding up.

Areva, the French one, is bankrupt and consumed billions of euros.

Westinghouse nuclear division was bought by Toshiba then filed for chapter 11.

KEPCO (South Korea) is healthy and performs but the Korean gov plans a nuclear phase out.

Siemens is out of this market for quite a while (due to Germany nuclear current phasing-out process).

Most current and perceptible projects (there are less and less of them) are Russian (Rosatom) and set for non-democratic nations (this is IMHO related to the NIMBY effect and to cronyism).

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#58

Post by stevespang » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:25 AM UTC

elihu wrote: post #50

I'd be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper, that's what's going to get built. Also, renewables don't require a high degree of trust in the human operators to manage risks appropriately. I think that's really the main sticking point with nuclear; reliable reactors can be made, but how do you manage the humans who maintain the plants in a way that's not susceptible to corru…

Wind/solar plus batteries are FAR cheaper - - and inherently less dangerous from accidents / tsunamis / terrorists. Those who espouse nuclear want us all to forget three mile island, Fujiyama, Chernobyl, and the numerous future accidents to come. Nuclear also contributes massive thermal emissions to the planet, not in greenhouse gases but in direct, once off thermal.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#59

Post by m0llusk » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:25 AM UTC

engineer_22 wrote: post #33

gefhfff wrote: post #14

Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm

The dirty little secret is that renewables are consumable. They wear out and have to be replaced. Like discount shoes: they're cheap, they don't look good, and you throw them away after a while.

The dirtier non secret is that all the critical parts of a nuclear reactor become radioactive waste. We still have no long term plan for dealing with the radioactive waste that had already been generated.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#60

Post by yCombLinks » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:26 AM UTC

elihu wrote: post #50

I'd be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper, that's what's going to get built. Also, renewables don't require a high degree of trust in the human operators to manage risks appropriately. I think that's really the main sticking point with nuclear; reliable reactors can be made, but how do you manage the humans who maintain the plants in a way that's not susceptible to corru…

The problem is nuclear has been the affordable solution for decades and hasn't been built, due to politics.