All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected • Hacker News Board

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#91

Post by catlikesshrimp » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:13 AM UTC

laurent92 wrote: post #30

legitster wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. One of the benefits of nuclear is that it can be turned on and off quite easily. There are several mechanisms to throttle on and off the reaction.

Is this a new thing? In France, the nuclear plants built between 1960 and 1980 have throttling but it takes more than 20hrs to cool down, making it inefficient to stop at night (hence over-provisioning overnight leading to price shifts to encourage people to run water boilers and washing machines at night).

But what is so bad about encouraging people to schedule their energy expenditure?

Charging the electric car during the night sounds like a no brainer for me. Same goes for the water heaters.

The only heavy argument agaisnt nuclear is NIMBY.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#92

Post by DisjointedHunt » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:14 AM UTC

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #83

That's how you know none of this is real. If mankind was actually on the brink of extinction all options would be on the table. Especially one that offers free unlimited energy. Mankind does not have an energy generation problem. It only has an energy storage problem.

It could both be real and at the same time be true that these people don’t care.

They simply want to use to genuine concern around climate to further their own ends.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#93

Post by fsh » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:14 AM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #71

programmarchy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but wouldn’t we need to mine exponentially less uranium? How many tons of neodymium need to be mined for wind turbines to produce the equivalent output of a nuclear reactor, for example.

That's an interesting question, actually, and the numbers seem difficult to come by. A master's thesis from 2011 says[0]: "data on the amount of rare earths in wind turbines vary, ranging from 0.2 to 3.3 kg of neodymium content per kW of rated capacity" For comparison, a nuclear power station generates[1]: "24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235" So, taking the lower estimate for the neodymium content, the wind turb…

235U may have an impressive energy density, but uranium ore contains very little natural uranium and natural uranium contains very little 235U. According to this back-of-the-envelope calculation [1], a typical energy density of uranium ore is only around 1400 MJ/kg, so only 60 times higher than that of coal.

[1] http://www.plux.co.uk/energy-density-of-uranium/

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#94

Post by adev_ » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:15 AM UTC

driest wrote: post #73

I am a fan of nuclear energy for various reasons, and it's obvious that the safety and waste problems can be solved with new technology like small modular reactors with inherently safe designs. However, even I realize that nuclear energy is not viable to significantly combat climate change due to the following reasons: * The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve…

> I am a fan of nuclear energy for various reasons, and it's obvious that the safety and waste problems can be solved

No you don't from your arguments.

> The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve the safety problem.[...], we don't have decades, we need to start replacing coal right now.

That's bullshit. Even nuclear reactors designs from the 70s are statistically safer than coal. And kill a lot less than coal.

> * nuclear energy is way to expensive.

France had one of the cheapest electricity in Europe for 3 decades. Cheaper than anything produced by renewable right now. Nuclear is cheap but at the condition of government loans at very low interest rate and for multiple decades. That's has been analysed and reported many times already.

> Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%.

There is today not a single installation world wide existing of power to gas to the scale it would be needed. And that would anhiliate any hypothetical cost of the renewable energy anyway.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#95

Post by chuckee » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:16 AM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #6

chuckee wrote: post #3

It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…

> Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand.

Do most fossil fuel power plants currently serve that purpose? Only running when there is excess demand, instead of continuously?

As long as the answer is 'no', there is no reason to prefer them over nuclear (even ignoring the ways nuclear could be made to load-follow).

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#96

Post by mlindner » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:16 AM UTC

fsh wrote: post #64

mlindner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear fuel is incredibly abundant. People talk about the small amounts of nuclear fuel available but completely ignore how energy dense it is. You need very little of it. There's vastly more energy in nuclear ore in the ground than there is even coal and oil combined in the ground.

Do you have a source for this? To my knowledge, uranium would run out in a decade or two if one would use it to supply 100% of the world primary energy consumption [1]. Coal is obviously way more abundant. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...

Pop science articles like that mistake "proven reserves" with "how much is actually in the ground". When geopolitics talks they look at proven reserves as that's how much we know is available and accessible in the short term, but it's not how much is actually available.

Proven reserves expand whenever there is a shortage as effort is made to find additional amounts of the stuff. Additionally, most countries in the world don't even bother to look as they don't have nuclear technology of their own and there is so little demand for it.

This is why for example we keep finding additional coal and oil as known reserves run out.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#97

Post by malthuswaswrong » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:17 AM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #41

legitster wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. One of the benefits of nuclear is that it can be turned on and off quite easily. There are several mechanisms to throttle on and off the reaction.

Sure, but you don’t want to do that. Nuclear is monstrously expensive already. For it to have any chance of being economically viable at all you have to run it all the time. It doesn’t make sense as an on-demand power source.

Nuclear is totally economically viable. It's not viable in the current regulatorily climate. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will return profits for 80 years is an easy financial decision. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will be shut down by moonbats every 4 years when the next batch of princess unicorns is voted into office is not economically viable.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#98

Post by holomorphically » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:17 AM UTC

beders wrote: post #59

beders wrote: post #46

Good. Focus on renewables + storage. Anything else is too costly and too late. (BTW, 10 countries are running on 95%-100% renewables now. Why can't the US?)

and the pro nuclear hacker news cohorts are already on their way down voting. Do me a favor and google nuclear power plant opportunity cost and read.

If you're concerned about cost when faced with an existential crisis then you have lost the plot.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#99

Post by throwawaysea » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:17 AM UTC

glogla wrote: post #65

sandGorgon wrote: post #61

So a lot of the discussions here are around EU or US opinions about nuclear power. The problem is something entirely different. India and China will move to emphatically reject coal restrictions during COP26. Remember India has probably some of the largest investments in renewable rightnow. But I dont think people outside of these countries have even an idea of the amount of hunger for power that is being generated a…

Yes. This is a huge win for coal lobby. This might be the turning point that kills humanity.

> This might be the turning point that kills humanity.

What makes you say that? To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#100

Post by semi-extrinsic » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 7:19 AM UTC

beders wrote: post #54

rsj_hn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because the U.S. isn't Iceland or Norway? No country is actually running on solar and wind -- it's too variable. Norway is running on Hydro, Iceland is running on geothermal.

Newer data says otherwise. https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1452771074119135237 And variability is easy to deal with: overbuild and/or storage. Southern Australia shows how it is done.

Your data actually directly disproves your argument. The highest number on that list which isn't hydropower or geothermal is 15% wind power in Scotland.

Look, wind power needs to grow at an exponential rate the next decade in order to meet current projections for how much wind power we need. But it's not doing that, instead it's slowing down.

The primary reason being wind power developers have for the last decade been just as bad as the fossile fuel industry when it comes to being a bunch of greedy a*holes that steamroll over local opinions, rights of indigenous people, and conservation of natural habitats.

Did you know that 50% of the largest on-land wind park in Europe may need to be disassembled and removed? It was recently ruled by grand assembly in Norwegian supreme court that its construction violates article 27 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, i.e. it was found to be a violation of the fundamental human rights of the indigenous people.