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

Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 731 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#521

Post by pfdietz »

wtallis wrote: post #512
pfdietz wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

| Because you can't run steel mills and other big energy consumers with solar or wind. Ah, the Argument from Bad Engineering. If you stop and think real hard I'm sure you could imagine many ways to do this. And they'd be cheaper than trying to run steel mills off nuclear reactors.

Ok, then: What's you're preferred form of industrial-scale energy storage?

For this application? Pumped hydro, high temperature thermal in firebrick (a technology used by the steel industry in the 1920s), and hydrogen.

Also, adapt iron/steel production to use direct electrolytic methods, although that's going to require more R&D. The potential for dispatchability of demand is enormous.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#522

Post by Amygaz »

theshrike79 wrote: post #433
progfix wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I am flabbergasted (again) because of the pro nuclear power comments. Why should we create energy from something so complicated and hard to control when we have something simple and easy to grasp like water, solar and windpower? I understand statistically speaking a nuclear power plant is save, but the risk is calculated by multiplying propability of occurance and potential loss. The potential loss in a maximum c…

Because you can't run steel mills and other big energy consumers with solar or wind. These require power in the scale of Terawatts each year. 24/7. Renewables like solar and wind are decent for offsetting peaks and maybe generate some household electricity, but you're delusional if you think they can be used to replace coal or nuclear in the next decade. Or even quarter century. Until we make giant leaps in energy st…

Except than China and Australia are doing exactly what you said cannot be done.

Also Canada is complaining that they have a massive surplus of hydroelectricity, that they would like to sell us, but it’s apparently very complicated to get anyone to agree on anything, even if the total infrastructure cost and the energy would be cheaper than a nuclear plant.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#523

Post by tedk-42 »

lazyjones wrote: post #421
kuzehanka wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst nuclear accidents that could possibly happen have already happened. We couldn't have a worse nuclear power disaster than Lake Karachay even if we tried on purpose. And yet the sum damage they caused is a negligible blip compared to how many people die due to the use of fossil fuels on any given month of any given year. The environmental impact of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels or even renewables is just a n…

> We couldn't have a worse nuclear power disaster than Lake Karachay even if we tried on purpose. How can you write such a ridiculous sentence? We have nuclear power plants in the middle of inhabited areas with tens of millions of people who would be immediately affected by an explosion. It's a permanent subject of dispute here in Europe. > If every single operational nuclear power plant had a meltdown incident after…

Explosion as in a nuclear one? Really isn't possible. The fissile material isn't pure enough.

I believe graphite rods are used as the safety to capture the neutrons in a nuclear fission reactor and effectively kill off the reaction.

Explosion as in Chernobyl level? That was basically water pressure.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#524

Post by pytester »

ElBarto wrote: post #508
pytester wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, Hinkley point is ~£95 per MWh while renewables are ~£45. It makes no sense to complain about how polluting coal plants are in relation to nuclear. It isn't the main source of competition. Germany has been taking both nuclear and coal offline and renewables have been plugging the gap for both for some years now and will likely continue to do so. It boggles my mind that the nuclear industry itself demands that all…

Calculate how many wind generators you need to guarantee the same production as Hinkley point and you'll see that it is not really realistic. Then, take into account the goal of making of vehicles electric in the next 20 years. There is no viable alternative to nuclear as of today even if renewables should of course be pushed as much as possible. Germany is emitting heavily because most of its electricity comes from…

>Calculate how many wind generators you need to guarantee the same production as Hinkley point

Hinkley Point = 3200 MW Average wind turbine generates = 3 MW

That's about 1,100 wind turbines at current tech. GE is working on a 12 MW wind turbine - it would take 270 of them would replace Hinkley point.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#525

Post by pfdietz »

kuzehanka wrote: post #505
aurelwu wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the energy density would be a factor if we had any actual space issues. But the area needed for solar and wind is not what is the problem. I agree with you that it is an emergency where not enough action is taken, but even then why not go for 100% Renewables (with Battery, Power-To-Gas, Power-To-Liquid etc. as storage) when that is cheaper than nuclear.

Three reasons. 1: It's not actually cheaper than nuclear. The majority of the cost associated with nuclear is regulatory compliance and political rather than practical in nature (see: China). Discounting this cost makes nuclear the dominant option. Factoring for lifecycle costs pushes it much further ahead. Fun fact: there is currently no way to recycle photovoltaics whose useful lifespan is 20 years. 2: Use of landm…

| The majority of the cost associated with nuclear is regulatory compliance and political rather than practical in nature (see: China).

An engineer in Shanghai costs $20K/year. You can't point to the cost of nuclear in China and pretend it will reflect the cost in the west.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#526

Post by agumonkey »

xlog wrote: post #445
agumonkey wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, wasn't fukushima tsunami the 'biggest' in recent centuries ?

In Japan? Maybe. Globally? Not even close. As recently as 2004, there was a tsunami in the Indian Ocean that caused over 200,000 casualties (compared to the 15,000-20,000 casualties of the 2011 Japanese tsunami).

Sorry if it seemed insensitive, I didn't mean the most harmful, but the most powerful in terms of physics, as an engineering reference point if you will.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#527

Post by Amygaz »

belorn wrote: post #424
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's nothing like that - although it might be like refusing to fly in a 737 MAX. First, any coal analogy is out of date. Only the coal lobby wants to continue burning coal. Everyone else is like "No, that's stupid and self-harming, let's just not." Secondly, plane crashes don't make entire areas uninhabitable for long periods. Third, the problem with nuclear isn't the engineering, it's the management. The nuclear…

> Only the coal lobby wants to continue burning coal. Everyone else is like "No, that's stupid and self-harming, let's just not." How I wish that was true. What they actually do is preferring to not burn coal, but when the choice is between blackouts or burning coal for power even the most environmentalist governments in Europe prefer burning coal. As an example, when the choice is between being cold in Stockholm (Sw…

If you are mainly looking at an energy source for the downtimes, then there is currently enough hydro being generated to do that.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#528

Post by yk »

Well, the nuclear renaissance since 2010 is marked by a decline in the number of reactors [0] and we just do not the capacity to build more, because the production of pressure vessels is severely limited. Plus most nuclear reactors are around 30 years old [1], so many will be decommissioned over the next 20 years.

Therefore it is simply not possible to build up the share of nuclear in the power generation mix, except with extending the operation time of light water reactors (from a design lifetime of 30 years), or build reactors without a pressure vessel, that is something akin to an RMBK.

Right now, over the next 20 years the clean alternatives are solar, wind and hydro. Nuclear power can at the earliest be expanded in the late 2030, at which point it has to compete with fusion, and hopefully orbiting solar.

[0] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-f... (has actually just the total electricity number,

[1] http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power...

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#529

Post by vlehto »

lispm wrote: post #477
vlehto wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take climate change stuff seriously, then the answers are these: >How many? As many as you can build. You run out of engineers and carpenters before you make too many reactors in time. >What timeframe? Now. >Costs? Doesn't matter that much. Easily cheaper than climate change. >Who builds them? Whoever can. >Which models? Hardly matters, any model is safer than burning coal. >Where do we build them? Doesn't mat…

Just like I thought. You have no idea how to do it, what it is going to cost and what impact it will have. This will convince nobody.

Are you doubting nuclear or are you doubting climate change?

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#530

Post by Amygaz »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #383
kortilla wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but that's exactly what nuclear energy proponents said in the 70s. And how many plants failed that were built after the 70s? >The consequences of a disaster are too great Even with the disasters, it kills fewer people than coal even without taking into account the damage from global warming. It’s like refusing to fly because plane crashes stick out in memory and then choosing to drive instead, despite how much more…

No, it's nothing like that - although it might be like refusing to fly in a 737 MAX. First, any coal analogy is out of date. Only the coal lobby wants to continue burning coal. Everyone else is like "No, that's stupid and self-harming, let's just not." Secondly, plane crashes don't make entire areas uninhabitable for long periods. Third, the problem with nuclear isn't the engineering, it's the management. The nuclear…

And here is the wiki page to answer how many since the 70’s (hint, it’s a lot): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accide...
Post reply on HN