6 ms·

> Some industrial processes can’t easily be electrified because they require too much heat. One possible alternative is to get the heat from a next-generation n

> Some industrial processes can’t easily be electrified because they require too much heat. One possible alternative is to get the heat from a next-generation nuclear plant. Glad to see this. I take any future large-scale green energy initiative as unserious if it doesn’t take an honest look and consideration at new nuclear energy power plants.

godelski 7y ago
There's three necessities I see in a green scale initiative: carbon tax, nuclear, and sequestration (CC). I also have a hard time taking anyone serially if they don't talk about how we need a diversified energy portfolio nor understand the difficulties of energy density. I feel like many repeat popular points but do not spend time trying to understand. I think that's how we get politicians that consider climate change as one of their top priorities saying that geoengineering and CC are "false solutions". I also don't know any climatologist who isn't pro nuclear (which means nuclear + renewables, not nuclear vs renewables). The IPCC endorses the use of nuclear power too[0]. Being anti nuclear seems to me, as a scientist, anti-scientific. Since it is against what the scientists studying this are recommending. [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/press/press-statements/the-ipcc-1-5c-special-report-nuclear-energy%E2%80%99s-impo.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/press/press-statements/the-ipc...
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Nuclear for power no longer makes sense; wind, solar and batteries are just too cheap. Nuclear for heat makes more sense.
  - Reedx 7y ago
    Bill Gates explains that batteries are still orders of magnitude too expensive to be a complete solution: https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=520 https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=520
  - dev_dull 7y ago
    Can you explain more about why they don't make sense? My understanding is that they're extremely desirable. They're a drop-in replacement for millions of hydrocarbon plants. They can scale up/down with demand. They produce enormous amounts of energy and emit no C02. Think of the materials and industrial waste to produce 1 nuclear power plant versus all of the battery, solar cells, and turbines to equal the same in power and scalability. Besides, why do the technologies need to be exclusive? Shouldn't we be using them all where it makes sense?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Cost [1]. Time from breaking ground to "permission to operate" as well (even if you cut red tape and systemize manufacturing of nuclear generators, you will not be as fast as wind, solar, and batteries). Solar PV Thin Film Utility Scale: $36-$44/MWh | Onshore Wind: $29-$56/MWh | Nuclear: $112-$189/MWh Can you build nuclear faster than the rest of the world can build and install PV solar and onshore/offshore wind turbines? Unlikely. Tesla installed the Hornsdale Power Reserve in 90 days. Bigger utility scale battery systems will take longer, but no where near 10 years. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
      - seren 7y ago
        Except that nuclear is running 24/7 even if it is not windy (minus the costly maintenance). As long as we don't have a superconductor grid around whole hemisphere, it seems to be the best way to generate power at night.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        If it was the best, the entire US commercial generator fleet wouldn't be on death's door due to the economics. If you want to subsidize the last 59 US nuclear plants based on their low CO2 emissions, extending their operating license (if it can be done safely) until cleaner base load arrives, that's a sound decision. Building more nuclear is not. I question if we even have the fortitude to fund safe cleanup of existing decommissioned plants (spent rod casks have been sitting onsite in Zion, IL 19 years after that nuclear generator has been shut down, with nowhere to go [1]). Batteries will get cheaper faster than nuclear ever will, considering every automaker is moving to electric vehicles [2]. [1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/resizer/8tYxXLAlIOkm61zbZmVII2qJKTc=/800x449/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/XYNK64ANGVCDFMWJNUHSU6THAE.jpg https://www.chicagotribune.com/resizer/8tYxXLAlIOkm61zbZmVII... [2] https://about.bnef.com/blog/energy-storage-investments-boom-battery-costs-halve-next-decade/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/energy-storage-investments-boom-... (Energy Storage Investments Boom As Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade)
- smackthatthro 7y ago
  Anti-scientific, or we learned from our mistakes? We can barely build a bridge that lasts for 50 years, but somehow we are going to magically build containment units for waste which last 1,000s? The science has shown us that Nuclear electricity is incredibly dangerous, and that humans are mostly too incompetent to maintain it safely. I say this as the child of a Nuclear Physicist who spent half of his life working on weapons, and half at a power plant. Dad didn't think we were up to the responsibility either. I was just in Belarus, a friend of mine told me that since Chernobyl 20 members of her family have died of cancer. Cancer isn't fun, I will tell you from experience. There's more to consider than "does it work in the lab?" and "will it be cheaper"?.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Options for death are basically either heart attack, cancer or other [0]. Cancer is horrible, but that isn't a very telling example without more detail. > We can barely build a bridge that lasts for 50 years, but somehow we are going to magically build containment units for waste which last 1,000s? We've had nuclear power for ~70 years. There is a very high likelihood that if we push on with nuclear power we will either be reprocessing that 'waste' for fuel at some point or it will be inert enough that it doesn't really matter. The idea that we in 2019 need to take responsibility for the next 15 generations is absurd. Anyone who tried that at any point in the past would have been at best wasting their time; technology has moved too quickly. Our ancestors might as well have worried that by 2019 we'd look back on them with contempt for not leaving us a strategic 10t reserve of bronze for forging our swords and shields. The biggest risk is that in 60 years they will dig it up and hurl it at their enemies, on purpose, as a dirty bomb. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
  - lozenge 7y ago
    Coal based power causes 800,000 premature deaths every year, can we shut them down for their incompetence?
  - godelski 7y ago
    >Anti-scientific, or we learned from our mistakes? I would say that when you are valuing the opinion of the public and/or political groups over the opinion the scientific consensus (i.e. the IPCC and other) then that is the definition of anti-scientific. (As to Chernobyl, I would also call building a positive void coefficient reactor is also anti-scientific, considering it was against recommendation).

godelski 7y ago

There's three necessities I see in a green scale initiative: carbon tax, nuclear, and sequestration (CC). I also have a hard time taking anyone serially if they don't talk about how we need a diversified energy portfolio nor understand the difficulties of energy density. I feel like many repeat popular points but do not spend time trying to understand. I think that's how we get politicians that consider climate change as one of their top priorities saying that geoengineering and CC are "false solutions". I also don't know any climatologist who isn't pro nuclear (which means nuclear + renewables, not nuclear vs renewables). The IPCC endorses the use of nuclear power too[0]. Being anti nuclear seems to me, as a scientist, anti-scientific. Since it is against what the scientists studying this are recommending. [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/press/press-statements/the-ipcc-1-5c-special-report-nuclear-energy%E2%80%99s-impo.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/press/press-statements/the-ipc...

bryanlarsen 7y ago
Nuclear for power no longer makes sense; wind, solar and batteries are just too cheap. Nuclear for heat makes more sense.
- Reedx 7y ago
  Bill Gates explains that batteries are still orders of magnitude too expensive to be a complete solution: https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=520 https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=520
- dev_dull 7y ago
  Can you explain more about why they don't make sense? My understanding is that they're extremely desirable. They're a drop-in replacement for millions of hydrocarbon plants. They can scale up/down with demand. They produce enormous amounts of energy and emit no C02. Think of the materials and industrial waste to produce 1 nuclear power plant versus all of the battery, solar cells, and turbines to equal the same in power and scalability. Besides, why do the technologies need to be exclusive? Shouldn't we be using them all where it makes sense?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Cost [1]. Time from breaking ground to "permission to operate" as well (even if you cut red tape and systemize manufacturing of nuclear generators, you will not be as fast as wind, solar, and batteries). Solar PV Thin Film Utility Scale: $36-$44/MWh | Onshore Wind: $29-$56/MWh | Nuclear: $112-$189/MWh Can you build nuclear faster than the rest of the world can build and install PV solar and onshore/offshore wind turbines? Unlikely. Tesla installed the Hornsdale Power Reserve in 90 days. Bigger utility scale battery systems will take longer, but no where near 10 years. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
    - seren 7y ago
      Except that nuclear is running 24/7 even if it is not windy (minus the costly maintenance). As long as we don't have a superconductor grid around whole hemisphere, it seems to be the best way to generate power at night.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        If it was the best, the entire US commercial generator fleet wouldn't be on death's door due to the economics. If you want to subsidize the last 59 US nuclear plants based on their low CO2 emissions, extending their operating license (if it can be done safely) until cleaner base load arrives, that's a sound decision. Building more nuclear is not. I question if we even have the fortitude to fund safe cleanup of existing decommissioned plants (spent rod casks have been sitting onsite in Zion, IL 19 years after that nuclear generator has been shut down, with nowhere to go [1]). Batteries will get cheaper faster than nuclear ever will, considering every automaker is moving to electric vehicles [2]. [1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/resizer/8tYxXLAlIOkm61zbZmVII2qJKTc=/800x449/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/XYNK64ANGVCDFMWJNUHSU6THAE.jpg https://www.chicagotribune.com/resizer/8tYxXLAlIOkm61zbZmVII... [2] https://about.bnef.com/blog/energy-storage-investments-boom-battery-costs-halve-next-decade/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/energy-storage-investments-boom-... (Energy Storage Investments Boom As Battery Costs Halve in the Next Decade)
smackthatthro 7y ago
Anti-scientific, or we learned from our mistakes? We can barely build a bridge that lasts for 50 years, but somehow we are going to magically build containment units for waste which last 1,000s? The science has shown us that Nuclear electricity is incredibly dangerous, and that humans are mostly too incompetent to maintain it safely. I say this as the child of a Nuclear Physicist who spent half of his life working on weapons, and half at a power plant. Dad didn't think we were up to the responsibility either. I was just in Belarus, a friend of mine told me that since Chernobyl 20 members of her family have died of cancer. Cancer isn't fun, I will tell you from experience. There's more to consider than "does it work in the lab?" and "will it be cheaper"?.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Options for death are basically either heart attack, cancer or other [0]. Cancer is horrible, but that isn't a very telling example without more detail. > We can barely build a bridge that lasts for 50 years, but somehow we are going to magically build containment units for waste which last 1,000s? We've had nuclear power for ~70 years. There is a very high likelihood that if we push on with nuclear power we will either be reprocessing that 'waste' for fuel at some point or it will be inert enough that it doesn't really matter. The idea that we in 2019 need to take responsibility for the next 15 generations is absurd. Anyone who tried that at any point in the past would have been at best wasting their time; technology has moved too quickly. Our ancestors might as well have worried that by 2019 we'd look back on them with contempt for not leaving us a strategic 10t reserve of bronze for forging our swords and shields. The biggest risk is that in 60 years they will dig it up and hurl it at their enemies, on purpose, as a dirty bomb. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
- lozenge 7y ago
  Coal based power causes 800,000 premature deaths every year, can we shut them down for their incompetence?
- godelski 7y ago
  >Anti-scientific, or we learned from our mistakes? I would say that when you are valuing the opinion of the public and/or political groups over the opinion the scientific consensus (i.e. the IPCC and other) then that is the definition of anti-scientific. (As to Chernobyl, I would also call building a positive void coefficient reactor is also anti-scientific, considering it was against recommendation).