6 ms·

Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio.

by ixtli 7y ago

Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio. This is difficult for people because it requires engaging in politics because these things are only as safe as they are well maintained. But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear plants running rather well, and we should be investing in many, many more.

option 7y ago
We absolutely need nuclear energy. 1) Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation (measured in death/per mwatt) 2) Once operational it is always on and will substitute for solar/wind when those are unavailable 3) Energy conservation long term is not an option - quality of life correlates with amount of energy consumed 4) imagine, what if, energy were so cheap that desalination is profitable in CA.
- sprafa 7y ago
  Someone pointed out recently that nuclear is only as safe as its operator - the Us Navy has never had a reactor accident for instance. Still the dangers are Chernobyl and Fukushima - uninhabitable areas where no one can go for generations.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Turns out, Chernobyl is pretty safe right now. Could be cleaned up with a Troop of Scouts with trash bags. Its the FUD surrounding 'nuclear' that keeps people out.
    - sprafa 7y ago
      Have you watched the show? The effort that was made to clear that are up was above and beyond what most people would consider reasonable.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Not the reactor; the town?
        sprafa 7y ago
        The ground being removed, the mass extermination of animals (although people have said its exaggerated in the show). Supposedly the cleanup was immensely expensive
  - option 7y ago
    that is not true. read about thorium reactor scenario with malicious operator - someone has an excellent Quora answer on this
  - option 7y ago
    Really? I actually grew up near Chernobyl and my parents still work on the plant (e.g. have been going there e every day for more than 30 years) Don’t believe everything you see on HBO shows. And no, radiation isn’t contagious and can’t (and did not) bring down the helicopter
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - sprafa 7y ago
      Are you saying te use of thousands of people to clean up that region is an invention?
dbspin 7y ago
This is what I'd describe as a 'narrowly rational view'. All other things being equal, x leads to y. In this case - political, economic and social conditions remaining in roughly the same range as they have since the post war period. This is quite frankly a wildly unsupported assumption - when compared to the span of human history, or even taking the 20th century into account (rather than merely the post war period). The idea that we should build devices which will become deadly (and indeed irreparable) under conditions of economic collapse, pandemic, conventional, let alone nuclear conflict, is utterly irrational. Over a long enough time line, all else is never equal. In the case of human culture and civilisation, that time line - i.e.: the duration of a stable society, let alone a stable post industrial society - isn't particularly long at all. And we have no good reason to assume that our current high volatile, tightly couple global economic system and political order will fare any better. And lets say you believe that we are for whatever reason living in some kind of stable 'end of history' period; need I remind anyone that California is home to the San Andreas Fault, which is long overdue to produce the so called 'big one' >7.0 mega quake.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Nuclear power plants do not "become deadly (and indeed irreparable) under conditions of economic collapse etc" outside of comic books. The power source that might apply to is hydro electric dams. Those dams won't stand forever without active maintenance, and the flood wave can sweep away entire cities.
  - Isinlor 7y ago
    Indeed. The best example is Banqiao Dam failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam Its failure in 1975 caused as many as 230,000 deaths. The death toll of this disaster was considered a state secret until 2005 when it was declassified.[4] According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province[13] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.
ajross 7y ago
> Conservationists need to [...] Nuclear boosters need to start showing numbers proving this point instead of taking potshots on HN. Nuclear needs to be worthwhile on a balance sheet before anyone is going to take it seriously. Even now, it's cheaper to build out wind and solar. And the new technologies are rapidly getting cheaper. Show numbers.
- imgabe 7y ago
  Wind and solar, no matter how cheap, are never going to be reliable sources of baseline power. They fluctuate, and something needs to keep producing power when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.
  - simmanian 7y ago
    Can't you build batteries to account for fluctuations?
  - makomk 7y ago
    "Baseline power" isn't all that useful. What we need to complement renewables is a reliable source of dispatchable power that can be turned on and off, preferably quickly. Nuclear ain't it. While it's possible to somewhat increase or decrease the output of a nuclear power plant, it's slow, operationally complex, and increases the already formidable costs of nuclear power. It's also not terribly common in the US due to licensing restrictions.
  - telchar 7y ago
    The assumption that baseline power is necessary seem like an unwarranted assumption to me, an idea that is unquestioned because that's the way things are done now. Maybe adequate provisioning of sufficiently uncorrelated, variable power sources combined with some storage is enough to replace all baseline and peak power sources. Maybe this can be done with less expense than nuclear + peaker plants. I haven't seen any nuclear proponents defend the necessity of the baseline power concept with an actual analysis showing that alternatives can't work though.
    - 7y ago
bonestamp2 7y ago
> these things are only as safe as they are well maintained If safety is the main concern that people have, we could also use a design like the Candu reactor that doesn't need enriched fuel sources. Of course, the other environmental concern is storing spent fuel. But, that seems like an acceptable problem to manage considering the impact of climate change itself.
- saalweachter 7y ago
  I mean, we're currently generating 37.1 billion tons per year of toxic waste[0] from our fossil fuel plants which is presently threatening life on Earth. [0] It's linguistically odd that CO2 is both "toxic" and a "waste product" but not really considered "toxic waste".
eloff 7y ago
Nuclear fanboys (and I'm one) need to make peace with the fact that we've regulated them out of existence. Building a new nuclear plant takes more time, costs more per MWh, and involves more risk than current solar + batteries. I think nuclear had great potential, and if we'd been innovating on it for the last 70 years like we have in other fields it would be competitive. But we didn't and it's not, and it's probably late to change the momentum on that. Batteries are now advancing rapidly and I expect the future to be solar and wind with energy storage as the bulk of our energy production.
- ixtli 7y ago
  Can you link me to some support of the claim about batteries? I'm always depressed with what i perceive as total stagnation on that front. Last i checked the way they store power grid-scale electricity is literally to pump water up hill then let it back down when they need it. That's how bad our battery tech is.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    Some recent utility scale battery project news: "NV Energy Announces ‘Hulkingly Big’ Solar-Plus-Storage Procurement" https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nv-energy-signs-a-whopping-1-2-gigawatts-of-solar-and-590-megawatts-of-stor https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nv-energy-signs... "‘Cheaper Than a Peaker’: NextEra Inks Massive Wind+Solar+Storage Deal in Oklahoma" https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nextera-inks-even-bigger-windsolarstorage-deal-with-oklahoma-cooperative https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nextera-inks-ev... "GlidePath Took on Storage in Texas. Now It Wants to Add Batteries to Wind" https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/glidepath-took-on-storage-in-texas-now-it-wants-to-add-it-to-wind https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/glidepath-took-...
csdreamer7 7y ago
> But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear plants running rather well, and we should be investing in many, many more. No we don't. The federal government didn't even mandate earthquake impacts for nuclear plants until 'after' the disasters in Japan. Nevada is still used as a dumping site that is overfilled with leaking nuclear waste. The Republican senator put a hold on Trump nominees until the DOE promised to eventually ship out some nuclear waste a few years after they illegally shipped the waste in. I found out the former after a PG&E outreach at my university that California was alone in most states over mandates on seismic fault planning for the nuclear industry. PG&E was trying to save the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. I felt that was a very pathetic overview of US regulatory framework. The latter was recently in the news (2 months ago?). > Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio. Disagree, your opinion is 10 years out of date from the facts. Solar and wind prices have collapsed well below nuclear and coal. Battery tech is advancing to be competitive towards baseload costs. Samsung plans to ship a graphene battery in cell phones. Makes me very curious towards how graphene can be used for battery plants. Renewables are already competitive in Australia. Despite lots of sun and coal baseload costs in Australia are very high due to industry and government corruption. https://www.inverse.com/article/51515-tesla-s-battery-has-already-saved-south-australia-a-huge-amount-of-money https://www.inverse.com/article/51515-tesla-s-battery-has-al...
cam_l 7y ago
We are currently having some parliamentary inquiries in Australia to start a nuclear program. I have always been against talk of nuclear on two main grounds [0,1] (but against decommissioning existing plants). However a local economist has argued (and costed) for a way to make nuclear viable in this country. Tldr: a carbon price. https://johnquiggin.com/2019/08/23/what-price-nuclear-power/ https://johnquiggin.com/2019/08/23/what-price-nuclear-power/ [0] Time/Cost (in aus, this means 30yrs+ & tens of billions). Though in CA, this may be considerably less, it is unlikely to be as cheap short term as renewables or gas. [1] All the mines and dumping grounds in oz are in the middle of sensitive habitats or traditional owners lands.

by ixtli 7y ago

option 7y ago

We absolutely need nuclear energy. 1) Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation (measured in death/per mwatt) 2) Once operational it is always on and will substitute for solar/wind when those are unavailable 3) Energy conservation long term is not an option - quality of life correlates with amount of energy consumed 4) imagine, what if, energy were so cheap that desalination is profitable in CA.

sprafa 7y ago
Someone pointed out recently that nuclear is only as safe as its operator - the Us Navy has never had a reactor accident for instance. Still the dangers are Chernobyl and Fukushima - uninhabitable areas where no one can go for generations.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Turns out, Chernobyl is pretty safe right now. Could be cleaned up with a Troop of Scouts with trash bags. Its the FUD surrounding 'nuclear' that keeps people out.
  - sprafa 7y ago
    Have you watched the show? The effort that was made to clear that are up was above and beyond what most people would consider reasonable.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Not the reactor; the town?
      - sprafa 7y ago
        The ground being removed, the mass extermination of animals (although people have said its exaggerated in the show). Supposedly the cleanup was immensely expensive
- option 7y ago
  that is not true. read about thorium reactor scenario with malicious operator - someone has an excellent Quora answer on this
- option 7y ago
  Really? I actually grew up near Chernobyl and my parents still work on the plant (e.g. have been going there e every day for more than 30 years) Don’t believe everything you see on HBO shows. And no, radiation isn’t contagious and can’t (and did not) bring down the helicopter
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - sprafa 7y ago
    Are you saying te use of thousands of people to clean up that region is an invention?

dbspin 7y ago

This is what I'd describe as a 'narrowly rational view'. All other things being equal, x leads to y. In this case - political, economic and social conditions remaining in roughly the same range as they have since the post war period. This is quite frankly a wildly unsupported assumption - when compared to the span of human history, or even taking the 20th century into account (rather than merely the post war period). The idea that we should build devices which will become deadly (and indeed irreparable) under conditions of economic collapse, pandemic, conventional, let alone nuclear conflict, is utterly irrational. Over a long enough time line, all else is never equal. In the case of human culture and civilisation, that time line - i.e.: the duration of a stable society, let alone a stable post industrial society - isn't particularly long at all. And we have no good reason to assume that our current high volatile, tightly couple global economic system and political order will fare any better. And lets say you believe that we are for whatever reason living in some kind of stable 'end of history' period; need I remind anyone that California is home to the San Andreas Fault, which is long overdue to produce the so called 'big one' >7.0 mega quake.

BurningFrog 7y ago
Nuclear power plants do not "become deadly (and indeed irreparable) under conditions of economic collapse etc" outside of comic books. The power source that might apply to is hydro electric dams. Those dams won't stand forever without active maintenance, and the flood wave can sweep away entire cities.
- Isinlor 7y ago
  Indeed. The best example is Banqiao Dam failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam Its failure in 1975 caused as many as 230,000 deaths. The death toll of this disaster was considered a state secret until 2005 when it was declassified.[4] According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province[13] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.

ajross 7y ago

> Conservationists need to [...] Nuclear boosters need to start showing numbers proving this point instead of taking potshots on HN. Nuclear needs to be worthwhile on a balance sheet before anyone is going to take it seriously. Even now, it's cheaper to build out wind and solar. And the new technologies are rapidly getting cheaper. Show numbers.

imgabe 7y ago
Wind and solar, no matter how cheap, are never going to be reliable sources of baseline power. They fluctuate, and something needs to keep producing power when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.
- simmanian 7y ago
  Can't you build batteries to account for fluctuations?
- makomk 7y ago
  "Baseline power" isn't all that useful. What we need to complement renewables is a reliable source of dispatchable power that can be turned on and off, preferably quickly. Nuclear ain't it. While it's possible to somewhat increase or decrease the output of a nuclear power plant, it's slow, operationally complex, and increases the already formidable costs of nuclear power. It's also not terribly common in the US due to licensing restrictions.
- telchar 7y ago
  The assumption that baseline power is necessary seem like an unwarranted assumption to me, an idea that is unquestioned because that's the way things are done now. Maybe adequate provisioning of sufficiently uncorrelated, variable power sources combined with some storage is enough to replace all baseline and peak power sources. Maybe this can be done with less expense than nuclear + peaker plants. I haven't seen any nuclear proponents defend the necessity of the baseline power concept with an actual analysis showing that alternatives can't work though.
  - 7y ago

bonestamp2 7y ago

> these things are only as safe as they are well maintained If safety is the main concern that people have, we could also use a design like the Candu reactor that doesn't need enriched fuel sources. Of course, the other environmental concern is storing spent fuel. But, that seems like an acceptable problem to manage considering the impact of climate change itself.

saalweachter 7y ago
I mean, we're currently generating 37.1 billion tons per year of toxic waste[0] from our fossil fuel plants which is presently threatening life on Earth. [0] It's linguistically odd that CO2 is both "toxic" and a "waste product" but not really considered "toxic waste".

eloff 7y ago

Nuclear fanboys (and I'm one) need to make peace with the fact that we've regulated them out of existence. Building a new nuclear plant takes more time, costs more per MWh, and involves more risk than current solar + batteries. I think nuclear had great potential, and if we'd been innovating on it for the last 70 years like we have in other fields it would be competitive. But we didn't and it's not, and it's probably late to change the momentum on that. Batteries are now advancing rapidly and I expect the future to be solar and wind with energy storage as the bulk of our energy production.

ixtli 7y ago
Can you link me to some support of the claim about batteries? I'm always depressed with what i perceive as total stagnation on that front. Last i checked the way they store power grid-scale electricity is literally to pump water up hill then let it back down when they need it. That's how bad our battery tech is.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  Some recent utility scale battery project news: "NV Energy Announces ‘Hulkingly Big’ Solar-Plus-Storage Procurement" https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nv-energy-signs-a-whopping-1-2-gigawatts-of-solar-and-590-megawatts-of-stor https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nv-energy-signs... "‘Cheaper Than a Peaker’: NextEra Inks Massive Wind+Solar+Storage Deal in Oklahoma" https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nextera-inks-even-bigger-windsolarstorage-deal-with-oklahoma-cooperative https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nextera-inks-ev... "GlidePath Took on Storage in Texas. Now It Wants to Add Batteries to Wind" https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/glidepath-took-on-storage-in-texas-now-it-wants-to-add-it-to-wind https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/glidepath-took-...

csdreamer7 7y ago

> But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear plants running rather well, and we should be investing in many, many more. No we don't. The federal government didn't even mandate earthquake impacts for nuclear plants until 'after' the disasters in Japan. Nevada is still used as a dumping site that is overfilled with leaking nuclear waste. The Republican senator put a hold on Trump nominees until the DOE promised to eventually ship out some nuclear waste a few years after they illegally shipped the waste in. I found out the former after a PG&E outreach at my university that California was alone in most states over mandates on seismic fault planning for the nuclear industry. PG&E was trying to save the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. I felt that was a very pathetic overview of US regulatory framework. The latter was recently in the news (2 months ago?). > Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio. Disagree, your opinion is 10 years out of date from the facts. Solar and wind prices have collapsed well below nuclear and coal. Battery tech is advancing to be competitive towards baseload costs. Samsung plans to ship a graphene battery in cell phones. Makes me very curious towards how graphene can be used for battery plants. Renewables are already competitive in Australia. Despite lots of sun and coal baseload costs in Australia are very high due to industry and government corruption. https://www.inverse.com/article/51515-tesla-s-battery-has-already-saved-south-australia-a-huge-amount-of-money https://www.inverse.com/article/51515-tesla-s-battery-has-al...

cam_l 7y ago

We are currently having some parliamentary inquiries in Australia to start a nuclear program. I have always been against talk of nuclear on two main grounds [0,1] (but against decommissioning existing plants). However a local economist has argued (and costed) for a way to make nuclear viable in this country. Tldr: a carbon price. https://johnquiggin.com/2019/08/23/what-price-nuclear-power/ https://johnquiggin.com/2019/08/23/what-price-nuclear-power/ [0] Time/Cost (in aus, this means 30yrs+ & tens of billions). Though in CA, this may be considerably less, it is unlikely to be as cheap short term as renewables or gas. [1] All the mines and dumping grounds in oz are in the middle of sensitive habitats or traditional owners lands.