6 ms·

You have to compare comparable things: in this case the comparable metric that is actually useful is "be able produce N GW of electricity with a 10% variation o

by rakoo 7y ago

You have to compare comparable things: in this case the comparable metric that is actually useful is "be able produce N GW of electricity with a 10% variation over a 60 year timespan". If you count this you'll have to account for the fact that solar and wind are intermittent, which means you'll need batteries or a reliable electricity source, and that's _always_ fossil based (typically gas). You also have to account for the fact that the expected lifespan of batteries and panels is around 30 years, so you have to buy them twice. In the other side, a nuclear plant does provide a reliable current, has a long lifespan, and turns out to be cheaper. Even the GIEC says so: we won't be able to efficiently reduce our greenhouse gases without nuclear.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
Speaking of comparing things correctly, what's supplying the peak power in this nuclear alternative? Are you accounting for the cost of sufficiently overbuilding nuclear and/or storage? Mostly people seem to fixate on nuclear supplying the legendary "baseload" and leave all the other power as someone else's problem. And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built (either solar and wind, which makes nuclear redundant or fossil, which makes it a non solution) then nuclear doesn't really pencil out.
- rakoo 7y ago
  Nuclear today is surprisingly flexible, so it's totally feasible to use it not just for the baseload but for more, like 75% to 90% of the needed power. Hint: there's a country that has shown this as a viable solution. > And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built I don't understand. Are you suggesting building a throwaway source of power until nuclear reactors are built ? That's not how things work. When there really isn't enough countries buy from neighbors. But I agree with your underlying point that building a plant takes a long time; that's why we need to stop being freaked out already and start building them, so we can get rid of all those coal plants.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    You're referring to France, the government of which is planning to phase out nuclear in favour of wind and solar and projecting that it will save them billions. So they don't seem particularly convinced by your argument. They also are one of the largest power exporters in the world, which doesn't really scale up unless we start exporting power to mars. But regardless of those two separate fatal flaws, I don't think wind/solar advocates would be let off by nuclear advocates if they just handwaved away 10-25% of power and just ignored costs because the extra money would come from hidden subsidies to a nationalised energy sector so I don't see why the reverse isn't fair.
    - rakoo 7y ago
      The problem is ecology isn't run by facts anymore, it is run by feelings. The French government will have spent 120 billion dollars to fund intermittent energies. All that money will reduce the nuclear part of the mix to replace it with another source that won't provide more than 10% of the electricity yet will pollute more. Even the Cour des Comptes is complaining that this is absurd and that money should have been spent elsewhere to have actual results (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le-cout-des-enr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comp... in french, didn't find other source).
      - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
        The French Nuclear eventually needs replaced by something, either more nuclear or renewable, as it's bearing its end of life. That makes them not too different from any other nation, and they've made the same decision as every other nation, which is that nuclear is too expensive and slow to be considered. So I agree that other things should be done as well but unless someone has some secret method of building cheap nuclear that they're not sharing then France will spend 120 Billion to replace nuclear with renewables because the alternative would cost even more.
        rakoo 7y ago
benj111 7y ago
There discussion today that addresses this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317168 "a reliable electricity source, and that's _always_ fossil based" Hydro, bio fuels? And don't forget that big nuclear reactor will need maintenance, so you'll need overprovisioning just like wind and solar. Ps "be able produce N GW of electricity with a 10% variation over a 60 year timespan" I know you're attempting to compare like with like, but there isn't any inherent reason why this should be the case. Just because the grid has been based on a certain model in the past, doesn't mean we can't use a different model in the future.
- rakoo 7y ago
  Ok so you're actually saying that we should not only approve of those, but also pay to change a working grid ? When there's a perfectly vlaid and working solution ? If it ain't broke, shouldn't we not fix it ?
  - benj111 7y ago
    It is broken, it relies on pumping tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere, so there does clearly need to be a fix. Should the fix be nuclear or something else? That's the question. Nuclear is expensive, slow to build, but worst of all, it doesn't have the political support. Personally I'm not against nuclear, you get someone to build it then I'll support it, but I don't want to spend time talking other people round to the idea when we could and should be doing something now.
    - rakoo 7y ago
      Yep, here's the central point of contention: do we build nuclear that emits little CO2 but needs public support, or intermittent sources that pollutes tens of times more for an equivalent service ? Is the priority feel-goodness about what we're doing, or actually solving the problem ?
      - benj111 7y ago
        Where's your figure for polluting ten times more? If this is all from (currently) dirty electric grids, then aren't you arguing against cleaning up the grid, because the grid is dirty? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

by rakoo 7y ago

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

Speaking of comparing things correctly, what's supplying the peak power in this nuclear alternative? Are you accounting for the cost of sufficiently overbuilding nuclear and/or storage? Mostly people seem to fixate on nuclear supplying the legendary "baseload" and leave all the other power as someone else's problem. And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built (either solar and wind, which makes nuclear redundant or fossil, which makes it a non solution) then nuclear doesn't really pencil out.

rakoo 7y ago
Nuclear today is surprisingly flexible, so it's totally feasible to use it not just for the baseload but for more, like 75% to 90% of the needed power. Hint: there's a country that has shown this as a viable solution. > And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built I don't understand. Are you suggesting building a throwaway source of power until nuclear reactors are built ? That's not how things work. When there really isn't enough countries buy from neighbors. But I agree with your underlying point that building a plant takes a long time; that's why we need to stop being freaked out already and start building them, so we can get rid of all those coal plants.
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  You're referring to France, the government of which is planning to phase out nuclear in favour of wind and solar and projecting that it will save them billions. So they don't seem particularly convinced by your argument. They also are one of the largest power exporters in the world, which doesn't really scale up unless we start exporting power to mars. But regardless of those two separate fatal flaws, I don't think wind/solar advocates would be let off by nuclear advocates if they just handwaved away 10-25% of power and just ignored costs because the extra money would come from hidden subsidies to a nationalised energy sector so I don't see why the reverse isn't fair.
  - rakoo 7y ago
    The problem is ecology isn't run by facts anymore, it is run by feelings. The French government will have spent 120 billion dollars to fund intermittent energies. All that money will reduce the nuclear part of the mix to replace it with another source that won't provide more than 10% of the electricity yet will pollute more. Even the Cour des Comptes is complaining that this is absurd and that money should have been spent elsewhere to have actual results (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le-cout-des-enr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comp... in french, didn't find other source).
    - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
      The French Nuclear eventually needs replaced by something, either more nuclear or renewable, as it's bearing its end of life. That makes them not too different from any other nation, and they've made the same decision as every other nation, which is that nuclear is too expensive and slow to be considered. So I agree that other things should be done as well but unless someone has some secret method of building cheap nuclear that they're not sharing then France will spend 120 Billion to replace nuclear with renewables because the alternative would cost even more.
      - rakoo 7y ago

benj111 7y ago

There discussion today that addresses this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317168 "a reliable electricity source, and that's _always_ fossil based" Hydro, bio fuels? And don't forget that big nuclear reactor will need maintenance, so you'll need overprovisioning just like wind and solar. Ps "be able produce N GW of electricity with a 10% variation over a 60 year timespan" I know you're attempting to compare like with like, but there isn't any inherent reason why this should be the case. Just because the grid has been based on a certain model in the past, doesn't mean we can't use a different model in the future.

rakoo 7y ago
Ok so you're actually saying that we should not only approve of those, but also pay to change a working grid ? When there's a perfectly vlaid and working solution ? If it ain't broke, shouldn't we not fix it ?
- benj111 7y ago
  It is broken, it relies on pumping tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere, so there does clearly need to be a fix. Should the fix be nuclear or something else? That's the question. Nuclear is expensive, slow to build, but worst of all, it doesn't have the political support. Personally I'm not against nuclear, you get someone to build it then I'll support it, but I don't want to spend time talking other people round to the idea when we could and should be doing something now.
  - rakoo 7y ago
    Yep, here's the central point of contention: do we build nuclear that emits little CO2 but needs public support, or intermittent sources that pollutes tens of times more for an equivalent service ? Is the priority feel-goodness about what we're doing, or actually solving the problem ?
    - benj111 7y ago
      Where's your figure for polluting ten times more? If this is all from (currently) dirty electric grids, then aren't you arguing against cleaning up the grid, because the grid is dirty? That doesn't seem to make much sense.