To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) • Hacker News Board

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

#501

Post by petre » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:27 PM UTC

dispose13432 wrote: post #266

petre wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The RMBK reactors at Chernobyl are of an irresponsible design, with no containment, graphite moderator and a highly positive void coefficient. Combined that with human error and zealotry and you have a recipe for disaster. Russian VVER PWRs on the other hand have excellent track record with no accidents whatsoever. Your country has at least two gen IV reactor designs with pasive cooling and negative void coefficient.…

>The RMBK reactors at Chernobyl are of an irresponsible design, with no containment, graphite moderator and a highly positive void coefficient. Combined that with human error and zealotry and you have a recipe for disaster. Russian VVER PWRs on the other hand have excellent track record with no accidents whatsoever. Your country has at least two gen IV reactor designs with pasive cooling and negative void coefficient…

And you are going to make 700-1500 MWh of baseload electric power how? With PV solar and no storage? Hamster generators with flywheel storage? Coal? Russian gas? By daming every river and erecting 1k offshore wind generators with capacity factors of 0.4?

International standards for nuclear reactor safety have been altered after Chernobyl, 9/11 and Fukushima in order to make reactors as safe as possible. That's why the construction costs went up and no company besides some Chinese holdings are able to build a nuke plant on schedule and w/o exceeding initial estimates by more than 200%.

Brezsnyev era safety standards pioneered by the RBMK creators were basically: "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country". That's why the VVER PWR is safe - it was designed by responsible people.

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

#502

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:28 PM UTC

alex_hitchins wrote: post #358

Spooky23 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is a mess. You either are left with a waste problem that doesn't go away or a proliferation risk. The US government or successors will be subsidizing 20th century waste for hundreds of years. Energy storage is a problem, but a transient problem that can be addressed with a variety of storage techniques and backed up by natural gas.

Not all reactors result in long term storage of waste, I believe some designs can use existing spent fuel even. I would really like to see investment in other types of reactors such as pebblebed, molten salt etc. If we don't build the stations to create nuclear missiles, we can make them much more 'friendly'.

The spent fuel ones produce plutonium as a byproduct -- not good.

I'm all for new technology, but the lobbying/PR effort that produced this article is 100% based on existing technology that makes big engineering firms/government contractors billions of dollars.

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

#503

Post by Analog24 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #475

Analog24 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Fukushima reactor was old and outdated. Modern reactors are built with passive safety systems that essentially make it impossible for a Fukushima style meltdown to occur. Ignorance and coal are not the answer.

There's still the centralization problem. Nuclear power is centralized and lends itself to government or corporate control of the energy system, in contrast with solar which gives each property owner individual control. I'm not saying we can't have both, it's just that the problems with nuclear are not only (perceived or real) safety problems and the fact that it yields byproducts the most tempting use of which is to…

I agree with you. There are undoubtedly issues with nuclear power but the possibility of a Fukushima/Chernobyl meltdown happening in your backyard is not one of them. The main downside is that this understandable but unfounded fear get in the way of politicians having a meaningful discussions about the real issues of nuclear, such as the one you mentioned.

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

#504

Post by Retric » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:31 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #477

Retric wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risk X exists has nothing to do with risk Y. Nuclear powerplants increase risks so the local population should be compensated.

Sure, but I live underneath an air traffic corridor. I want to be compensated for the chance that a plane crashes into my house.

I doubt the odds of that are anywhere close to the ~2/1,000 odds of a significant nuclear accident over 50 years of operation.

Granted, it's hard to get real numbers and future designs may be safer. But, if you include military reactors there have been more than 2 significant accidents per 1,000 reactors. So while some people say they are very safe, people also said that about the Titanic.

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

#505

Post by natch » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:32 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #175

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…

And the interesting thing is that no nuclear plant built starting today would have any of the issues that hit Fukishima, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island. Both because the material safety is better today, and we better understand how to engineer these to passively fail safe rather than have safety systems that can themselves fail. But the political will is hard to muster. And even though something like the traveling w…

>no nuclear plant built starting today would have any of the issues

They still have the issue that they are inherently centralized technology that puts control of energy in the hands of big government and big corporations.

I'd rather see control at a local level, down to the individual property owner.

So from that perspective any nuclear power plants built starting today absolutely do have the same issues. Not the same safety issues, maybe, but let's be aware of all the issues, not just cherry pick.

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

#506

Post by nine_k » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #478

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.…

>" Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. " I don't understand. Why can't we put these things in the absolute middle of nowhere? Workers live on-site and you don't turn the camp into some sort of "work town". Problem solved, unless I'm missing something?

Transmission of electricity is not free, you have to build and maintain a high-power transmission line, and also waste some of the power for transmission inefficiency.

Getting people live in a work camp, transport them to and fro, and otherwise compensate them for their strange living conditions takes money, too.

This may be a significant fraction of operation cost, even if the power at the generator's output connectors is produced cheaply. More expensive -> less competitive.

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

#507

Post by Radle » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

"Carbon emissions from the electricity sector increased 24 percent after the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California closed." Because existing coal generating stations can be scaled up quickly. With planing one could have also build a solar generator before.

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

#508

Post by natch » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:35 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #479

spangry wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry you've completely lost me here. I thought the problem was mainly that we haven't figured out a way to control the sun or the clouds (soon though, soon...)

Parent said ramping DOWN, which is trivial regardless of weather. Ramping solar UP at night or during cloud coverage is indeed a much more difficult problem :)

I agree with what you said, and I would have added: but a less important problem because 1) there are batteries and other forms of storage and 2) consumption is lower at night.

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

#509

Post by fcanesin » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:37 PM UTC

Solar don't have the power density needed by US. Do a simple calculation of current energy levels plus 1% YOY, turns out that you would need to cover the world with panels in just a few decades. There are proved new technology on nuclear (like molten salt and front advancing reactors) that is orders of magnitude safer. The light water reactor design from the 50-60th used in this aging plants was funded by Navy and was appropriate for its use but is not the best solution for grid power generation. Applying this already tested and safe solutions (search for ORNL molten salt) will buy the time until fusion is here, new high temperature superconductors (REBCO in special) have completely changed the game here, and a small high field tokamaks should generate net gain in less than 20 years.

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

#510

Post by hxegon » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 3:39 PM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #187

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…

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…

Except that you can't replace fossil fuels completely with diffuse energy sources like wind and solar.