

Ask HN: Would there be an energy crisis if... - globalrev

Would there be an energy crisis if we replaced all powersources with nuclear power plants?
And then started using electric cars?<p>And then put all energy-research into solarpower to replace nuclear power when there is a major breakthrough?<p>I'm hardly an expert but it seems most other alternatives are either not viable or they are just a trade-off.
======
dkokelley
It has to do with market forces and politics.

 _Disclaimer: These are not necessarily my views, but views I believe others
hold._

A: Nuclear energy is dangerous and a terrorism threat (political)

B: Electric vehicles are not practical (market) and there is a ton of money in
oil (market) and our relationship to the oil providers is frail (political)

C: Wind energy is not very profitable (market) or practical (market) because
the technology isn't there to harness it efficiently

I agree with most of my market reasons, but the political ones I think are
unfounded.

I also think that there is a great reward awaiting those who find a way to
make electric vehicles and wind power practical and profitable (and a great
deal of headache awaiting those who attempt to change the political aspect of
energy).

------
etal
The cheapest energy source right now is coal, even if carbon-offset costs are
factored in. So it would be cheaper to do the electric car thing right now
with the existing power sources than with the nuclear option -- but we haven't
done that, because electric car designs aren't quite ready yet, and because
the demand for raw materials for all those new lithium-ion batteries would
push the cost through the roof. (That actually happened this year with laptop
batteries, somewhat.)

But yes, nuclear power stands a better chance of being able to fully replace
fossil fuels than most of the other options in the next few decades.

~~~
jwilliams
This is true, the total cost of nuclear is actually quite high - the
construction, storage and decommissioning is hideously expensive. You also
have all the other ancillary risks mentioned (material availability, risk of a
meltdown).

So I think this will severely limit nuclear. There are also dozens of other
tracks to explore in the meantime - plugin hybrids, LPG hybrids, carbon
scrubbing. Not zero emission, but very accessible technologies that
cumulatively can make a big difference.

Improvements in reprocessing would probably make a difference, but arguably
you might as well plow this directly into alternative research.

Edit: Here's a link to a article on an LPG Hybrid. LPG infrastructure is great
in Australia. Available at most fuel stations.
[http://www.theage.com.au/national/hybrid-lpg-car-in-
pipeline...](http://www.theage.com.au/national/hybrid-lpg-car-in-
pipeline-20080605-2m46.html)

~~~
DabAsteroid
_[nuclear] decommissioning is hideously expensive._

How expensive is it?

<http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html>

 _Nuclear energy ... internalise[s] all waste disposal and decommissioning
costs. ...

For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel
management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while
usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power (ie
they have to be paid or set aside securely by the utility generating the
power, and the cost passed on to the customer in the actual tariff).

Decommissioning costs are about 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear
power plant. But when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the
investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account
for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity
produced.

The back-end of the fuel cycle, including used fuel storage or disposal in a
waste repository, contributes up to another 10% to the overall costs per kWh,
- less if there is direct disposal of used fuel rather than reprocessing. The
$26 billion US used fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh levy._

    
    
      .
    

Decommissioning costs can be reduced even further by extending the operating
lifetimes of reactors (now planned to be 60 years (70 years in Japan), but
potentially soon planned to be 80 or 100 years), and by deferring
decommissiong activities by mothballing them (placing them in SafStor mode
<http://www.google.com/search?q=safstor>) for what is currently planned to be
100 years. Deferring decommissioning activities saves money because the cost
of future capital tends to be less than the cost of present capital (i.e.
future costs are discounted), and because radionuclides decay over time which
makes decommissioning easier.

------
hs
with nuclear, you still have a centralized source ... resulting loss in cables
and converters

with solar, it's decentralized ... loss should be minimal ... maybe no need
for AC converters ... can u directly use DC ?

