Live data from Hacker News

Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

dpa-international.com

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#801
post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens in days where renewables can't produce enough energy? Or the evenings where we don't have enough batteries (all evenings so far and for the next decade at least)? You can call it base load or whatever you want, but that energy is coming either from hydro, nuclear or a carbon-based source. And those carbons are hard to come by these days, so even if nuclear power is expensive, at least it is reliable.

It takes a decade at least for any new nuclear starting today to come online in the west. In that decade you’ve built an awful lot of batteries for the same amount of money. No one wants to bet $10s of billions of nuke capex against the relentless progress of batteries and other tech over the next 10 years, and then the 30+ years of plant operations. It’s a suckers bet , so the only ones who can take it are nation st…

So now the discussion is not about whether base load is a thing or not, it is that you firmly believe that batteries are the answer to everything.

First it should be said that this thread is primarily about decomissioning existing nuclear power plants. It makes enormous sense to keep operating those plants until we have a world like the one you describe, regardless of how much newer plants would cost.

But more importantly, your assumptions about the future are very optimistic. I'm sure the Germans also thought they were being very smart when they decided that nuke capex was not worth it because gas was so cheap and easily available, and then now we are finding out that this decision crippled their economy because it caused a dependency. In my opinion throwing all your chips into a technology that requires materials and production capacity you don't have, and in some cases doesn't even exist yet, is a real sucker's bet. All your rosy scenarios would fall apart in one second if China decides to stop selling batteries to you.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#802

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

Powerprice in Germany today minus 500€/MWh. Nuclear power is economic madness in an environment where we see negative electricity prices practically every day.

What happens when there is wide bad weather for renewables? ( for a range of days from 1 - several) Where would the power needed come from?

If, it was to be from some kind of storage, Extra capacity would be needed to allow recharging of the storage

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#803

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

It follows Europe's energy policies (declaring nuclear climate-friendly). France is ahead of the US when it comes to civil nuclear plants strategy.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people have died on account of nuclear accidents? Vs. coal? Vs. not having enough energy? (eg. blackouts killing hospital ventilators, etc.) ----- Edit: because of HN rate limits, I can't respond to a sibling comment. I'll do that here: > Their safety record is good, but can they generate power at a cost that's commercially competitive? If it's too expensive then the plan doesn't work. Is a purely wind/solar…

Per TWh, nuclear kills fewer people than solar , mostly because roofing is dangerous. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...

That's almost certainly just an artifact of old data, and I typed that before realizing your URL has the year 2011 in it.

A lot more utility solar has been installed since then. And continual improvements in efficiency spread the mining related deaths over a great many more TWh.

Our World in Data covers this and every time they update the stats, solar gains on nuclear. It's currently in the lead but they haven't updated for 6 years:

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#805
If we want decarbonation, nuclear power is inevitable until today. We can't rely on renewables for stable power for the masses. Other possible solutions for the future: hydrogen with it's problems and eFuels that need x4 energy to produce. But we said we have enough cheap solar.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#806
post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The engineering side might be a theoretically solved problem, anybody looking at belgium's crumbling nuclear powerplants can help but feeling slightly nervous! I agree we probably need nuclear to bridge the gap until solar or wind can take over fully, but there are a lot of problems with nuclear and the most pressing ones are connected to the unwillingness of people to spend money before a disaster happens. On top of…

Given the actual build times of nuclear plants in Europe, vs the renewables build out rate, we need solar and wind to tide us over for a decade or more before the nuclear plants come on line.

Solar and wind cannot do that. We'll need oil and gas to tide us over for that decade or more.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#807
post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the actual build times of nuclear plants in Europe, vs the renewables build out rate, we need solar and wind to tide us over for a decade or more before the nuclear plants come on line.

Solar and wind cannot do that. We'll need oil and gas to tide us over for that decade or more.

Some gas, but we can reduce it by an order of magnitude. Either way nuclear is not coming online quickly.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#808

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

Powerprice in Germany today minus 500€/MWh. Nuclear power is economic madness in an environment where we see negative electricity prices practically every day.

If Germany power prices are so low, why are Germans power bills so high ? Maybe you are cherry picking spot/marginal price and not netting the subsides ?

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Powerprice in Germany today minus 500€/MWh. Nuclear power is economic madness in an environment where we see negative electricity prices practically every day.

What happens when there is wide bad weather for renewables? ( for a range of days from 1 - several) Where would the power needed come from? If, it was to be from some kind of storage, Extra capacity would be needed to allow recharging of the storage

Bad weather often comes with wind or rain.

Obviously it’s possible for solar, hydro and wind farms to stop producing, but that’s what storage is for.

Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants

#810

Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.

The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record. It’s also worth noting that the US Navy is the only organization with a perfect nuclear safety record. My point being: by god, let the Navy nukes train everyone else!

> perfect nuclear safety record.

It’s a very semantic claim.

They have lost nuclear submarines (USS Thresher), lost nuclear missiles, depth charges, torpedos and bombs. They have crashed nuclear ships and submarines.

Yeah, they haven’t had a nuclear reactor leak (that we know of).

Post reply on HN