Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'd rather have a few more nuclear plants than vast arrays of panels scattered throughout land and sea.

It can't be great to cover so much of nature.



If you reject cheap renewable energy today because of some nuclear power pipe dream you're basically a lobbyist for fossil fuels, even if you don't know it.

Because there is absolutely no reason not to assume that those new nuclear power plants will once again take least 20 years to build (and will be 3 times over budget). That's quite a long time span that you need to fill with fossil fuels.


20 Year regulatory delays can easily be overcome with political will.

Political will requires a median IQ high enough to understand the tradeoffs and lack fear from decades pass, which I don't think is possible this century.


Most of that 20 years is construction time, not regulatory delays. For example, Finland's latest took 18 years to build after construction started. The regulatory delays were significant and on top of the 18 years.


Also a lobbyist for nuclear weapons and the military industrial complex.

The only reason countries want to maintain an industrial nuclear supply chain and skills base is because they are a nuclear power already (France, Russia, US, etc.) or because they are purchasing the option to become one in a hurry (Iran, Sweden, South Korea, etc.).

Governments don't firehose subsidies at a form of power that has an LCOE 5x the cost of its competitors and give it free catastrophe insurance on top for the hell of it.


>Also a lobbyist for nuclear weapons and the military industrial complex.

People will post stuff like this and then act surprised when others are put off.


> It can't be great to cover so much of nature.

You'd be surprised! Solar panels provide shade for local wildlife and improve crop/grazing yields due to the cover moderating the hot sun and providing spots for dew to form. As much as I love nuclear, we really should have started deploying it 10 years ago to make a difference. Solar is cheaper now and easier to deploy.


> Solar panels provide shade for local wildlife and improve crop/grazing yields

This dual-use of land for solar panels and agriculture is called "agrivoltaics".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics


When solar panels cover canals -- there should be a name for that too.


Is solar plus equivalent battery storage cheaper? Genuinely curious how costs compare for 1TW nuclear to (1+X)TW solar + (1+Y)TWhr battery

where X and Y could be integers depending on location for 12 + hr demand.


The best moment to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best moment to plant a tree is now.


Sure.

Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted for much cheaper than predicted.

Nuclear. Crickets.

Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea.


> Also you are overplaying the amount of panels covering land and sea.

Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then?

I also wonder (not asking) about the resources to make and replace each panel every 30 years vs the equivalent of making and maintaining nuclear plants.

> Reality is that solar is being built at a much faster pace than predicted

I see, so the Christmas wish is coming true!

Ideally, I'd like to see the NRC dial back it's strict regulations.

That's the main reason nuclear development is slow here.

Other countries build nuclear much cheaper and quicker, just as safe.

That's my Christmas wish.


There's a catch-22 in your wish. Nuclear is safe because of the regulations, and if you remove the regulations its not safe. The regulations make it expensive, but the lack of regulations is very likely to make it much much much much more expensive, very suddenly.


Other countries with safe nuclear have 4-5x faster regulatory oversight.


> Oh, what's the amount of land & sea needed to rely on solar then?

7.6% of Nevada

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28US%20power%20consump...


1 TW needs an area of 173 x 173 Km = ~30.000 Km².

These are 0.02% of the earth landmass.

Values are like this, when calculating conservative: 1 KWp needs an area around 10m². For enough maintenance distance multiply by 3 = 30m².

  => 1 Megawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 = 30.000m².
  => 1 Gigawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000m².
  => 1 Terawatt = 3 * 10m² * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 = 30.000.000.000m².
Square root of 30.000.000.000m² = 173205m = 173Km. According to statista.com, the total earth landmass is 149.000.000 Km², so 30.000m² are 0.02% auf 149 million Km².


I got curious so I googled: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon...

Seems doable to be honest, even if you assume real-world inefficiencies and double or triple the area required. Especially when you fold it into existing infrastructure (eg solar panels on buildings).


Which other countries are building nuclear in a meaningful capacity?

We need a reactor going online each week to make a dent.

Not disagreeing that the regulations in the US are way too onerous for nuclear.


Your ignoring the externalities of solar and wind power. Ignoring externalities of fossil fuels is what got us here in the first place.

What happens if in 30 years we have to discuss nano PV particulates in blood and great PV patch in some ocean?


“Nano PV particulates” are mostly sand, and mostly harmless. All forms of electricity production have negative externalities, we want to minimize those so internalizing them is good policy. Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) and PV waste (large amounts, maybe reusable, there’s no mid-term plan), as well as fossil fuel waste (all of the above).


And plastic is mostly oil. But that's not the whole picture is it?

PV aren't just sand, if they were my windows would be PV. Small impurities matter over long times and large quantities.

Also wrong on long term plan for nuclear. Long term plan is wait. Radioactivity reduces itself with time.


> Impurities matter

Yes, we need to recycle the materials. Landfill is not a viable solution for any waste, none of that is unique to solar power.

> Long term plan is wait

Waiting a lifetime is easy. Waiting hundreds of generations after we’re dead is not. Is that an argument against nuclear power? Not in my opinion. There’s still no finalized plan describing how waiting will work in practice though.


> Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan)

90% of nuclear waste is harmless within a year or two. The rest is so dense, that it fits a couple of trucks, and can be stored indefinitely long in a very small storage


Stored indefinitely until a curious explorer decides to investigate the unknown tomb of the gods of the third millennium, and… voila. I’m convinces we’ll solve storage by reusing the waste - but it’s not a solved problem by any stretch.


> Stored indefinitely until a curious explorer decides to investigate the unknown tomb of the gods of the third millennium, and… voila.

Voila what? If you're concerned about people degrading so far down that whatever we leave behind is "tombs of the third millenium", then storing a truckload of nuclear waste isn't really an issue.


Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear.

("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?)


If, as you say, you're reading up on the subject, side effects of wind power (and increased electric networks with solar, batteries, etc) are increased mining and concentrate processing of copper, nickel, lithium, etc.

Not being a scaremonger, these are just real costs that come along for the ride into a brave new future.

Spodumene processing in Malaysia from Australian concentrates (Mt. Weld, etc) to produce litium for batteries creates massive acid dams of wate and tonnes of radioactive waste.

Copper mining has always been problematic (albeit out of sight for many) and much more of that is called for.

Without being pro or anti any of the possible solutions for power generation we need moving forward, they all have toxic waste issues that bear looking into.


4 billion tonnes of coal mined per year.

2021 produced 50 thousand tons of pure lithium.

Coal gets used ONCE, lithium stores energy thousands of times before recycling to do it again.

This kind of context is important before whatabouting.


Coal has peaked, is on a plateau, and will decline and continue so, according to the IEA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273

Lithium, Copper, Nickel, and a slew of other minerals and elements are on the increase and have some serious waste products.

The comparison here is to

> Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear.

(with implied /s)

with the rational response that all resources come with a downside.

This kind of context is important before whatabouting.

You've whatabout'd by dragging in coal.


Lets try rephrasing it. Given that we need about 580m terajoules (source https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/ene...) what's the least worst way of achieving that?

Mixed, obviously, and different mixes in different parts of the world, but what should be our first-choice energy source? Assume fusion's off the table for now, lets stick with things that already exist.

My gut feeling is that wind, with its primarily local ecological impacts that are able to be minimised with careful placement and design, is a strong candidate for least-worst solution. The catastrophic failure mode of a wind farm does a lot less damage than the catastrohopic failure mode of a nuclear reactor, for a start. I do realise a lot of that wind power is probably going to end up in batteries (I'm hopeful for StEnSEA, but like fusion it's a bit Real Soon Now).


Regardless of our personal positions and feelings on nuclear it's going ahead and will persist as a global low continuous baseload provider; South Korea is building more, China is building more, both at home and globally.

In a very real sense to date the actual catastrophic failure modes of nuclear haven't been that bad on a realistic industrial scale.

Chernobyl persists as a bad place to dig into the soil if you're a Russian soldier commanded to do dumb things, as a large area nature reserve the case could be made that it has been a positive for non human animals.

The events at the Fukishima nuclear plant had few actual direct deaths, as an incident embedded within the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami that directly caused 19,759 deaths, 6,242 injured, and 2,553 people missing it would fade from sight were it not for the evacuations and containment costs.

The areas evacuated are already allowing returns to much of the region, the containment costs are the kinds of things that can be mitigated with engineering on future projects.

I'm no great fan of nuclear but pragmatically designs and safety have improved over the decades and actual deaths and casualties look small compared to deaths in conventional resource mining and industrial accidents such as the Bhopal disaster (500,000 people exposed to the highly toxic gas methyl isocyanate).

Sure, let's go with as much wind and solar as we can, let's have battery farms, green gas production, overnight thermal energy storage in sodium salts, etc.

But let us also pay attention to the costs of "green energy" - the ramp up to meet the current fossil fuel power creation levels will drastically ramp up toxic waste byproducts from nickel|copper mining, litium for batteries, rare eath processing, etc.

We are in a looming CO2 crisis that is worse for being kicked down the road since the 1970s when eraly action could have been taken.

Let's not blindly walk into another e-waste crisis by greenwashing away the real issues that come with new energy sources.


Also from IAE https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V?format=png&name=...

Coal might have peaked but it has an insanely long way down.

Mining waste problems need to be dealt with but they are localized and can be cleaned up afterwards.

Climate change is neither.


> Mining waste problems need to be dealt with but they are localized and can be cleaned up afterwards.

Right .. like recycling in the USofA - greenwashing.

Just be self aware about advocating to continuing to kick a can down the road and admit to yourself at least that you have no intention of being bothered by mining waste.

I'm glad to see the back of coal, but were it not for the associated C02 emmissions I would much prefer to live within 20 km of (say) the Muja coal | power site than (say) Lynas Malaysia, Kuantan.

Nickel | Copper mining in Sudbury and nearby generates more than 650 million tonnes of tailings every year from 200 operations along with about 10,000 abandoned mines that are "managed" by the Canadian government. "Managed" is essentially a euphermism for "not actively dealt with". Mine remediation has a long way to go in countries such as Canda and Australia and the majority of sites with problems are elsewhere and out of sight out of mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muja_Power_Station

https://aidwatch.org.au/stop-lynas/

"Can be cleaned up afterwards" is very different from "Will be cleaned up".

> Also from IAE https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpLhuguXsA8YE8V

Seriously? Not sure what point you're attempting to make with an graphic that lacks context and in any case supports my point that solar related waste will be rising seemingly "expontentially" along with solar.

If you're serious about understanding global energy and mineral resources I advise you to look at presentations that put total usage and transitions in the same picture - coal has a long way to fall to zero and solar has a long way to go to replace.

I'd also reiterate that I care about the issues here that come along with energy transitions - I'm not advocating for any one over another.


> ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?)

Noise is problematic for wildlife, and in some areas we tend to build wind power in previously quiet areas.


This is like the peak of bikeshedding.

Completely forgets the impact of climate change to the ecosystems.


No, climate change is a far bigger problem. No one argues otherwise. There’s a pervasive idea, though, that renewable electricity production is harmless so there’s no point focusing on and avoiding waste.

Adding to that, by acknowledging the harms of wind power we can locate it where it’s less harmful. Near cities or at sea, instead of destroying the few quiet places.


Yeah, I'm just reading up on the subject. Apparently a badly placed wind farm can have knock-on effects on the whole food web. We quickly reach a "never do anything" impasse though.


You are talking about mostly unknown maybe externalities.

I’m talking about the massive externality of climate change that is certain.

Waiting for nuclear to maybe get its shit together is not a gamble that we can take.

That said, I have nothing against nuclear. It’s just not happening unfortunately.


Sure, I never said give up on solar, PV, wind, etc. Give up on coal, oil and gas, but carefully consider your options to do so.

My point is even plastic packaging was invented to deal with problems of previous packing techniques namely glass, tin, paper, etc. Now we have a huge plastic environment issues.


You can meet the entire us demand for energy with solar panels covering just a tiny fraction of the land area: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/photovo...


Nuclear can’t simply be built as cheaply and fast as solar.

https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power# “ Nuclear energy, with around 413 gigawatts (GW) of capacity operating in 32 countries”

So the total global nuclear capacity ever built is now producing 413GW. Eerily the same as the solar capacity installed just last year.

Whoever is pushing for nuclear instead of solar in 2023 either doesn’t have the slightest idea about the current energy market or simply wants to help the fossil fuels to survive given how long would it take to build a nuclear power plant and at what cost.


> So the total global nuclear capacity ever built is now producing 413GW. Eerily the same as the solar capacity installed just last year.

Peak power isn’t the right measure of comparison here, I don’t think. Average power and guaranteed power on a 24- hour basis seems a more logical comparison.

“Can it run my heat pump at 5 in the morning on a cold winter day?” matters a lot to people.


Why not? You don’t need always peak power, in the night when there is no solar production the peak power consumption is much lower. And even accounting for average generation, using the capacity factor of 20% for solar and 90% for nuclear it means that you would need 4 years and half at current production level to deploy the entire average energy produced by all the nuclear power plants in the world. But given how the solar deployments are increasing YoY it will be probably closer to 2y 1/2 or 3y.


When comparing a plant that typically makes energy equivalent to its rated power 24 hours per day to one that typically makes energy equivalent to its rated power times 4-5 hours per day, comparing plants by their rated power is far from telling the most useful comparison.


> And even accounting for average generation, using the capacity factor of 20% for solar

The capacity factor of solar at night is exactly 0%.


> It can't be great to cover so much of nature.

You don't have to cover nature if you cover buildings.

Los Angeles, for example, could provide a very significant amount of it's electricity needs if it got a 5 mile radius of commercial buildings to all cover their roofs with solar panels.

Now, we can argue whether those buildings, themselves, are a good thing. But, given that they exist, we should cover them.


With the projected economics of renewables you’re fighting a losing battle: there will be shining seas of panels from coast to coast. With the way PV panel pricing is going, at some point doing anything else will basically amount to theft.


Nuclear as it is today is much more expensive than solar.


For each kWh delivered by the tech? Yes.

For 24x7 grid supply at .9999 reliability? I’m not nearly so sure; it might be, and if that were the case, it’s great news, because it makes that almost an inevitability.


And also for a new prototype reactor built every 10 years. If you build them in series like France did in the 70/80s or China now the cost would be greatly less.

Only billionaires could afford the cheap smartphone you have in your pocket if it wasn't manufactured at scale.


There are many TWs of capacity available from rooftops. They are already covered.


And intermittent electricity.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: