9 ms·
We need a massive buildout of nuclear and we need it thirty years ago. Wind and solar aren't nearly as good as nuclear.
by StavrosK 7y ago
We need a massive buildout of nuclear and we need it thirty years ago. Wind and solar aren't nearly as good as nuclear.
- adrianN 7y agoI totally agree. A massive push for nuclear thirty years ago would have been great. Unfortunately it is now too late for this. Nuclear power plants take too long to build, especially in the current political climate in Germany. We also don't have enough nuclear engineers to staff them. Training them also takes years. Nuclear is also more expensive than renewables at this point.
- VBprogrammer 7y agoWhat is the part of nuclear reactors which takes so long to build? If we could somehow high jump the red tape and public backlash how long would it physically take to build? The steam generators, turbine, electric generators, condenser and cooling systems are all more or less the same as they would be in an equivalent coal plant. While I'm sure these things have significant lead times they are essentially off the shelf parts. The secondary containment structure doesn't seem any harder to build than say a suspension bridge. The only real challenge the seems to be the primary containment structure and potentially other elements of the primary heating loop. I heard it mentioned that possibly only Japan had the ability to make these at the moment.
- adrianN 7y agoI'm of course no expert on this, but pressure vessels are very difficult to build and there are just a few locations worldwide that can make them. But you don't need anything particularly difficult to build for construction to take forever. Look at Stutgart 21, or Berlin's airport.
- hanniabu 7y agoOr even the highway in my town that has been under construction for 8 years to add an extra lane to a 1 mile stretch
- namibj 7y agoWell, we are close to wind being cheaper than just the steam turbine generators. At that point, your heat can be free, and it's still cheaper to use wind.
- 08-15 7y ago> What is the part of nuclear reactors which takes so long to build? The red tape.
- benj111 7y agoThat's the problem with nuclear, it needed to have started 30 years ago. Why don't we build the generators that can be built in a reasonable time frame, where there's the actual political will to build them. If and when there is political will for nuclear, we can see where we are, because I would guess by that point wind and solar turn out to be good enough anyway.
- noja 7y agoand what we don't need now is a lot of companies rushing around trying to build nuclear plants as quickly as possible
- whyrusleeping 7y agoI'm disappointed that Thorium reactors haven't been really built yet.
- captainmuon 7y agoWhy? Economically nuclear might make more sense (although one can doubt that). But on a pure material level - ignoring that in captialism, we allocate resources by money etc. - wind and solar are in almost all ways superior. The one problem is 24/7 availability. Ceteris paribus - everything else left unchanged - yes, it might make sense to build more nuclear. But what we really need is to build more renewables and to simultaneously scale down our energy use. To put it bluntly our energy using industry has to take a small hit. This is one of the things even I as a leftist say the market can solve nicely. Electricity can get more expensive at night or when the wind doesn't blow. If it becomes uneconomical to do a certain business, then we should stop doing it, or only do it at certain times. To put it differently, industry works like a buffered solution in chemistry. Put in more acid, and the buffering prevents the PH value from dropping. Shut down power plants, and the market will largely absorb the effect. Things will become marginally more expensive, or production will move to other regions where it makes more sense, but we will not have blackouts like some people fear.
- Luc 7y ago> But what we really need is to build more renewables and to simultaneously scale down our energy use. To put it bluntly our energy using industry has to take a small hit. This is why the Green parties in a lot of countries need to be politically opposed. They attract people who care less about the environment than about changing our way of life. Case in point: in Antwerp they're about to spend a cool billion to put a roof on the ring road, to put some plant pots and bicycle paths there.
- adrianN 7y agoAs opposed to the conservative parties who care more for today's profit than for a liveable tomorrow?
- roenxi 7y agoConservative parties obviously care about a livable tomorrow too. Children and a love of family aren't restricted to one branch of politics. Conservatives disagree that today's profit is inconsistent with a livable tomorrow.
- chefkoch 7y agoNo one wants nuclear any more, not even the chinese. Too much cost up front and way too slow to build. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/amp/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-...
- 1337biz 7y agoPoland just decided to build their first nuclear reactors :(
- Robotbeat 7y agoIt’s a good decision for the climate. Poland’s solar and wind resources are not super great during their cold winters, and they’re currently very fossil fuel dependent.
- swebs 7y agoFinland is also building two more. Turns out that solar isn't too viable where you only get two hours of sunlight in the winter.
- kikoreis 7y agoConsidering the alternatives, why the sad face?
- chefkoch 7y agoMany nuclear power plants have been planed and talked about, but untill the haven't started building it it is still quite cheap to chancel.
- PeterStuer 7y agoHumanity have time and time again proven they can't handle the responsibilities that come with nuclear. An 'I wash my hands and walk away, or even better, make a profit of the cleanup when it all goes wrong' neo-liberal market economy that skirts all the dangers 'by design' is a fatal compounding factor.
- StavrosK 7y agoWhat are those times? It has been massively more safe than almost any other form of energy generation. Edit: Why the downvotes without a counterpoint?
- pastage 7y agoYou have to define what you mean by safe. It's not good for nuclear proponents that Fukushima and Chernobyl happened, after spending decades telling everyone how some like this could "never" happen. I've read quite a lot of pronuclear books and they are never very good at explaining risks. They basically say we have thought of everything and there is no risks, or talk about non existent tech. This is not good enough. Given their track record. And I'm actually pronuclear.
- snovv_crash 7y agoAnd the radioactive waste that coal plants spew directly into the atmosphere during normal operation somehow gets a free pass...
- cygx 7y agoAt the very least on HN, people are quick to point out the radioactive material released by coal plants - I do not remember a single relevant discussion where it wasn't. Personally, I'm on board with getting rid of nuclear and fossil energy sources both, which appears technologically feasible to me (offshore windparks help with base load, flywheels can get you through the day and power-2-gas through the winter).
- 7y ago
- sampo 7y agoHere is how fast, per capita, anyone anywhere ever has built carbon free energy in their best decade: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/353/6299/547/F2.large.jpg https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/353/6299/547/F2.l... (Data is only up to 2015.) Source: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/547 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/547