Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change • Hacker News Board

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#71

Post by ghostbrainalpha » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

thrownblown wrote: post #45

api wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing those disasters have shown about nuclear is that a single accident -- even if there is little loss of life -- absolutely ruins the economics of nuclear power. Even an accident with no loss of life will cost an absolute fortune to clean up and decommission due to how hard it is just to handle and transport the material. Prior to Fukushima nuclear power was fairly economical in Japan. Post-Fukushima and in re…

I'm not doubting you but, do you have some stats to back this up? I'm curious. I would imagine the expense is difficult to determine and quite controversial. Especially when you consider the costs of the effects to the ocean/environment and whatnot that aren't being borne by the japanese people.

Another issue I am surprised doesn't get brought up is that there are only 450 Nuclear Reactors in the world.

Any nuclear accident is unacceptable, but what do you think the rate of crashes were in the first 1000 Airplanes?

When we don't build nuclear, we don't really get better at nuclear. If the U.S. decided to build 50 Nuclear reactors in relatively remote parts of Nevada to power California. Even if we had another accident, by the time we had finished that project our safety standards would be in a very different place.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#72

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #60

willis936 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the thing about this issue: humans aren’t built to deal with it. > When people start to truly panic and fear death you can be sure the nukes will start getting built quickly. By this point it is far too late for any action to have meaningful consequence. People are raising hands now, when the effects are practically nonexistent on a human timescale, because if we wait until the effects affect us, then we are w…

Well, my own prediction is a) that we will mitigate climate change and b) it will not be through any of the activism methods being pursued today. The reason we will succeed is because we are, luckily, converging on market incentives which will (as a side effect) fix climate change. Specifically, it seems likely that the next iteration of technology startups focused on energy should be able to create products that are…

I agree for the most part. We will either fix it technologically (my guess through a combination of nuclear, renewables, and carbon capture) or we won’t fix it. In the latter case we either won’t fix it and everything will still be fine, because the IPCC and others estimate the cost of a do nothing scenario at like 10% of world GDP by 2100,[1] or we won’t fix it and we’ll all die.

What will never happen is addressing climate change through social engineering.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/climate-change-to-slow-globa...

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#73

Post by marouo » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

Like solar & wind, nuclear also needs supplementing with peaker plants. Nuclear can be used for peaking, but current designs cannot, and nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker. And storage for renewables is a last resort. Instead of storage: 1. build in areas with reliable winds (offshore trade winds) 2. better interconnection ("the wind is always blowing som…

We don't have enough uran for it.

We would need to develop a wavesomethingreactor which doesn't exist yet.

Nuclear will not solve our problem.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#74

Post by pmontra » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

Like solar & wind, nuclear also needs supplementing with peaker plants. Nuclear can be used for peaking, but current designs cannot, and nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker. And storage for renewables is a last resort. Instead of storage: 1. build in areas with reliable winds (offshore trade winds) 2. better interconnection ("the wind is always blowing som…

Nuclear is safe until it isn't, then you lose a large area of the country around the power plant (Chernobyl, Fukushima.) Personally I don't think it's worth the risk, plus the building times you write about and the costs of decommissioning.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#75

Post by manfredo » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

Like solar & wind, nuclear also needs supplementing with peaker plants. Nuclear can be used for peaking, but current designs cannot, and nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker. And storage for renewables is a last resort. Instead of storage: 1. build in areas with reliable winds (offshore trade winds) 2. better interconnection ("the wind is always blowing som…

The daily fluctuations in demand aren't as large as this comment makes it seem. Usually, demand changes by ~25% between peak demand and minimum demand [1]. Excess energy produced during non-peak demand can be used for carbon sequestration, desalination, hydrogen production, or any other intensive industry.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=830

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#76

Post by manfredo » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

Maximus9000 wrote: post #7

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

I too am pro-nuclear, but isn't it too late for traditional nuclear to save us? We need solutions very quickly and the typical nuclear power plant takes 10 years to build. In my uneducated opinion, the only way I see nuclear working is if there are small modular reactors that are produced quickly in a factory assembly line.

Nuclear, slow as it may be to build, is still the fastest option to actually eliminate fossil fuel usage. The other plans involving intermittent sources require immense amounts of energy storage. To put this in perspective, the US consumes ~5TWh of electricity during nighttime. The entire world only produces 300GWh of lithium ion batteries annually [1]. This is expected to increase to 1TWh by 2023 and probably 2TWh by 2030. But still, if we're talking about eliminating fossil fuel usage globally it'd take the better party of a century to build the energy storage required. Other plants for energy storage are either geographically limited (hydroelectric), or have yet to be built at any meaningful scale and have questionable efficiencies (Sabatier process, hydrogen).

France's nuclearization program took 20 years [2], but that's a hare's pace compared to building the energy storage required for intermittent sources.

1. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme...

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#77

Post by manfredo » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #11

Maximus9000 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too am pro-nuclear, but isn't it too late for traditional nuclear to save us? We need solutions very quickly and the typical nuclear power plant takes 10 years to build. In my uneducated opinion, the only way I see nuclear working is if there are small modular reactors that are produced quickly in a factory assembly line.

Far too late. 10 years to build is optimistic, and that is on top of a good decade or 2 of bureaucracy before even breaking ground.

France managed to bring its nuclear generation from close to 0% to over 75% in 15 years.

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#78

Post by bazzert » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

batmansmk wrote: post #56

bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like solar & wind, nuclear also needs supplementing with peaker plants. Nuclear can be used for peaking, but current designs cannot, and nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker. And storage for renewables is a last resort. Instead of storage: 1. build in areas with reliable winds (offshore trade winds) 2. better interconnection ("the wind is always blowing som…

Scale is missing in your analytsis. For instance in New England, the peak demand goes from 15GWh (average) to 16.5GWh down to 10GWh. Solar and wind on the other hand, need supplemental for 100% of its installed capacity the day there is no wind... In France, 70% of the electricity is nuclear, 15% is hydro, pumped by the excess nuclear power generated at during the night. Now for your arguments: 1. Wind goes from 0 to…

Great points. “The damage done by these wind installations is out of all proportion to the benefit,” https://www.ft.com/content/d8b9b0bc-04a6-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e...

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#79

Post by manfredo » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

scalio wrote: post #35

piokoch wrote: post #5

I don't get this kind way of thinking. We have a proven and tested way of producing electricity without any emission - nuclear power plants. This article even mention it, obviously on the last place in a strange way "and to advanced nuclear plants with zero emissions". As if there were some non-advanced nuclear plants that have non-zero emission. Solar and wind require energy storage that we don't have now and it doe…

What do you do with the waste? Blow it into the sun?

Bury it underground. The amount of waste generated by nuclear power is a fraction of 1% of all the toxic waste generated by heavy industry. The entirety of the United States' nuclear waste from electricity generation occupies a volume the size of a football field in footprint and 10 yards high [1]. A coal plants generates this much waste every hour.

1. https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

Re: Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change

#80

Post by bazzert » Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

pmontra wrote: post #74

bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like solar & wind, nuclear also needs supplementing with peaker plants. Nuclear can be used for peaking, but current designs cannot, and nobody is going to pay the crazy costs of nuclear just to have it idle 23 hours a day as a peaker. And storage for renewables is a last resort. Instead of storage: 1. build in areas with reliable winds (offshore trade winds) 2. better interconnection ("the wind is always blowing som…

Nuclear is safe until it isn't, then you lose a large area of the country around the power plant (Chernobyl, Fukushima.) Personally I don't think it's worth the risk, plus the building times you write about and the costs of decommissioning.

Fukushima, "1 death from radiation, 2202 from the evacuation"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...