23 ms·
Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says
- philipkglass 6y agoI hope that the federal government can provide incentives to keep reactors running that would otherwise close prematurely. 5.1 gigawatts of American reactors are expected to retire this year: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46436 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46436 It's a shame that the US is retiring working reactors while still burning fossil fuels for electricity. Reactors are far safer and cleaner than fossil electric generation. It's mostly the low price of natural gas that is driving these early retirements. Low gas prices have also retired a lot of coal usage -- which is good! -- but we'd make more climate progress if those low prices didn't also threaten nuclear generation. Some states like New York already provided incentives to keep reactors running for climate reasons: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534 Federal policy could be more comprehensive.
- DennisAleynikov 6y agoif we are to come out the other side of this climate emergency we must keep our reactors online. the purity testing of what do we do with the waste is not helpful critique when we are still reliant on coal
- snuxoll 6y agoThe ignorance of the externalities of fossil fuels and a bipolar hyper focus on those of nuclear energy is mind boggling at this point. I’m all for developing renewables, but we cannot abandon the one good technology we have for generating massive amounts of energy our base loads demand without polluting our air.
- SCHiM 6y agoIndeed that is the strangest thing. By _any_ metric coal is far worse. Even the metric "amount of radioactive material that ended up in the atmosphere per watt of energy." (Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material, that gets spread when burned). The fact of the matter is, that we can dump all our waste on a couple of football fields worth of space. Or even better: store it in a cave somewhere deep and dark and away from rivers.
- Multicomp 6y agoThis is probably one of those hacker news comments where it sounds good for 1 second then when you stop to think about it it falls apart, bu here goes. throw the waste in a bucket strong enough to survive hitting earth at terminal velocitty. place bucket in spacex falcon9 rocket. launch rocket into orbit with escape velocity. watch nuclear waste vanish into vacuum of space forever. if crash, collect bucket and restart with new rocket. financially costly? yes. solves the 'what about in 5000 years when someone opens it or it leaks?' questions, yes.
- cperciva 6y agoThe standard answer is "there's too much of a risk that an explosion would spread nuclear waste through the atmosphere". These days I'm not sure if it's true -- we've learned a lot about building containers which are safe even during rapid unscheduled disassemblies, and used them e.g. when sending nuclear powered rovers to Mars -- but that's the usual concern.
- throwaway894345 6y agoI mean we’re wishing for a bucket that can survive terminal velocity impact with the earth and is yet light enough to ride a rocket, why not add to that wish that it could survive explosion from said rocket?
- perardi 6y agoI think there’s a few orders of magnitude difference in the amount of radioactive material in an RTG in a probe bounds for Mars, and the total radioactive daughter particle output of a nuclear reactor.
- thisisbrians 6y agoThe way I think about the waste: for nuclear, the waste can be reliably (and safely) contained in a very small area, far from civilization and habitats, where it can't cause much of a problem. When we burn hydrocarbons, they pollute the atmosphere — for the entire planet.
- notJim 6y agoI couldn't agree more. Retiring reactors before a green replacement is available has been a total disaster for Germany. To be honest, I'm pretty agnostic as to what the replacement is, but at least keep them going until it's available.
- rjzzleep 6y agoit's basically what happens when decisions are made only based on ratings to get you through the next 4 years, instead of long term strategy.
- legulere 6y agoI would call it unwise, but there has been no disaster. Electricity production through fossil fuels went down, renewables reached 50% last year while Germany still has one of the most stable electricity network worldwide: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/dateien/3_abb_bruttostromerzeugung-et_2020-02-25.pdf https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...
- effie 6y ago50% of german electric energy production is from high availability sources (nuclear+fossil fuels) and Germany's network is connected to the continental network, so of course the network is stable. It will be hard to get these sources down and maintain that stability. Maybe it can be done with energy storage, but so far it is not built.
- legulere 6y agoThose fears have been discussed endlessly. Just look at the graph I posted to see the change in the last years that is still continuing. Availability has nothing to do with what you are talking about (it’s much higher for photovoltaics anyway). Out of the 49.5% non-renewables only gas which makes up 12.5 percent of electricity can really be used to follow demand. Coal and nuclear are too slow for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/news/2020/nettostromerzeugung-in-deutschland-2021-erneuerbare-energien-erstmals-ueber-50-prozent.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/news/2020...
- legulere 6y agoThe question needs to be asked how new power plants that have to cope with much higher building costs can be more cost-efficient than already existing ones. It’s not like that nuclear has any cost-cutting progress like wind and photovoltaics still have.
- andrewlgood 6y agoExactly
- antattack 6y agoAbout Iowas Duane Arnold plant that is being closed: "The Mark I containment was undersized in the original design; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Harold Denton estimated a 90% probability of explosive failure if the pressure containment system were ever needed in a severe accident.[18] This design flaw may have been the reason that the tsunami in 2011 led to explosions and fire in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.[19]" (Wikipedia) It's likely that many old power plants are just not safe and too costly to operate reliably.
- lumost 6y agoThe follow-on question is why aren't these plants retrofitted to be secure? I'd somewhat naively expect that its simpler to upgrade an existing plant than permit a new plant in.a separate location.
- antattack 6y agoDuane Arnold plant is being replaced with solar panels and battery storage: https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/duane-arnold-nuclear-plant-solar-farm-nextera-energy-palo-ia-20210318 https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/duane-arnol...
- belorn 6y agoA 615-megawatt facility coupled with 60 megawatts seems a bit low on the storage side. The more common approach I have seen with solar panels is 75% capacity for about 3-4 hours running time. It should be quite clear that neither solution are even close to enough power to bridge the gap and require additional energy in the form of fossil fuels. It will be less fossil fuels than if the nuclear plant was exclusively replaced with fossil fuels, but it will be more fossil fuels than before and it will be adding to global warming in a time where the planet can't take more.
- benchaney 6y agoIt’s possible that it would be more expensive to upgrade than to replace in many cases. While I support expanding nuclear power capabilities in general, a straightforward rule like “don’t decommission old plants as long as fossil fuels are still being used” seems dangerous and irresponsible.
- imtringued 6y agoThat's incredibly stupid. Do you really want to waste your budget on expensive disaster cleanup of a single nuclear power plant? If you decommission old nuclear power plants you save the 200 billion needed to clean them up in an accident (think of Fukushima). That money could have been used to build 5 modern power plants and do a non disaster cleanup of the old power plant.
- andrewlgood 6y agoYou don't waste your budget on either. You build solar/wind with natural gas combined cycles. Then you shut down the existing nuclear plant that is hemorrhaging cash and never build the new nuclear. The only new nuclear power plant under construction in the US is Georgia Power's Vogtle 3/4. As described above it is incredibly over budget. What investor would seek to try again? It is not like we build 1,000 of these a year and the industry get more adept. We are building 2 units over 10 years.
- andrewlgood 6y agoNuclear power plants have become incredibly expensive to operate. You are correct that some states such as NY, IL, and MA have provided subsidies, but these have been about saving jobs and tax base, not as much about the government. In NY the subsidy is for the Rochester-area plants, not Indian Point. Indian Point produces 12% of the state's power and an even larger % of power for NYC. In Ohio, the subsidies we so large they led to bribery payments of $60 million by FirstEnergy (former owner of the nuclear plants) to the Ohio Speaker of the House. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal Low gas prices have accelerated the decision to close down existing nuclear power plants as gas prices look to be low for the foreseeable future thus keeping power prices low. As for new nuclear, I do not think there will be anymore after the Vogtle 3/4 plants are online. The certified construction and capital costs were estimated at $14 billion in 2017. In 2018 the costs were estimated upward to $25 billion. Analysts are now estimating an additional $1-2 billion due to COVID. With the estimated completion dates of Nov 21 and Nov 22 likely being pushed back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... A sister set of plants (Westinghouse AP1000) design were begun in South Carolina (Summer 2/3). In 2008, costs were estimated at $9.8 billion. Project was cancelled in July of 2017 after $9 billion spent and total cost to complete was estimated at $25 billion. We do not know how to build new nuclear power plants even remotely cost effectively. The French have tried and it bankrupted their lead nuclear developer, Areva, in 2016. China has built some new nuclear power plants, but has not started a new one in a number of years. One last side note, another item damaging nuclear power plants, particularly in the Midwest is the structure of the subsidy for wind power. Wind power tax credits are a Production Tax Credit (PTC). To earn the tax credit, the wind turbine must generate power into the grid. As a consequence, wind turbines have a tax incentive to produce power in negative price environments (e.g. overnight). Nuclear power plants cannot turn on and off easily so they end up paying to produce power at these negative price time. Not helpful for profitability.
- einrealist 6y agoYeah, and lets just ignore the waste and emissions that it generates at all other fronts (building the plant and materials for it, mining and processing of the fuel, processing and storage of spend fuel, disassembly of the plant). "_Clean_" nuclear energy is and will always be a fairy tale! Edit: Emphasized the word "Clean". I am not per se against Nuclear. Anyway, keep downvoting my opinion.
- dudul 6y agoTaking your other fronts into account, what is a clean energy?
- sesuximo 6y agoBeggars can’t be choosers. We have a lot of constraints and not a lot of options.
- sand500 6y agoCoal energy puts out more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuclear power. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- politician 6y agoLearn about Small Modular Reactors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yofGtxEgpI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yofGtxEgpI8
- biren34 6y agoIn modern politics, you simply cannot defend your left flank
- cthalupa 6y agoEasily outweighed by the savings in emissions over the lifetime of the plant. Generation 3 and 3 "Advanced" reactors already generate significantly less waste than the Gen2 reactors that make up the majority in operation. Generation 4 reactors are in the design phase (some with proven technology, others with technology that is scientifically sound in theory but need some additional advances made) that reduce it by even larger amounts. Even Gen2 reactors with all their faults over their lifetime are a huge net win over coal and gas fired power plants. Producing photovoltaic panels generates tons of waste, as well, much of it quite toxic to humans and generally bad for the environment. Even building wind turbines isn't a perfectly clean task. Our primary problem at this point is carbon emissions. Nuclear is a very viable option for significantly reducing them even at current technology levels, and with huge strides on the way.
- guscost 6y agoNow this is the only way to get my stubborn libertarian ass on board with a more "green" agenda. I remain suspicious that it is bullshit, though, since the nuclear industry doesn't employ a lot of voters.
- epistasis 6y agoI support including nuclear here too, simply because nuclear is only useful in a culture war. New nuclear is a complete financial boondoggle. I'm always surprised to find any libertarian support for it however, as nuclear is the project of big government. It requires massive financial insurance that only governments are willing to provide. And in the US, it has been such a financial disaster that utilities run far away from nuclear for fear of bankruptcy. The only way that we started two new nuclear construction projects in the mid 2000s was because the state legislature was bought off, and allowed utility monopolies to charge customers for the construction of the project whether or not it finished, completly socializing the financial risks of construction through government force. And in South Carolina, the after spending $9B of utility rate payer money, the project was abandoned as in feasible to complete. So the libertarian support for nuclear always has me completely puzzled. Without government coercion, it would never get built again. But then, I'm the complete opposite of a libertarian, so I'm probably misunderstanding something of the motivation. I would be interested to hear how a libertarian could support a new nuclear project.
- guscost 6y agoInsurance is what cripples these projects financially, and the insurance rates are based on a woeful misunderstanding of the risks, driven by media fear-mongering about Fukushima and other passive-safe reactors. The bad PR is probably assisted by oil companies - Friends of the Earth was originally funded by an oil baron[0]. But if you would rather fall back on hydrocarbon energy for baseline power, and pray to Elon for magic batteries someday, feel free to vote the other way. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson
- deleted 6y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y agoWhy is fusion ignored?
- sand500 6y agoBecause it is always 50 years out.
- drran 6y agoWhy is the LENR ignored then?
- cthalupa 6y agoBecause at least regular fusion has significant and universally accepted empirical evidence of it even being fundamentally possible. LENR has had to have a name change because the primary connotation with cold fusion is a bunch of psuedoscience and bullshit. Yes, some real scientists have published some results that make continued study worthwhile, but if regular fusion is 50 years off, our indication is that LENR, if it's even possible, is 100.
- drran 6y agoWhy 100? I see no barrier to adopt the LENR worldwide in a short period of time, when the effect will be well understood and easy to reproduce.
- cthalupa 6y agoIf people outside of the LENR community could ever reproduce any of their experiments it would be a good start. I don't think the hundred or so scientists at a bunch of disparate universities are part of some conspiracy to push quack science, but something is up when there is no theoretical framework that even begins to explain your results, no one outside of your community can reproduce it, and your results are still just "well that's weird" vs. "we have something we can build off to actually produce energy"
- DangitBobby 6y agoWhat happens to reactors after 50 or 100 years of global/national decline due to environmental and geopolitical circumstances?
- politician 6y agoWould you be OK with putting the reactors on the Moon and beaming the power down to Earth?
- toomuchtodo 6y agoSure, 8 light minutes away sounds great. We’ll even get some light out of the transmission of energy to us and the waste is taken care of.
- Pfhreak 6y agoThe moon is much, much closer than 8 light minutes away. Are you thinking of the sun? It's already doing a good job at sending energy to us from nuclear reactions.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoThat’s the joke. The Sun is safe, cheap fusion at a distance. Enough sunlight hits the Earth in 30 minutes (I’ve seen figures as low as 2 minutes from the UAE, but am conservative for argument’s sake) to power humanity for a year.
- kergonath 6y agoWe’re never going to cover any significant portion of the Earth with solar panels, though. And the photoelectric effect has efficiency limits.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoCan you provide evidence why we wouldn’t or can’t? We are only limited by panel production and deployment rates. We’re not going to run out of land or raw materials.
- pinacarlos90 6y agoThere is a bad stigma associated with nuclear energy that I just don’t understand - Nuclear less impact to the environment when compared to other energy sources. What is is the problem with nuclear? Is it the cost of maintaining these power plants ?
- blacksmith_tb 6y agoUnfortunately I think it's mostly the association with nuclear weapons. That has added to the not-totally-unreasonable fear of accidents like Chernobyl, but without actually evaluating whether other existing power stations are equally at risk, or if building new (and especially smaller / different designs) would be safe.
- ceejayoz 6y agoThe average lay person knows "radiation is bad" and that Chernobyl blew up. That'll be about it. People will be genuinely surprised when you tell them it's usually the same old mechanism of most other power plants - heat boils water, which generates steam, which powers a turbine. They're also really surprised to find out a coal plant puts out more radioactivity. Same phenomenon as vaccines - people know very little about the mechanism, but have very strong opinions anyways.
- glogla 6y ago"Anti-nuclear people are the utility version of antivaxxers" has not just nice ring to it but quite a bite. I like it.
- effie 6y agoThere is a pretty important difference though. Vaccine is and should be a matter of personal/parent choice, because getting the vaccine is a per-person action and its benefits and risks concern only their health, not health of other people. The benefit/cost analysis is very different for different people, for some it is in favour of getting the vaccine, for some it is against. Vaccination program can and should respect individual peoples' wishes. While building more nuclear energy is a strategic country-scale decision that cannot respect all people wishes, only the majority's.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kart23 6y agoFun/Depressing fact: The USA has more floating reactors than reactors on land.
- alex_anglin 6y agoSource?
- toomuchtodo 6y agoUS Navy nuclear fleet. Caveat: US Navy is more responsible about operating its reactors than commercial generators.
- yellowapple 6y agoFurther caveat: it's arguably much easier to cool a reactor when said reactor floats on a literally-planet-covering heatsink.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoAbsolutely. Worse case scenario, you scuttle the vessel and the reactor is surrounded by a cooling medium in perpetuity.
- devoutsalsa 6y agoI think they're talking about the reactors in naval ships. The USA has little (any?) buoyant nuclear power generation for commercial use.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoIsn't Russia the only one that has tried that with ships?
- sand500 6y agoNuclear should absolutely replace fossil fuel baseload. There is an increasing difference between non solar generation during the day, and in the evening where there is no solar but demand is highest. Currently the difference is made up with natural gas peaker plants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
- unchocked 6y agoGreat news! France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, and it's a very plausible part of the solution. Relatedly I've been thinking about how to compare the moral culpability of anti-nuclear activists for climate change to that of oil companies. Are sins of preventing beneficial action comparable to sins of taking harmful action? Do intentions offset effects?
- Hammershaft 6y agoOpens up a can of worms into how intent factors into culpability.
- bigbob2 6y ago> Relatedly I've been thinking about how to compare the moral culpability of anti-nuclear activists for climate change to that of oil companies. Are sins of preventing beneficial action comparable to sins of taking harmful action? Do intentions offset effects? Seems like knowledge could come into play here. Someone could have made the same argument about coal 150 to 200 years ago because the data didn't yet exist to suggest it was harmful. From their perspective, coal could have looked better than the alternatives. Not sure how culpable activists would be in that scenario, at least relative to fossil fuel companies of today which deliberately release disinformation to their own benefit.
- unchocked 6y agoBut after 1988, everyone knew.
- manicdee 6y agoThe climate effects of burning coal were well known in the scientific community as early as 1856 (Eunice Foote) or 1859 (John Tyndall). Deliberate misinformation from fossil fuel companies has been around since at least 1991 when they published a film about climate change, "A Climate of Change."
- bigbob2 6y ago> The climate effects of burning coal were well known in the scientific community as early as 1856 (Eunice Foote) or 1859 (John Tyndall). So about 150 to 200 years ago... > Deliberate misinformation from fossil fuel companies has been around since at least 1991 when they published a film about climate change, "A Climate of Change." Exxon has actively fought to hide the dangers of climate change since the early 1980s. I think the film you're referring to was called "A Climate of Concern."
- m1117 6y ago+1
- kragen 6y agoNuclear energy is the Amiga of energy sources. Ahead of its time, it was unjustly rejected and persecuted by the ignorant masses. Its advocates are bonded by the quiet pride that at least they weren't unthinkingly siding with those masses. (And they're right!) Meanwhile, as the Amiga stagnated for terribly unfair reasons, other, scrappier technologies like the i386 and UMG-Si grew from being worthless boondoggles (except in special circumstances, like spaceflight) to being actually far better and cheaper. But the Amiga advocates keep the faith, sharing their suffering and resentment. They inevitably try the alternatives a little and perhaps even start to like them. Gradually their denial recedes, decade by decade. But they know that however much fab costs go down and leave their beloved Amiga behind in the dust, you'll never be able to run nuclear submarines and Antarctic research stations on solar panels. — ⁂ — Wind, where available, undercut the cost of steam power (including nuclear and coal) a decade ago, and PV undercut it in equatorial parts of the world about four years ago, or in even more of the world if you don't include storage. As a result, last year, China, whose electrical consumption has doubled in the last decade, built 48.2 gigawatts† of new photovoltaic capacity last year https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-climatechange-idUSKBN29Q0JT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-climatechang... but only has, I think, something like 10 GW of nuclear plants under construction, scheduled to come online over the next several years. PV installed capacity in China is growing by 23% per year, the same rate it has been growing worldwide for the last few years; with some luck that will return to the 39%-yearly-worldwide-growth trend that has been the fairly consistent average over the last 28 years.‡ (A previous version was posted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218673.) ______ † China's PV capacity factor seems to be only about 13%, so those 48 GWp probably work out to only about 6 GW average. It would be nice if China managed to site its new PV plants in places that could provide a capacity factor like California's 28%. ‡ Why 28? Because I haven't found figures yet on what worldwide installed capacity was in 01992 or earlier.
- pan69 6y ago> Nuclear energy is the Amiga of energy sources. > Ahead of its time, it was unjustly rejected and persecuted by the ignorant masses. There is a documentary by Adam Curtis that basically describes this scenario (except for the Amiga part). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a0V2JFh6vY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a0V2JFh6vY
- sto_hristo 6y agoFor the massive amount of demonization nuclear got, it's still being developed and moving forward. Modular nuclear reactors will be the next leap, which will provide cheaper and faster to build power plants. Wind, solar are simply a vogue for the look-at-me trendy selfie people, a political platform for the ones seeking easy office, and easy cash grab for the sharks. All these are transient things that will eventually go away. Nuclear is the only viable future as far as current physics are concerned.
- effie 6y agoSolar and wind could be long term solution if we get enough energy storage available - flywheels, gravity and electric batteries.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoFinally we're starting to make some headway. Keep the ones we have running (as long as they are legitimately safe) and quintuple the current number and we'll be off to a good start with clean energy. Also up the solar, wind, and offshore wind as well as incentives to switch to electrivity
- leecarraher 6y agoI don't see anything in the plan about reviving the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. This is a key storage facility that's been used as a political scapegoat for far too long. No one lives near the facility, it's set in one of the lowest seismically active areas in the US, has almost no possibility of leaching waste material into groundwater and the environment. Yet people will fight tooth-and-nail against it for what, to preserve dry cask storage in people's actual backyards, in populated areas, with undetermined contamination risks.
- numpad0 6y agoMy conspiracy headcanon is governments don’t want spent fuel gone because they are strategic asset and not waste despite the phraseology.
- de6u99er 6y agoI'd argue it epends on how you define clean energy, because nuclear waste is still an unsolved oroblem and a ticking timebomb. Typing this on my phone while watching Godzilla vs. Kong ;)
- effie 6y ago> nuclear waste is still an unsolved oroblem and a ticking timebomb. This is nonsense. Yes nuclear waste from power plants has its specifics, but we know what to do with it since 40's. There is no real problem with it.
- standardUser 6y agoI'm a convert. I was anti-nuclear power, now I am pro with a boatload of caveats. As a person who changed their mind, let me offer this advice to the people commenting here. Don't pretend there aren't legitimate concerns with nuclear power. Accidents did in fact happen and, given enough time and more reactors, will absolutely happen again. That's not a reason not to build more nuclear power, but let's not play make-believe about it. Don't pretend that just because we are better at handling nuclear waste it is a solved problem. It isn't. A hundred-fold increase in nuclear power generation would be a roughly hundred-fold increase in nuclear waste that must be stored away from all life for several hundred years (until we develop technology to resolve the issue, likely long after we're all dead). And maybe most importantly, acknowledge that nuclear energy is far more expensive than other green energy options and, even if we could drive down the cost, it will not solve all our problems. It is, at best, a big part of the solution, not "the" solution.
- krasin 6y agoThe new types of reactors can run on the "standard" nuclear waste: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-proposes-new-closed-fuel-cycle https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-proposes-new-... In Russia, they are slowly getting adoption. Not only that allows to use the same fuel twice (so, cheaper energy), the end result is significantly less radioactive and does not contain isotopes with ~10k years life, which are short enough to be dangerous and long enough to be a hassle to store. A hundred fold increase in the reactors will mean that the new closed-fuel-cycle economy will have even more sense, since the second stage reactors will also benefit economies of scale. (not objecting your comment, just adding one improvement)
- syshum 6y ago>>And maybe most importantly, acknowledge that nuclear energy is far more expensive than other green energy options It is not really though when you factor in ALL of the costs of the main renewables (wind and solar), one of the big problems with both is the fact their output curves normally do not match demand curves every well, meaning when wind and solar are producing power, the demand for that power is at its lowest. Thus wind and solar can only be a viable replacement for Fossil fuel and nuclear if you add in methods of energy storage, so electricity can be stored when it being produced and then consumed when it is needed. Once you factor in this storage / demand problem the costs of wind and solar go through the roof
- lampe3 6y agowe need to think how to warn our successors that this place they are entering is deadly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin... or google: Nuclear semiotics
- effie 6y agoNo, that is a completely artificial academic problem.
- beders 6y agoSolar is now the cheapest form of energy. Ever. Before you try to sink billions into nuclear energy, explain why we can't do it with solar + storage alone? Just one good reason. I've yet to hear anything substantive. All I keep hearing is soundbites from the nuclear and fossil fuel industry. All is missing is the political will, not technology. Use nuclear for situations in which there are no alternatives. Rovers on Mars or something.
- Slikey 6y agoNot just that solar is the cheapest but nuclear is also the second most expensive option. I really don't understand this recent flood of pro-nuclear posts on HN. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
- hntrader 6y agoBecause those costings for solar and wind don't include the costs and viability of storage.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoBecause we know about economies of scale and mass production. I think greens only think about their own pet projects. I don't know a single proponent of nuclear power who is against supplementing it with solar, wind, etc.
- jpxw 6y agoI don’t think we have efficient enough storage (yet ?), do we? Can I get a source on solar being the cheapest energy source? That surprises me
- godelski 6y agoDepends. Are we talking battery needs for the Southwest? Yes. Other places that don't have a relatively constant solar output and more variable seasons? No. But this is one of the many reasons the situation is substantially more complicated than the general conversation.
- ph4 6y agohttps://leanlogic.online/glossary/nuclear-energy/ https://leanlogic.online/glossary/nuclear-energy/
- anonporridge 6y agoDoes anyone know what the marginal cost of nuclear power is? For example, I'd assume that the cost of a 2 gigawatt plant is a lot less than double the cost of a 1 gigawatt plant, since most of the cost likely comes from construction, maintenance, regulatory hurdles, etc, rather than fuel. Do you get significant economies of scale from building bigger?
- mk81 6y agoWow. A sane thing.
- vietvu 6y agoAccidents happen, but it's human fault and we can prevent it. It is hard, and consequence when it happen is devastating, but it is still much more easier comparing to undo all che CO2 had already released for decades. I hope people can understand this.
- amai 6y agoJohn Oliver disagrees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU
- amai 6y agoDecentralized energy production via solar cells on every roof is the future. It is simple, cheap and safe from terrorist attacks. Nuclear power is not simple, not cheap and a security nightmare.