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

The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

energymonitor.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#51

Post by largepeepee »

panick21_ wrote: post #47
pydry wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the ~$800 billion cleanup costs of a Fukushima event werent fully borne by taxpayers then maybe the safety regulations wouldnt have to be as onerous. But they are, and Ive never heard of a single pro nuclear advocate ever argue that nuclear power is safe enough that this enormous subsidy should be unwound. They generally pretend it doesnt exist. Meanwhile solar/wind/storage is a lot cheaper even without taking thi…

Funny how anti-nuclear people never admit that the last 30 years of anti nuclear opposition have lead to 1000s of deaths, 100000s of people less health and more cost then any theoretical nuclear accident. Its totally ok to argue that the government should have shared responsibility for health care. But arguing that government should control the energy production in a sensible way and adopt the risk for that is someho…

"the last 30 years of anti nuclear opposition have lead to 1000s of deaths, 100000s of people less health and more cost then any theoretical nuclear accident."

Where are you pulling these numbers from? Your ass?

The last 30 years were also one of best times to be alive as an average person on the globe generally.

How nuclear idiots can spin everything negatively is pretty funny.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#52

Post by hyperbovine »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #8
jpgvm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is! Just not in Western countries sadly. China is building a ton of nuclear at very good prices.

I’m curious how Chinese nuclear power plant prices compare to Chinese solar panel prices. They are both cheaper than in western countries.

Many things could be made cheaper by eliminating liability risk.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#53

Post by kelseyfrog »

largepeepee wrote: post #51
panick21_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how anti-nuclear people never admit that the last 30 years of anti nuclear opposition have lead to 1000s of deaths, 100000s of people less health and more cost then any theoretical nuclear accident. Its totally ok to argue that the government should have shared responsibility for health care. But arguing that government should control the energy production in a sensible way and adopt the risk for that is someho…

"the last 30 years of anti nuclear opposition have lead to 1000s of deaths, 100000s of people less health and more cost then any theoretical nuclear accident." Where are you pulling these numbers from? Your ass? The last 30 years were also one of best times to be alive as an average person on the globe generally. How nuclear idiots can spin everything negatively is pretty funny.

It's the number of excessive deaths due to coal fired power plants in the US per year(~3000). Anyone can search for that and critique the methodology.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#54

Post by the_third_wave »

kolinko wrote: post #15
jpgvm wrote: post #5

All I am seeing is a ton of reasons to build an absolute boat load of cheap nuclear power. None of these processes are even remotely possible without abundant essentially free energy.

Renewables are way cheaper and easier to scale.

...when they're available. Energy storage is another story, especially in places where there are no convenient hydropower facilities which can be "run in reverse" to store the output from said renewables as potential energy in the reservoirs. Maybe hydrogen storage can play a role here, maybe synthetic hydrocarbons can but for now there is no real solution for those still dark winter nights when the sun and wind are absent, necessitating the establishment of a backup power source which can cover the entire demand. Some of this can be achieved by importing power but where does that imported power come from? When it is dark here it is dark in neighbouring countries as well. There might be some wind power but that won't be enough to cover the needs. There may be hydropower available in neighbouring countries but how far can this power be exported before the losses outweigh the gains? Someone somewhere will need to build a backup power plant to cover the needs. That will most likely be a nuclear power plant since that is the only "carbon-free" source which can supply the needs. And then... there is a nuclear power plant which can supply power all day long since fuel costs are only a small part of the operational costs of nuclear power plants. Why only use it as backup power then?

A possible future scenario might be a base load infrastructure fed by reliable nuclear power plants and hydropower where possible ensuring power is always available. Renewables feeding into hydrogen storage or hydropower storage facilities to create hydrogen for those processes which can make use of it - e.g. steel production, synthetic fuel production etc. - and to keep the hydropower reservoirs filled. Domestic solar may play a role as well since it is feasible to use battery storage at a single-home scale, especially when used EV batteries start to become available at scale - for now it is just too expensive.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#55

Post by locallost »

panick21_ wrote: post #46
locallost wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap nuclear is an oxymoron. Germany dropped it and now the tax payers are hit with over 100 billion in nuclear waste disposal costs. The operators paid 23 billion to legally wash their hands of the mess [1]. The worst part even the green party accepted it because they feared the operators would simply declare bankruptcy since there was no way for them to handle it themselves. This on top of the hundreds of billions…

Nonsense. Had Germany adopted nuclear in 2020 for the Grünewende they would be done by now, and they would have cost them less then they actually spend in that time and what they will have to spend. Even with pessimistic assumption of paying 5 billion $ per plant. If Germany had done what France did in the 70/80s they would be much better off now and for the next 100 years. And the cost per plant would be far lower o…

Complete denial of reality. I've posted actual numbers on real costs, but of course there are always people like you dealing with imaginary money, throwing around numbers they can't back up.

Pessimistic 5 billion per plant -- what a joke. Flamanville 20 years under construction, 20 billion. Olkiluoto 15 years under construction, 15 billion. Hinkley C, deadline for 2027 already clear will not be held, price tag already estimated now to be 40 billion in the end [1].

If Germany had done what France had done in the 70s and 80s it would be in the same situation as France is today: every other month a plant goes into emergency maintenance because of cracks in the pipes, and relying on neighbors to keep its lights on.

If it had invested in nuclear 20 years ago it would be sitting on heaps of unfinished uneconomical plants and it would still use coal for the majority of its electricity. The plants even if finished would take decades to make up for the lost opportunity to reduce emissions during the decades of construction.

Rubbish! Nuclear energy's days are numbered. That industry will need to find another way to take tax payers' money.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cost-edfs-new-uk-nuc...

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#56

Post by the_third_wave »

monotux wrote: post #13
jpgvm wrote: post #5

All I am seeing is a ton of reasons to build an absolute boat load of cheap nuclear power. None of these processes are even remotely possible without abundant essentially free energy.

SSAB has located it’s H2 plants near several large hydroelectric power plants, so in Sweden’s case we have to build nuclear power plants further south to provide power to the bulk of the population.

That should happen anyway since the transport capacity between the hydropower-rich north and the power-hungry south and west is not sufficient and there do not seem to be plans to change this situation markedly - possibly because the state (in the form of Svenska Kraftnät [2]) makes a pretty penny on the "flaskhalsavgifter" [1]. They can start by correcting the mistakes made by the previous governments in closing half of the available nuclear power generation capability, repeal the law which states that no new nuclear facilities can be built in locations other than those where one already exists and get serious in establishing new locations close to where the power is needed, preferably chosen so that waste heat can be used as well.

[1] https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/elprischock-kan-ge-aterbaring-pa-n...

[2] https://www.svk.se/

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#57

Post by dermesser »

perilunar wrote: post #42
weinzierl wrote: post #3

Decarbonising steel is a funny thing to say. Since steel is an alloy of iron and carbon it should mean turning steel into iron. Of course it is meant in a different way in the article.

yeah, but you turn pig iron and cast iron into steel by removing carbon, not adding it.

Yes, the confusing issue is that iron-in-your-house or as a building material generally has a higher carbon content than steel, making the latter more elastic and less brittle (generally).

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#58

Post by dermesser »

panick21_ wrote: post #46
locallost wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap nuclear is an oxymoron. Germany dropped it and now the tax payers are hit with over 100 billion in nuclear waste disposal costs. The operators paid 23 billion to legally wash their hands of the mess [1]. The worst part even the green party accepted it because they feared the operators would simply declare bankruptcy since there was no way for them to handle it themselves. This on top of the hundreds of billions…

Nonsense. Had Germany adopted nuclear in 2020 for the Grünewende they would be done by now, and they would have cost them less then they actually spend in that time and what they will have to spend. Even with pessimistic assumption of paying 5 billion $ per plant. If Germany had done what France did in the 70/80s they would be much better off now and for the next 100 years. And the cost per plant would be far lower o…

Had they done what you say, by now they still would not have decided on a location. Just look at the delays and cost overruns with Finland's reactor - and that's with popular support.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#59

Post by bell-cot »

chii wrote: post #21
bell-cot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big picture, yes. Though they generally need much more power storage/distribution grid construction per GW, to actually deliver a reliable supply to users. Then you get to countries where the NIMBYs fight tooth & nail over even tiny grid construction projects...

wait till you fight with the NIMBYs on nuclear projects...

Ah. Those fights I mostly put in the same category as "fights with NIMBYs over building new 8-track factories", "fights with NIMBYs over digging the Mississippi-Yukon shipping canal", etc.

(Vs. the NIMBYs are pretty much fine with 100%-carbon steel.)

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#60

Post by ZeroGravitas »

panick21_ wrote: post #48
kolinko wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables are way cheaper and easier to scale.

France transition from coal and oil to almost 100% nuclear in 20 years. I'll wait here for any other country to do remotely as well with 'renewables'. Lets see how Germany did after 20 years of their Green revolution ... mmhh yeah they would have done a lot better with nuclear. Nuclear was the fastest scaling of any energy source ever discovered in the US. Faster then even oil. But then regulation changed and basical…

Many would argue that Germany saved human civilization by investing early in renewables.

Various other countries/places/people/organisations contributed too, but still, it's weird that something can be considered as so dramatically successful on such a scale and also such a complete failure by different groups.

Post reply on HN