Live data from Hacker News

Activists who embrace nuclear power

newyorker.com

511–520 of 598 posts

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#511
post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be of the same opinion, but I gotta say that Fukushima really did have an impact on me (on the long-run, it didn't have an immediate impact). But I have been wondering, if an incredibly advanced nation such as Japan faces very serious issues with their nuclear power-plants, is it really the right choice? Can we really guarantee that nothing goes seriously wrong, ever? Cause that's the standard those plants…

This is especially worth considering in light of what recently happened in Texas. Say we get a really good setup: teams of nuclear and process engineers doing the best work of their careers, money is no object when it comes to safety, etc. and build infrastructure safe against once-in-10ky events and everything is executed perfectly. All of that costs money, and sooner or later some MBA / politician is going to ask w…

Actually Texas makes a great argument for more, smaller and distributed reactors.

Micro molten salt reactors make a lot of sense if looked at rationally. Can burn what we currently call "waste" too.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#512
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 0.5% of the US needs to be covered in solar panels to meet the US's current energy requirements (about the size of the Mojave desert). About the size of New Mexico needs to be covered to meet the whole world's energy consumption. In the grand scale of things, and considering how much sunny, arid desert land there is in the world (and without even thinking of floating solar farms) that's really not a lot...

It also needs to be sunny 24 hours a day. Solar requires storage. Batteries are non-renewable.

Yes, it's beyond annoying how the biggest intermittency - nighttime - is hand waved off by solar advocates.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desert solar is certainly going to be part of the story, but I can’t imagine that we can feasibly power the whole country with desert solar alone, and I don’t think residential solar will be a significant contributor because you lose the efficiencies of scale afforded by acres and acres of collocated, homogeneous, ground-level panels for construction, maintenance, and operation. Consider even the overhead of dealing…

All those individuals will respond to the incentive of cheaper energy bills by installing roof solar voluntarily. Provided their government doesn't pass pro-fossil fuel legislation that actively punishes that decision, as some have.

Voluntary installation was driven by subsidies.

Once the subsidies dried up, the snake oil salesmen came out. Timeshare hawkers are evil, but they have NOTHING on rooftop solar companies.

And in Nevada the regs changed and now people aren't getting paid for what they generate at anywhere near the same level which further levels the "value proposition".

Home solar was always propped up and if adoption has dropped off significantly in climates that are prime for it - it has zero chance elsewhere in the country.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#514
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deserts are not ecosystems devoid of all life. Here’s a life long anti-nuclear activist talking about how his direct experience in this space evolved as he started looking into the data more: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_why_i_change...

You know that by now he's a climate denialist? (Technically he would probably deny that, but he's published a lot of "stop these climate alarmists" messaging lately.) (Update: Can't reply to the reply, but here's some actual scientists on Shellenbergers latest output https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-sh... )

Climate denialist? What, does he claim weather doesn't exist - period?

You probably think science can be settled too?

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Attaching four hours of storage to a solar generation farm, just enough to get through the duck curve, is now slightly cheaper than coal This completely ignores scenarios of extended cloud cover, cold temperatures and low wind (somewhat like we just saw in Texas) where properly winterized baseline power would be the only way to keep everything up the whole way through. Barring future unknown tech, we will always ne…

If your grid covers a large region and you have sufficient transmission, then somewhere , there is excess electricity from wind/solar that you can bring in. Remember, we're talking about a world where building renewables to 4x peak demand would be actually economical. This works on the same principle as an insurance market: it's likely that even at 4x capacity, your local solar farm has a few cloudy days. It's highly…

>If your grid covers a large region

Like a belt of solar panels around the equator? Works for Dyson Sphere Program but that's a game. As big as the US is, for CONUS the entire continent is in the dark for significant portions of the day. It doesn't get more intermittent than that!

> and you have sufficient transmission,

Well duh. And assuming zero transmission loss. Or enough resources to overcome transmission loss and still be economically viable.

Quite a bit of hand waving there.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#516
post #511
post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is especially worth considering in light of what recently happened in Texas. Say we get a really good setup: teams of nuclear and process engineers doing the best work of their careers, money is no object when it comes to safety, etc. and build infrastructure safe against once-in-10ky events and everything is executed perfectly. All of that costs money, and sooner or later some MBA / politician is going to ask w…

Actually Texas makes a great argument for more, smaller and distributed reactors. Micro molten salt reactors make a lot of sense if looked at rationally. Can burn what we currently call "waste" too.

That’s a different question. The real underlying issue in Texas was that every producer had an incentive to be cheaper but not to winterize, because they’d immediately see wins from being cheaper on the marketplace and could gamble on going years without a winter failure — by which time the person who made that call might not even be working there any more.

When talking on this kind of scale about a system level failures, the social issues are going to dominate unless it’s something like a fire-and-forget space probe. If you want to see nuclear succeed, the first thing I’d be thinking about is how to ensure that someone doesn’t cut safety to boost their profit margin, accounting for possible future regulatory capture and austerity budgets. Since nuclear is never even going to be within one order of magnitude as distributed as wind/solar, I’d especially think about what would prevent some unscrupulous CEO from pocketing the difference comfortable in the knowledge that their family doesn’t live anywhere nearby.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how does it put them on the same scale? nukes are online 80%+ of the time.

I think the capacity factor of nuclear is much closer to 95% or higher these days, but call it 100% for simplicity PV capacity factor is typically 16%-28% [1], which adjusting the W/kg, gives us: Solar PV: 0.8W/kg - 2.8W/kg, capacity factor adjusted (with supporting infrastructure weighing 2x the panels, a total spitball) Nuclear: 0.8W/kg - 4.5W/kg, capacity factor adjusted, two different modern reactor designs, conc…

You're still not adjusting for actual life (solar ain't making nameplate power 15 years in, for instance).

No one claimed an order of magnitude better. Nuclear looks somewhat more sustainable than renewable, and it can do some things renewables can't.

We should be doing both.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I get defensive when people pit nuclear as a solution to the climate disaster because I am skeptical that it is. And worse I think considering nuclear as a solution to be harmful to the effort to combat the climate emergency. It reminds me of how people would pit GMO as a solution for world hunger, when better food distribution is a better solution; or when people pit self driving cars to combat traffic co…

> It reminds me of how people would pit GMO as a solution for world hunger You lost me here. How is this not? Because Monsanto is a bad company? GMOs can be good and Monsanto can be bad at the same time. Also I stressed a lot in my comment that you don't have to use nuclear, just don't take it off the table. My comment complaining about how people are saying "only nuclear" vs "only renewables" is being replied to as…

Like I said, I get defensive when people pit nuclear as a solution to the climate crisis, this is regardless of the context. I get equally defensive if the pit is “nuclear + renewables” or “nuclear only”. The reason is that I am skeptical of the claim that it is (there are ample nibling comments that demonstrate why) and that a false premise might affect public policy that hinders politicians from pursuing real solutions (like renewables).

I mentioned GMO as a prime example of this, as—if I remember correctly—the debate was most heated about a decade ago. The argument went that we needed GMO in order to get food security for our growing population. This was a distraction (or a red herring if you will) food security was not a problem of technology but of distribution. This distraction caused politicians to focus on the wrong things to solve world hunger. Instead of looking to change market regulations in order to distribute food more equally, politicians were contempt to lift trade restrictions on GMO crops and technology which solved nothing.

What I am saying is not that GMO is bad, or a lousy technology, but that GMO is not a solution to world hunger, and pitting it as such is distracting from actual solutions. Nuclear fits exactly the same bill in today’s world of the climate emergency.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#519
post #508
post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(2/2) > That is an insane amount of land If any of Texas, Thailand, or Botswana can singlehandedly power the entire planet's marketed energy consumption, which is what that "insane amount of land" adds up to, there's no land shortage for solar. > If you're covering an area of 550 thousand km² with panels, there is an equivalent volume that you need to dig up somewhere else 550 thousand km² times "40 pounds" per m² is…

>One of the factors in Peabody's problems is that in the Southwest of the USA, where some of their major customers are, continuing to operate already built coal power plants like the San Juan Generating Plant and the now-defunct Navajo Generating Station is no longer economic; solar energy has driven down prices (averaging US$26.58/MWh at the Palo Verde trading hub in 02019 according to this article) well below the c…

I don't think this is the full context for CA's rolling blackouts, although it's true that the Navajo Generating Station did sell to California.

The California rolling blackouts were back in the summer, when solar energy production is highest. If reliance on solar were the whole story, those blackouts would have gotten worse and worse from summer through fall and winter. Instead, they only lasted a total of about three hours over two days.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-10-06/califor...

> Officials have consistently said that intermittent power sources such as solar panels and wind turbines didn’t cause the rolling blackouts.

> Energy providers collectively under-scheduled the amount of electricity they expected to need. That allowed power plant operators to sell their juice to customers in other states, resulting in thousands of megawatts being exported even as the Independent System Operator warned that rolling blackouts were imminent.

But "officials" turned out to be wrong. Intermittent power sources did cause the rolling blackouts — though they weren't alone.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-releases-final-r...

http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Final-Root-Cause-Analysis-Mid...

> the three major causal factors contributing to the August outages were related to extreme weather conditions, resource adequacy and planning processes, and market practices. In summary, these factors were the following:

> 1. The climate change-induced extreme heat wave across the western United States resulted in demand for electricity exceeding existing electricity resource adequacy (RA) and planning targets.

> 2. In transitioning to a reliable, clean, and affordable resource mix, resource planning targets have not kept pace to ensure sufficient resources that can be relied upon to meet demand in the early evening hours. This made balancing demand and supply more challenging during the extreme heat wave.

> 3. Some practices in the day-ahead energy market exacerbated the supply challenges under highly stressed conditions.

If I'm reading this report right, the immediately precipitating event was that the Blythe Energy Center, a gas plant, went down, so when solar generation had declined enough at 18:38 on August 14, there wasn't enough reserve power, so they started rolling blackouts on half a million people until 20:38, when solar generation was just about at 0.

Then, the next day, storm clouds and lowered winds reduced the power generation available throughout the peak-usage afternoon hours, until the CAISO scheduling coordinator erroneously ordered the Panoche Energy Center (another gas plant) to ramp down generation. So at 18:28 they started rolling blackouts, which lasted 20 minutes until 18:48.

The Governor appealing to people to conserve electric power, and no more big gas generating stations failing, allowed them to avoid rolling blackouts in the following days.

So it sounds like they need more batteries. Two more hours of batteries would have been sufficient in this case (for about 5% of their 45 GW load, about 2500 MW: 5000 MWh, or 16 TJ in SI units), but ultimately you'll need a few days of batteries, over a million MWh for California, about 3 or 4 PJ. (Pessimistically assuming there's no demand response or other storage.)

At the US$111/kWh cost for lithium-ion batteries cited in https://dercuano.github.io/notes/energy-storage-efficiency.h... this means about they would have needed US$555M in batteries in this case, or probably about a billion dollars for the whole facility, and a million MWh of batteries to move California entirely to solar would of course be US$111B of batteries, which could be invested US$11B per year over the next ten years. This is a significant investment, but hardly unaffordable — PG&E, for example, has about US$17B in yearly revenues, and Southern California Edison US$12M, so even the financial savings from switching to cheaper solar energy are likely enough to pay for storage. Presumably as battery prices come down these numbers will shrink further, and there will probably be substantial demand response due to the residential TOU migration described at greater length below.

Part of the problem is that their planning process was structured around peak demand, which is the hardest thing to handle with baseload-type plants like coal and nuclear; but, in this case they handled peak demand fine, even in the face of higher-than-usual loads! The problem was after the peak-demand hour: demand declined, but solar generation declined even faster, which was a thing they hadn't taken into account in capacity planning!

Another aspect of the problem was that the gas plants they were relying on for peaking couldn't operate at their normal capacity at such high outdoor temperatures, so the very heat wave they were struggling to survive in was also impairing their generation capacity.

With respect to the potential impact of things like the Navajo Generating Station and the San Juan Generating Plant, they California's imports were limited not by available generation capacity but by available transmission capacity:

> The imports category includes both non-resource-specific resources as well as resource- specific imports like those from Hoover Dam and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Total import bids received in the day-ahead market were between 2,600 MW and 3,400 MW (40-50%) higher than the August shown RA requirements from imports. Despite this robust level of import bids, transmission constraints ultimately limited the amount of physical transfer capability into the CAISO footprint.

So, for the reduction in coal generation in New Mexico or Arizona specifically to be a causative factor in California's blackouts, someone would have had to build more transmission lines from Arizona. But the transition to renewables in general, that was a causative factor.

(However, it's not entirely clear to me that all the transmission lines were operating at capacity — they emphasize the California–Oregon lines.)

One of the big things they're doing in response is moving residential customers to time-of-use rates, which means that they'll be able to save money on your electrical bill by using energy during the day instead of at night. That should make it possible to sell appliances that save money by, for example, freezing ice during the day and using it for cooling in the afternoon and at night.

It's hard to tell through the insane level of CYA bureaucratese in this report but it looks like they're also installing more battery capacity.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#520
post #460
post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a (very) common misconception. It is not just a misconception. It is a Big Lie, endlessly repeated, endlessly debunked. Continuing to repeat it makes one a Big Liar. When you need to lie to make your case, you don't have one . People started lying about nuclear power before it even existed: "Too cheap to meter", they said. Now with FOIA we have documentary evidence that they knew at the time it would always…

I think assuming good faith on HN applies here, and I'm happy to consider it a misconception. I understand it is a convenient misconception for some, though.

It's a legitimate misconception exactly until one has seen it debunked. After that, it's tendentious dishonesty. Everybody gets the chance to misunderstand, once.

But, identically the same people are seen to repeat the falsehood. One cannot in earnest assume good faith of one who has already been seen to repeat a particular lie, deliberately, again and again and again. Repeating a lie over and over is a specific, and historically very successful, disinformation method with the technical name The Big Lie, most famously connected with Joseph Goebbels but explained by his proud teacher, Edward Bernays. Calling out instances of use of disinformation is an essential defense of any open forum.

Post reply on HN