8 ms·

Bad idea. We have plenty of much cheaper sources of green energy. And lets face it nuclear is far from green. Offshore wind energy is so successful that it is n

Bad idea. We have plenty of much cheaper sources of green energy. And lets face it nuclear is far from green. Offshore wind energy is so successful that it is now negatively affecting solar as well as nuclear and fossil fuels. Furthermore, the greatest current innovation vis-a-vis energy is energy saving which is much cheaper than building new reactors. I should add that there is such an energy glut in the world nowadays that companies that make turbines for nuclear/coal/gas plants are in dire financial straits. (See GE and to a lesser extent Siemens and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries). What we need now is a good storage solution, or a flexible on demand power plant. Nuclear is very bad for both of these goals. BTW Mr. Gates' offer is not that generous. He says if the tax payer puts billions of money in his company he will also put a billion of his money in his company. Well gee that is great for you but what does the taxpayer get out of it. What if a stranger comes up to you and says "Hey buddy, if you pay $5000 to fix my car, I will pay $1000 out of my own money to repaint it."

arduanika 8y ago
> much cheaper sources of green energy When people stop bragging about how many more jobs green energy creates than fossil fuels, I'll start believing that renewables are cheaper at scale. > What we need now is a good storage solution Collocate the new nuclear plants with facilities that (at high energy cost) recapture carbon into dense fuels.
- benj111 8y ago
  Re green jobs: I think that's meant as a retort to the "what about coal miners?" Argument. I'm trying to understand your nuclear -> fuel plan. Nuclear reactors already use a storage solution, why are you adding an extra step? Why not combine it with wind/solar? Edit: Are you suggesting the green jobs would lead to high wages and costs? Don't forget theres no fuel cost with renewables.
  - arduanika 8y ago
    > Nuclear reactors already use a storage solution Hmm, not sure what storage solution you're thinking of? Is there a nuclear-specific means of storing the energy produced for later use? What I mean to say is: nuclear power is so cheap that you could use it to power carbon recapture, even at the current cost. There are even people working on using direct air capture to create ultra-dense fuel, e.g. http://carbonengineering.com/ http://carbonengineering.com/ . This is surely very inefficient (lots of energy required to recapture a small amount of fuel), but if we powered it using a nuclear plant's off-peak energy, it's effectively a liquid battery.
    - benj111 8y ago
      "Hmm, not sure what storage solution you're thinking of" The fissile material itself. Nuclear power is dispatchable to a point, and I don't think its as cheap as you seem to think it is. The scheme might be worth it for producing jet fuel etc, but using fission to generate electricity to generate fuel for short term storage for a generator? Unless it is really efficient, no. Combined with renewables which aren't dispatchable at all, more likely, but not where I would put my money.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  When people stop bragging about how many more jobs green energy creates than fossil fuels, I'll start believing that renewables are cheaper at scale. These braggarts haven't calculated the labor intensity per MWh (construction + operation) over the full life cycle of utility scale wind and solar facilities. Utility scale renewables are less labor-intensive than coal or nuclear over the full life cycle. The only reason that renewable boosters can tout jobs vs. coal right now is because coal is shrinking and renewables are still growing robustly. I suspect that natural gas burned in a combined cycle plant may be more labor-thrifty than anything else, but 1) it's not a low-carbon electricity source like nuclear or renewables and 2) it has been harder for me to calculate how much labor is required for fuel extraction; the calculation is easier with coal since quite a few coal burning plants have dedicated mines. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13218366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13218366 for a labor-intensity comparison of legacy coal and utility scale PV that I worked out previously. In fairness, I have seen advocates for coal and nuclear brag about the bountiful wages distributed (costs incurred for electrical ratepayers) by their preferred generating technologies, too.
  - arduanika 8y ago
    > Utility scale renewables are less labor-intensive than coal or nuclear over the full life cycle It's hard to marshal evidence for or against this claim, since as you say, the newest renewable technologies are in the earliest stages of their life cycles. It's also hard to defend or refute claims about the cost of renewables at scale, since they're currently such a small fraction of energy production. Are we looking at economies of scale / diminishing marginal costs? Or, how quickly will we exhaust the geothermal sites, the dam-able rivers, and the rare minerals that go into batteries and solar panels? Projecting the answers to these questions requires a lot careful modeling, extrapolation, and educated guesses. Given the hopes, fears, and ideologies at play, it's very easy to lie with stats here (or for proponents of any given source, to bend the truth in one direction in the conversation about creating jobs, and in the opposite direction in the conversation about cutting costs). Based on your linked post, it looks like you're digging into this rigorously & honestly, so thanks for that. > how much labor is required for fuel extraction Plus transportation. Isn't this way cheaper for nuclear, where way less fuel (in terms of mass) produces way more power? And, isn't there a good deal of extraction that goes into creating a solar panel?
markdown 8y ago
> Well gee that is great for you but what does the taxpayer get out of it. Green energy anywhere and anytime you need it, not just when the sun shines and the wind blows. The one major problem with nuclear energy is that mining uranium has thus far been an environmental disaster.
- rbg246 8y ago
  The major problem is that it will take twenty years to build a power station - look at Hinkley Point Power station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
  - lsc 8y ago
    That doesn't seem like an argument against it? I mean, if fission is the best base load (and I'm not saying it is, I don't know) but it takes 20 years to get approval for a fission plant, seems to me like you do some modeling and planning and then you start building.
    - imtringued 8y ago
      By the time you've built your nuclear powerplant germany will have phased out coal by 2038 and people are already complaining that this timeline isn't aggressive enough. For the price of one nuclear powerplant you could have built 3 nuclear powerplants worth of energy storage this year and over the next 20 years the price of energy storage will drop even further which will make it economical without any subsidies.
darawk 8y ago
> Bad idea. We have plenty of much cheaper sources of green energy. Gates basically has dedicated his life to thinking about issues like this. He funds and promotes all the other sources of green energy as well. It's clearly his considered opinion that nuclear energy is going to be an important component, over and above other sources of green energy to actually achieve our goals in an amount of time and at a scale to have a meaningful impact on climate change.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  Not to mention we are now finding that some "green" power is actually harmful, such as hydroelectric dams. Nuclear power has known risks, from disposal to potential meltdowns. Some of our other green technologies have things we don't even know the consequences of yet.

arduanika 8y ago

> much cheaper sources of green energy When people stop bragging about how many more jobs green energy creates than fossil fuels, I'll start believing that renewables are cheaper at scale. > What we need now is a good storage solution Collocate the new nuclear plants with facilities that (at high energy cost) recapture carbon into dense fuels.

benj111 8y ago
Re green jobs: I think that's meant as a retort to the "what about coal miners?" Argument. I'm trying to understand your nuclear -> fuel plan. Nuclear reactors already use a storage solution, why are you adding an extra step? Why not combine it with wind/solar? Edit: Are you suggesting the green jobs would lead to high wages and costs? Don't forget theres no fuel cost with renewables.
- arduanika 8y ago
  > Nuclear reactors already use a storage solution Hmm, not sure what storage solution you're thinking of? Is there a nuclear-specific means of storing the energy produced for later use? What I mean to say is: nuclear power is so cheap that you could use it to power carbon recapture, even at the current cost. There are even people working on using direct air capture to create ultra-dense fuel, e.g. http://carbonengineering.com/ http://carbonengineering.com/ . This is surely very inefficient (lots of energy required to recapture a small amount of fuel), but if we powered it using a nuclear plant's off-peak energy, it's effectively a liquid battery.
  - benj111 8y ago
    "Hmm, not sure what storage solution you're thinking of" The fissile material itself. Nuclear power is dispatchable to a point, and I don't think its as cheap as you seem to think it is. The scheme might be worth it for producing jet fuel etc, but using fission to generate electricity to generate fuel for short term storage for a generator? Unless it is really efficient, no. Combined with renewables which aren't dispatchable at all, more likely, but not where I would put my money.
philipkglass 8y ago
When people stop bragging about how many more jobs green energy creates than fossil fuels, I'll start believing that renewables are cheaper at scale. These braggarts haven't calculated the labor intensity per MWh (construction + operation) over the full life cycle of utility scale wind and solar facilities. Utility scale renewables are less labor-intensive than coal or nuclear over the full life cycle. The only reason that renewable boosters can tout jobs vs. coal right now is because coal is shrinking and renewables are still growing robustly. I suspect that natural gas burned in a combined cycle plant may be more labor-thrifty than anything else, but 1) it's not a low-carbon electricity source like nuclear or renewables and 2) it has been harder for me to calculate how much labor is required for fuel extraction; the calculation is easier with coal since quite a few coal burning plants have dedicated mines. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13218366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13218366 for a labor-intensity comparison of legacy coal and utility scale PV that I worked out previously. In fairness, I have seen advocates for coal and nuclear brag about the bountiful wages distributed (costs incurred for electrical ratepayers) by their preferred generating technologies, too.
- arduanika 8y ago
  > Utility scale renewables are less labor-intensive than coal or nuclear over the full life cycle It's hard to marshal evidence for or against this claim, since as you say, the newest renewable technologies are in the earliest stages of their life cycles. It's also hard to defend or refute claims about the cost of renewables at scale, since they're currently such a small fraction of energy production. Are we looking at economies of scale / diminishing marginal costs? Or, how quickly will we exhaust the geothermal sites, the dam-able rivers, and the rare minerals that go into batteries and solar panels? Projecting the answers to these questions requires a lot careful modeling, extrapolation, and educated guesses. Given the hopes, fears, and ideologies at play, it's very easy to lie with stats here (or for proponents of any given source, to bend the truth in one direction in the conversation about creating jobs, and in the opposite direction in the conversation about cutting costs). Based on your linked post, it looks like you're digging into this rigorously & honestly, so thanks for that. > how much labor is required for fuel extraction Plus transportation. Isn't this way cheaper for nuclear, where way less fuel (in terms of mass) produces way more power? And, isn't there a good deal of extraction that goes into creating a solar panel?

markdown 8y ago

> Well gee that is great for you but what does the taxpayer get out of it. Green energy anywhere and anytime you need it, not just when the sun shines and the wind blows. The one major problem with nuclear energy is that mining uranium has thus far been an environmental disaster.

rbg246 8y ago
The major problem is that it will take twenty years to build a power station - look at Hinkley Point Power station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
- lsc 8y ago
  That doesn't seem like an argument against it? I mean, if fission is the best base load (and I'm not saying it is, I don't know) but it takes 20 years to get approval for a fission plant, seems to me like you do some modeling and planning and then you start building.
  - imtringued 8y ago
    By the time you've built your nuclear powerplant germany will have phased out coal by 2038 and people are already complaining that this timeline isn't aggressive enough. For the price of one nuclear powerplant you could have built 3 nuclear powerplants worth of energy storage this year and over the next 20 years the price of energy storage will drop even further which will make it economical without any subsidies.

darawk 8y ago

> Bad idea. We have plenty of much cheaper sources of green energy. Gates basically has dedicated his life to thinking about issues like this. He funds and promotes all the other sources of green energy as well. It's clearly his considered opinion that nuclear energy is going to be an important component, over and above other sources of green energy to actually achieve our goals in an amount of time and at a scale to have a meaningful impact on climate change.

partiallypro 8y ago
Not to mention we are now finding that some "green" power is actually harmful, such as hydroelectric dams. Nuclear power has known risks, from disposal to potential meltdowns. Some of our other green technologies have things we don't even know the consequences of yet.