Hacker News
points by alex_duf 3 days ago | 0 comments
We need it all. All the low carbon sources: The cheap intermittent renewables, the expensive and stable nuclear, the biogas from organic waste etc.

Putting one clean tech against the other is a waste of time we don't have right now.

[–] Veedrac 2 days ago
This is falsely assuming that attention is the primary bottleneck. It's not. If you redirected £50B into solar, wind, and battery subsidies, you would end up with straightforwardly more green energy. Solar and wind are not resource-bottlenecked technologies. You can just buy more.
[–] pjc50 2 days ago
Disappointingly in the West, the primary bottleneck is permitting. Both for sites and grid connections. Not quite the same as "attention", but similar.

The UK is currently building two long offshore DC-DC connections between north Scotland, where all the wind is, and the south of England, where much of the demand is. This is easier than running another line of pylons on land because fewer people will complain.

[–] Zigurd 2 days ago
Misallocation of capital is anti-environmental. If you allocate capital to projects that have decades long delays, you have burned that capital at the start of the project, not at the end of it when you take delivery of a working power plant.
[–] throw-qqqqq 2 days ago
Assuming we have limited time (i.e. that there is a deadline, a “point of no return”) and money to move out of fossil fuels, it makes sense to aim for the cheapest energy source, to optimize the probability of getting there before it’s too late.

So IMO we don’t need all the expensive options, when the cheap ones are already viable.

[–] mschuster91 2 days ago
Nuclear takes far too long (>10 years) to build.

In the same time frame you can build out enough solar, wind and battery storage that you can supply the same amount of continuous power, have money left over and not need worry about nuclear waste and a hefty teardown bill to the tune of billions of dollars.

Nuclear power is on its way out, all you need it for is deep space, marine military applications (i.e. aircraft carriers and submarines that stay submerged for months at a time) and as a byproduct of reactors used for radiotherapy.

I'm not even sure if it is worth it to keep chasing the fusion dream. Sure, as a foundation research into nuclear physics and chemistry (i.e. creating new elements), or for powering interplanetary space travel, it still makes sense, but by the time nuclear fusion can generate power... renewables will have long since taken over.

[–] accidc 2 days ago
Essentially, its a game of capital and solar is accessible to (almost) every human household on the planet.

Additionally, zeroish fuel costs/operational costs, grid connection is optional, capacity to build panels is not controlled technology, raw materials are relatively cheap. So scaling production further or bringing it online is not otherwise constrained.

Nuclear can still can be strategically important as rock solid base load and for grid stability.

In the future, with better understanding and control over nuclear physics, nuclear one day might be as cheap and plentiful as batteries, but for this cycle , solar has essentially ‘won’

[–] chickenbig 2 days ago
> Nuclear takes far too long (>10 years) to build.

Latency and throughput are not the same thing. 10 years to the first result, and less once the planning and construction process is streamlined.

[–] mschuster91 2 days ago
> 10 years to the first result, and less once the planning and construction process is streamlined.

You can't streamline your way out of the need to have to build containments capable of surviving a fully laden Airbus A380 crashing into it from 43.000 ft.

I live near a NPP, these buildings are insanely tough and you need a lot of time, a lot of resources and a lot of people to build them - especially the people part is a huge constraint, construction already isn't an attractive career and the demographic bomb is hitting the trades hard.

[–] chickenbig 2 days ago
> You can't streamline your way out of the need to have to build containments capable of surviving a fully laden Airbus A380 crashing into it from 43.000 ft.

Most of the plane is not a problem for 6ft of concrete and a steel liner. Planes are built to just about hold together. The main thing to worry about are the jet engine cores.

[–] mschuster91 2 days ago
> Most of the plane is not a problem for 6ft of concrete and a steel liner. Planes are built to just about hold together.

It's still 575 tons of material crashing into the containment at a speed near at or even over the speed of sound. That is a lot of energy to dissipate, on top of that 250 tons of burning jet fuel is a lot of thermal energy that can quickly eat away at steel.

[–] chickenbig 2 days ago
> That is a lot of energy to dissipate

The NRC report states "with regard to the effects of shock associated with aircraft impact, WEC demonstrated that these shock loadings are less than those resulting from a design basis seismic event"

> burning jet fuel is a lot of thermal energy that can quickly eat away at steel

Hmmmm, it does have to get past the concrete. "for the fire aspect of AIA ... WEC demonstrated that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 are met."

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1101/ml110170004.pdf

[–] Zigurd 2 days ago
The two most recent reactors built in the US used a modern modular design that was supposed to reduce the chances of construction delays. They weren't late because of planning or permitting.

The modularity was supposed to enable offsite construction of modules in a controlled environment and make it more reliable. What happened in real life is that some modules needed rework and that was only discovered after delivery. That massively fucked the schedule.

[–] chickenbig 2 days ago
The AP1000 was an incomplete design, plus the aircraft impact assessment change happened. Even the Chinese had trouble constructing it.

But now there is a design, and the Chinese construct CAP1000/CAP1400 on a regular basis.

[–] mschuster91 2 days ago
> But now there is a design, and the Chinese construct CAP1000/CAP1400 on a regular basis.

Yeah. The Chinese. A country well known for cutting corners ("chinesium steel" has its name for a reason).

I wouldn't trust a Chinese made design. If they do, it's their choice.

[–] acdha 2 days ago
That’s a pretty massive assumption at the end: you really don’t want to cut corners with safety and unless the government can simply ignore residents, very few people are willing to live near a nuclear plant so you have to anticipate delays or higher transmission costs.

While all of that’s happening, you’re guaranteed to be producing more carbon emissions before anything can be displaced.