Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

561–570 of 731 posts

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

#561
post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does GW measure in this context? Electricity production is usually measured in TWh.

This is the production capacity (you are right it is not a good measure), but I was replying based on the graphic. If I look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany Germany went from 60% fossil, 23% nuclear, 17% renewable to 49%/13%/38% respectively. How much further down do you expect fossil to go in ten years? I am pretty sure that by investing both on nuclear and renewable germany…

We have invested decades ago in new nuclear (pebble bed reactor, breeder, reprocessing, ...) and it was a costly failure. Why should we keep making mistakes?

Look at France, they have zillions Euros to invest to get ONE EPR reactor online. They are losing huge amounts of money on another one they are building in Finland. Germany lost a lot of money on the EPR, too. The EPR France builds in the UK will be the most expensive power plant on the planet with >20bn pounds costs.

> How much further down do you expect fossil to go in ten years?

The projections for 2030 are around 65% electricity from renewable energy.

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

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

3MW is the peak power when the wind is blowing constantly at the maximum speed the wind turbine was designed to operate (and not over, at which point the turbine enters safe mode and stops to prevent damage).

Load factors for wind turbines are rarely over 40%. Nuclear's is 80%. So you'd need 2200 turbines to replace one Hinkley point. And all the gas power plants to make the energy when the wind is not blowing...

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

#563
post #393

Greenpeace has been known to fight nuclear power, as have far left green parties. It really saddens me. Reaching good power output with renewable energies is laughable. I keep hearing that germany generated a lot of power with wind, like 80%, but it lasted one week, and it makes me really wonder about the accuracy of that news. Wikipedia is moot about germany wind energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_G…

Nuclear is cheap if governments back the loans (all the cost is up front so a 2% or 5% interest rate has a massive impact on final project cost), and if the projects can be delivered consistently on budget (conspicuously not the case for any of the most recent designs with passive safety features).

Not cheap, but probably still cheaper than renewables, per kWh.

Also the problem with renewables is the power output curve, which are unpredictable because of sunlight and wind fluctuations, which will be compensated with coal/gas energy. Less of a problem with nuclear.

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

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It serves to call attention to the fact that measurable radioactivity is not necessarily dangerous enough to worry about That’s what it may have been created for, but it’s not what it’s used for. > Similarly, pointing out that there is a measurable amount of Cs-137 in wildlife in Germany is not a statement about safety. It’s been quantified and researched and the recommendation is still that one should control its…

> It’s perfectly safe to occasionally eat normal amounts’ but dismissing it as bananas is not appropriate. I'm not seeing anyone here trying to imply that it's as safe as bananas, but I do see a comment that tries to imply that the degree of Cs-137 contamination is about a thousand times higher than safe levels (300 years, ~30 year half-life). As your citation shows, the worst measurements of bioaccumulated Cs-137 in…

> but I do see a comment that tries to imply that the degree of Cs-137 contamination is about a thousand times higher than safe levels (300 years, ~30 year half-life)

That’s not what the comment says. It says that it will take 300 years for all the CS to vanish. But even by your interpretation, a response along the lines “This is a perfectly safe amount of radiation by all standards (or, as my comment: This is perfectly safe for limited consumption) would have been substantially better than pulling out the BED and trying to shut the discussion down with it. Note that the line you quote from my comment includes a wordplay on the BED (“bananas”)

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

#565
post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany's goal is laudable, but even if it manages to go full renewable by 2050 that's still 40 years of green house gas emissions it could have avoided had it gone both nuclear and renewable. Nuclear can be made smaller (molten salt reactor, but I do admit that there are huge challenges for that too), and more flexible. Germany's plant were not as flexible as France's, but France's can be quite flexible: for those o…

> molten salt reactor will have zero impact in the next three decades. There is no market offering and no buyer. No one is investing in yet another fuel cycle and nuclear technology. There are no reactors of scale and there is no industry surrounding it. > Germany's plant were not as flexible as France's Germany had a few flexible nuclear plants. But all old. > a variation of 10GW of nuclear production in a few hours…

The big trend in the US was the switch to natural gas (a trend now ended by the rise of renewables and soon storage.)

Natural gas had the big advantage of being burned in combustion turbines, which are cheaper than other thermal cycles. Heat exchangers are costly, but a simple cycle turbine doesn't need any (if it doesn't have a regenerator).

The biggest nuclear operator here (Exelon) is shit talking new nuclear, putting their investment into CO2 capture, renewables, and storage.

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

#566
post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it puzzling that proponents of nuclear technology make various claims without any calculations to back that up. 'a vital tool agains global warming'? What does that mean in numbers? How many nuclear power plants of what types for what amount of effort would be built in what timeframe for to make any sizeable contribution? How would it work? A single reactor in the west is >10bn $ and takes a decade or more to…

People have done these calculations. They come out in favor of nuclear in terms of area efficiency and price per kilowatt hour. It is just that politically it is a hard sell in a lot of countries.

And in the real world, instead of the calculations, nuclear is far behind in price per kWh. Unfortunately for nuclear, the power has to be generated in the real world, not on powerpoint slides.

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

#567
post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal reactors do shut down when the power fails. the control rods lose power and fall in. The hard part is cooling the reactor afterwards due to nuclear decay heat. Normal reactors use double-redundant super-reliable diesel generators to do this. This works fine until you out your diesel in the basement in a tsumani zone. Ebr-2 can shut down without CR insertion (crazy robust, CRs always go in) and then can cool it…

> Normal reactors use double-redundant super-reliable diesel generators to do this. Relying on diesel generators is not a passive solution. That is basically the part where I wonder why not a passive solution was picked.

We'll have to go deeper in to the history and physics. The first reactor was passively cooled by air. It was very low power and didn't split very many atoms, so the nuclear decay heat was low after shutdown. Many reactors have been made that cool with natural circulation of air or water but they're all low power. Quickly, the Manhattan Project came along and the military wanted enough plutonium to make an atomic bomb to fight the Nazis. They built a reactor that could do this out at Hanford (the B reactor). They realized that to make enough plutonium, they'd have to increase the rates of the reactions that produce it. This required splitting more atoms, which released more heat, which required more cooling. They quickly went past the regime where it was possible to use natural circulation with the known coolants at the time (air, water) so they used forced flow, eventually passing the heat into the Columbia River.

Fast forward to the 1950s. Admiral Rickover wants nuclear powered submarines to effectively fight the Russians in the Cold War. Submarines are small but want high power, on the order of a few hundred megawatts. This puts them beyond natural circ decay heat removal regime for air and water. So he builds them, and installs appropriate redundant backup systems.

Now Eisenhower has given the Atoms for Peace speech and the commercial industry is starting. They can build a compact high power reactor or large low power reactor (recall it's a heat removal issue). They choose compact, high-power one modeled after the Naval reactors. They were running great and had a whole supply chain. The low-power ones would be orders of magnitude more expensive per kWh.

Meanwhile, starting in the late 1940s and continuing for a few decades, exotic-coolant reactors were developed, with things like Mercury, liquid sodium metal, molten salt, organics, aqueous homogeneous slurry, etc. These reactors can do high power compact cores with passive natural circ. Many were built and operated. But they remained exotic and underdeveloped. The Navy and commercial nukes had built up an infrastructure and experience base. Exotic reactors were more expensive and the LWRs were fine instead of passively-cooled ones.

Today, dozens of startup companies have dug up the paperwork on these exotic reactors and are rushing to try to develop them and associated supply chains to build them cheaply.

So that's how we ended up with the reactors we have.

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

#568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s perfectly safe to occasionally eat normal amounts’ but dismissing it as bananas is not appropriate. I'm not seeing anyone here trying to imply that it's as safe as bananas, but I do see a comment that tries to imply that the degree of Cs-137 contamination is about a thousand times higher than safe levels (300 years, ~30 year half-life). As your citation shows, the worst measurements of bioaccumulated Cs-137 in…

> but I do see a comment that tries to imply that the degree of Cs-137 contamination is about a thousand times higher than safe levels (300 years, ~30 year half-life) That’s not what the comment says. It says that it will take 300 years for all the CS to vanish. But even by your interpretation, a response along the lines “This is a perfectly safe amount of radiation by all standards (or, as my comment: This is perfec…

> It says that it will take 300 years for all the CS to vanish.

Yeah, and that's an obviously wrong statement when taken literally. So which is the more reasonable interpretation: that he was trying to say that the danger from the Cs-137 would take 300 years to vanish, or that he was providing a number that's not just wrong, but also irrelevant and misleading?

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

#569
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also interesting to note the headline is "Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions.." Even if the US was totally committed, and decided to build a brand new reactor right now, how long would it take? A decade? We can slap up renewables in a fraction of that time, and spend the next decade reaping the rewards, not sitting around waiting for the magical payoff of a reactor that will cost…

> Even if the US was totally committed, and decided to build a brand new reactor right now, how long would it take? A decade? Totally committed? You sure? Ok. The US could bring at least two dozen new nuclear power plants online per year. It could do that with only modest impact on its massive economy. National security declaration (probably numerous). Bypass all environmental building concerns and impact reviews. Pu…

| The US could bring at least two dozen new nuclear power plants online per year. It could do that with only modest impact on its massive economy.

There is limited global capacity to do the very heavy forgings required for reactor pressure vessels (and no capacity at all for that in the US).

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

#570
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…

Again just random stuff you pulled out of your ass.

If we talk about future, everything is random stuff pulled from someones ass.

Future cannot be researched, calculated or predicted. You can just be worried about stuff and bet on some solutions to give your children a decent place to live in.

Post reply on HN