5 ms·

It's important not to dismiss good ideas just because you dislike the people saying them If more nuclear gets us away from Fossil Fuels faster it's a good thin

It's important not to dismiss good ideas just because you dislike the people saying them If more nuclear gets us away from Fossil Fuels faster it's a good thing

bananapub 3y ago
not sure what you're replying to? of course one shouldn't "dismiss good ideas just because you dislike the people saying them", but if your country doesn't already have a nuclear industry then it's too late to get to net zero with nuclear. of course you can plan for using it later, but you can't get distracted by it now or fall victim to scams by well-funded and malicious groups.
theshackleford 3y ago
> If more nuclear gets us away from Fossil Fuels faster it's a good thing His point is that in Australia, it won’t. And it doesn’t matter how much evidence you put in front of these people to show them that. You can’t even tell them it’s costly because they reject even that provable fact. Renewables plus firming is orders of magnitude cheaper and faster than any form of nuclear ever will be in AU and getting cheaper every day to boot. To which the response will simply be “nuuhh uhhh”. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Energy-data-modelling/GenCost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ene...
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  At least in the case of Australia, they’ll arrive at 100% renewables between 2030-2035 based on current deployment trajectories without any nuclear. All of Australia has 18.4GW of coal generation capacity remaining (per ElectricityMaps.com). To replace this with solar, wind, and batteries will be trivial (China deployed 217GW of solar last year [2023], for comparison). There is already 40GW of batteries in their pipeline. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/12/coal-will-be-all-but-gone-by-2034-under-australias-latest-energy https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/12/coal-will-be-a... https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/major-publications/integr... https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/australia-leads-global-market-for-battery-energy-storage-systems/ https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/australia-leads-globa...
Swizec 3y ago
If more nuclear takes 20+ years to build while we can get wind farms online next month, is it really faster? I love nuclear but have to admit it’s dead until we figure out how to build these things faster. You can get 10MW of wind built in 2 months. A nuclear plant gives you 1000MW (1GW). You need to build that in less than 50 months (4 years) to compete with wind. And wind can already deliver incremental value for most of those 50 months so lead times aren’t a problem. When’s the last time anyone built a nuclear plant in 4 years?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Just comparing MW when wind is blowing is never going to be useful or result in a productive discussion. You need compare nuclear with other useful, base load generation methods in terms of build cost/time/CO2 per MW.
  - Swizec 3y ago
    I believe the numbers I quoted are averages, not only when the wind is blowing. Source: https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ Here’s a better number: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-tu... > At a 42% capacity factor (i.e., the average among recently built wind turbines in the United States, per the 2021 edition of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Land-Based Wind Market Report), that average turbine would generate over 843,000 kWh (843MWh) per month—enough for more than 940 average U.S. homes For comparison, an actual nuclear reactor in practical use produced 4,697,675 MWh in 2017. That’s the equivalent of 5572 of those wind turbines. That’s a lot of wind turbines. But if we can build 278 wind turbines per year and it takes 20 years to build a new reactor. They’re even. USA currently builds 3000 turbines per year. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-installed-us-each-year https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-install... So I think even with 42% capacity, wind is winning. We’d need to build 10 reactors per 20 years (1 every 2 years) for nuclear to beat wind.
    - russell_h 3y ago
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
He didn't say he dislikes them. He said they were people who were provably lying about the very existence of the problem that they now claim nuclear will fix (in 2 decades, at great expense).
- smallmancontrov 3y ago
  Any political cause larger than a certain size will have someone stinky in the big tent. There are stinkers in the renewables tent too, does that mean we should boycott solar panels? Of course not. Same here. See also: think of the children.
  - ggm 3y ago
    This is not "some" -the majority of Australian nuclear backers are the mining sector, the established mining lobby, and the right wing. The socialist case for nuclear exists ("electricity plus soviet power == communism"), but is not being made. Here's a leading hint: the main campaign page in Australia for the pro nuclear push is the Murdoch press. The political party leading the push is the conservative party, and it is being led by the right wing conservative leadership against the wishes of the middle ground and soft-left side of the party. You aren't wrong that any movement has some stink: this movement is lead by the nose.
    - defrost 3y ago
      It's a completely fair assessment of the current political embrace of nuclear power in Australia - it's being pushed more and more by Murdoch, his papers and Sky arms, and the most Vogon of the Australian political landscape, and they very much have a blind to climate realities "this is the fix" agenda. The great problem with that is it drowns out any chance for any considered debate on the future of Australia's energy mix - there is an engineering case for a small percentage ( <10% ) of nuclear generation in parts of the Australian grid.
      - ggm 3y ago
        Whilst I personally would have no problem with lifting the bans, state and federal, I would personally have a problem with the subsidies required to make commercial builds come out of the woodwork. Nuclear in OZ is estimated at ~$300+ compared to $150+ for firmed renewables as a "unit cost" and we can be confident of the renewables cost because it's been experienced while the Nuclear one is speculative and as has been pointed out in this HN thread, highly subject to cost overruns in legal and construction delays (the size of the unit isn't the point, the difference in the outcome in terms of charges to be recovered from the system is) If in the future SMR prove economically viable and we can save on transmission line builds to have some serving major cities, I'd be fine. I would have no problem living near one, or near ANSTO's lucas heights facility. The current "go nuke" campaign in the Oz has nothing to do with energy, and a lot to do with increasing shareholder value and in objectifying the labor/green parties as "anti technology" and even "anti working class" if you define the working class as engineers and miners, not hairdressers and farmers

It's important not to dismiss good ideas just because you dislike the people saying them If more nuclear gets us away from Fossil Fuels faster it's a good thing

bananapub 3y ago

not sure what you're replying to? of course one shouldn't "dismiss good ideas just because you dislike the people saying them", but if your country doesn't already have a nuclear industry then it's too late to get to net zero with nuclear. of course you can plan for using it later, but you can't get distracted by it now or fall victim to scams by well-funded and malicious groups.

theshackleford 3y ago

> If more nuclear gets us away from Fossil Fuels faster it's a good thing His point is that in Australia, it won’t. And it doesn’t matter how much evidence you put in front of these people to show them that. You can’t even tell them it’s costly because they reject even that provable fact. Renewables plus firming is orders of magnitude cheaper and faster than any form of nuclear ever will be in AU and getting cheaper every day to boot. To which the response will simply be “nuuhh uhhh”. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Energy-data-modelling/GenCost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ene...

toomuchtodo 3y ago
At least in the case of Australia, they’ll arrive at 100% renewables between 2030-2035 based on current deployment trajectories without any nuclear. All of Australia has 18.4GW of coal generation capacity remaining (per ElectricityMaps.com). To replace this with solar, wind, and batteries will be trivial (China deployed 217GW of solar last year [2023], for comparison). There is already 40GW of batteries in their pipeline. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/12/coal-will-be-all-but-gone-by-2034-under-australias-latest-energy https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/12/coal-will-be-a... https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/major-publications/integr... https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/australia-leads-global-market-for-battery-energy-storage-systems/ https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/australia-leads-globa...

Swizec 3y ago

If more nuclear takes 20+ years to build while we can get wind farms online next month, is it really faster? I love nuclear but have to admit it’s dead until we figure out how to build these things faster. You can get 10MW of wind built in 2 months. A nuclear plant gives you 1000MW (1GW). You need to build that in less than 50 months (4 years) to compete with wind. And wind can already deliver incremental value for most of those 50 months so lead times aren’t a problem. When’s the last time anyone built a nuclear plant in 4 years?

robertlagrant 3y ago
Just comparing MW when wind is blowing is never going to be useful or result in a productive discussion. You need compare nuclear with other useful, base load generation methods in terms of build cost/time/CO2 per MW.
- Swizec 3y ago
  I believe the numbers I quoted are averages, not only when the wind is blowing. Source: https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ Here’s a better number: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-tu... > At a 42% capacity factor (i.e., the average among recently built wind turbines in the United States, per the 2021 edition of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Land-Based Wind Market Report), that average turbine would generate over 843,000 kWh (843MWh) per month—enough for more than 940 average U.S. homes For comparison, an actual nuclear reactor in practical use produced 4,697,675 MWh in 2017. That’s the equivalent of 5572 of those wind turbines. That’s a lot of wind turbines. But if we can build 278 wind turbines per year and it takes 20 years to build a new reactor. They’re even. USA currently builds 3000 turbines per year. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-installed-us-each-year https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-install... So I think even with 42% capacity, wind is winning. We’d need to build 10 reactors per 20 years (1 every 2 years) for nuclear to beat wind.
  - russell_h 3y ago

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

He didn't say he dislikes them. He said they were people who were provably lying about the very existence of the problem that they now claim nuclear will fix (in 2 decades, at great expense).

smallmancontrov 3y ago
Any political cause larger than a certain size will have someone stinky in the big tent. There are stinkers in the renewables tent too, does that mean we should boycott solar panels? Of course not. Same here. See also: think of the children.
- ggm 3y ago
  This is not "some" -the majority of Australian nuclear backers are the mining sector, the established mining lobby, and the right wing. The socialist case for nuclear exists ("electricity plus soviet power == communism"), but is not being made. Here's a leading hint: the main campaign page in Australia for the pro nuclear push is the Murdoch press. The political party leading the push is the conservative party, and it is being led by the right wing conservative leadership against the wishes of the middle ground and soft-left side of the party. You aren't wrong that any movement has some stink: this movement is lead by the nose.
  - defrost 3y ago
    It's a completely fair assessment of the current political embrace of nuclear power in Australia - it's being pushed more and more by Murdoch, his papers and Sky arms, and the most Vogon of the Australian political landscape, and they very much have a blind to climate realities "this is the fix" agenda. The great problem with that is it drowns out any chance for any considered debate on the future of Australia's energy mix - there is an engineering case for a small percentage ( <10% ) of nuclear generation in parts of the Australian grid.
    - ggm 3y ago
      Whilst I personally would have no problem with lifting the bans, state and federal, I would personally have a problem with the subsidies required to make commercial builds come out of the woodwork. Nuclear in OZ is estimated at ~$300+ compared to $150+ for firmed renewables as a "unit cost" and we can be confident of the renewables cost because it's been experienced while the Nuclear one is speculative and as has been pointed out in this HN thread, highly subject to cost overruns in legal and construction delays (the size of the unit isn't the point, the difference in the outcome in terms of charges to be recovered from the system is) If in the future SMR prove economically viable and we can save on transmission line builds to have some serving major cities, I'd be fine. I would have no problem living near one, or near ANSTO's lucas heights facility. The current "go nuke" campaign in the Oz has nothing to do with energy, and a lot to do with increasing shareholder value and in objectifying the labor/green parties as "anti technology" and even "anti working class" if you define the working class as engineers and miners, not hairdressers and farmers