3 ms·

So what is missing/wrong in the article? (btw, I submitted not because I agree with it – I am not knowledgeable enough on the matter – but because I thought HN

by blue1 7y ago

So what is missing/wrong in the article? (btw, I submitted not because I agree with it – I am not knowledgeable enough on the matter – but because I thought HN could add some interesting comment on it)

lawn 7y ago
Even if we presume all points are true, they fail to bring up any of the positive points of nuclear power and they don't have anything to compare it to. How does it compare to say wind power? How expensive and slow is to build up an equivalent wind power farm? A proper comparison needs to take a look at positive and negative of all possible solutions. For example that "clean" hydropower has massive consequences for the nearby environment. Or that we cannot be 100% reliant on wind and solar power, since they are unreliable (there might not be any wind for example). Which means we need to have other alternatives (hint: not use coal as a fallback!).
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > How does it compare to say wind power? How expensive and slow is to build up an equivalent wind power farm? From the article: "Utility-scale wind and solar farms, on the other hand, take on average only 2 to 5 years, from the planning phase to operation. Rooftop solar PV projects are down to only a 6-month timeline"
  - arpa 7y ago
    That's hardly equivalent.
StreamBright 7y ago
1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation I guess we should stop doing everything that takes long based on this. How do you define long? Compare to what? 2. Cost Nuclear energy is the cheapest source of energy once you take into consideration all the aspects of an energy grid. This is why Germany is buying energy from France instead of building renewables only. 3. Weapons Proliferation Risk Most nuclear power plants do not consume or produce plutonium. 4. Meltdown Risk Passive safety systems are the norm. The safety requirement to any new nuclear power plant is to have a potentially life threatening accident with 10^-6 probability. Meltdown is not a realistic scenario of non-Chernobyl type power plants (90% of power plants). 5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk So does mining coal. We can make mining much more safe. 6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution I guess producing a wing mill does not need to use any energy and the production does not have the same impact as producing a nuclear power plant. Not sure if the author understand that this applies to anything produced. In fact producing renewable power plants probably produces much more CO2 than a nuclear power plant because of energy density. He fails to mention that. 7. Waste Risk This is actually a solved issue, there are special nuclear power plants that sole purpose is to "burn away" nuclear waste by producing elements with less half time. "To recap, new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh (between 2.3 to 7.4 times depending upon location and integration issues)." This is extremely stupid observation. Leaving out crucial facts (like having base and peak power plants) and comparing apples to oranges.
- imtringued 7y ago
  >Nuclear energy is the cheapest source of energy once you take into consideration all the aspects of an energy grid. This is why Germany is buying energy from France instead of building renewables only. This is the funniest thing I have read all day. Seriously I can't stop laughing. Ok let's be serious. It has more to do with the incompetence of the government parties than with the technologies involved. The renewable percentage grew to 47% from 40% in 2018. The reason is that we are being cooked alive by the hot weather, not because the government is acting intelligently. That 7% increase is effectively a 40GWh increase which is 4 times the amount Germany is importing from France. There is no shortage of energy, just a total lack of political willpower to do anything. Even without France, Germany could just turn off one of it's coal plants and use more of it's gas plants to solve the intermittency issue because gas plants produce half as much CO2 as coal plants. Sure it makes sense to keep the old plants running because that way we can turn off coal earlier and decommission the nuclear plants only when they reach their maximum lifespan. But it's too late now. Nuclear power clearly is no longer the answer to decarbonizing Germany's electricity market.
  - the_why_of_y 7y ago
    No, the reason is rather that Germany, due to its central location, imports and exports a lot of energy. The net imports from France are dwarfed by net exports to the other neighboring countries, the sum of which is about 6-7 times as large. https://www.energy-charts.de/exchange.htm?source=de_pf&year=2018 https://www.energy-charts.de/exchange.htm?source=de_pf&year=...

by blue1 7y ago

lawn 7y ago

Even if we presume all points are true, they fail to bring up any of the positive points of nuclear power and they don't have anything to compare it to. How does it compare to say wind power? How expensive and slow is to build up an equivalent wind power farm? A proper comparison needs to take a look at positive and negative of all possible solutions. For example that "clean" hydropower has massive consequences for the nearby environment. Or that we cannot be 100% reliant on wind and solar power, since they are unreliable (there might not be any wind for example). Which means we need to have other alternatives (hint: not use coal as a fallback!).

perfunctory 7y ago
> How does it compare to say wind power? How expensive and slow is to build up an equivalent wind power farm? From the article: "Utility-scale wind and solar farms, on the other hand, take on average only 2 to 5 years, from the planning phase to operation. Rooftop solar PV projects are down to only a 6-month timeline"
- arpa 7y ago
  That's hardly equivalent.

StreamBright 7y ago

1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation I guess we should stop doing everything that takes long based on this. How do you define long? Compare to what? 2. Cost Nuclear energy is the cheapest source of energy once you take into consideration all the aspects of an energy grid. This is why Germany is buying energy from France instead of building renewables only. 3. Weapons Proliferation Risk Most nuclear power plants do not consume or produce plutonium. 4. Meltdown Risk Passive safety systems are the norm. The safety requirement to any new nuclear power plant is to have a potentially life threatening accident with 10^-6 probability. Meltdown is not a realistic scenario of non-Chernobyl type power plants (90% of power plants). 5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk So does mining coal. We can make mining much more safe. 6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution I guess producing a wing mill does not need to use any energy and the production does not have the same impact as producing a nuclear power plant. Not sure if the author understand that this applies to anything produced. In fact producing renewable power plants probably produces much more CO2 than a nuclear power plant because of energy density. He fails to mention that. 7. Waste Risk This is actually a solved issue, there are special nuclear power plants that sole purpose is to "burn away" nuclear waste by producing elements with less half time. "To recap, new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh (between 2.3 to 7.4 times depending upon location and integration issues)." This is extremely stupid observation. Leaving out crucial facts (like having base and peak power plants) and comparing apples to oranges.

imtringued 7y ago
>Nuclear energy is the cheapest source of energy once you take into consideration all the aspects of an energy grid. This is why Germany is buying energy from France instead of building renewables only. This is the funniest thing I have read all day. Seriously I can't stop laughing. Ok let's be serious. It has more to do with the incompetence of the government parties than with the technologies involved. The renewable percentage grew to 47% from 40% in 2018. The reason is that we are being cooked alive by the hot weather, not because the government is acting intelligently. That 7% increase is effectively a 40GWh increase which is 4 times the amount Germany is importing from France. There is no shortage of energy, just a total lack of political willpower to do anything. Even without France, Germany could just turn off one of it's coal plants and use more of it's gas plants to solve the intermittency issue because gas plants produce half as much CO2 as coal plants. Sure it makes sense to keep the old plants running because that way we can turn off coal earlier and decommission the nuclear plants only when they reach their maximum lifespan. But it's too late now. Nuclear power clearly is no longer the answer to decarbonizing Germany's electricity market.
- the_why_of_y 7y ago
  No, the reason is rather that Germany, due to its central location, imports and exports a lot of energy. The net imports from France are dwarfed by net exports to the other neighboring countries, the sum of which is about 6-7 times as large. https://www.energy-charts.de/exchange.htm?source=de_pf&year=2018 https://www.energy-charts.de/exchange.htm?source=de_pf&year=...