News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by Tarsul on Thursday March 04, 2021 @02:52PM (#26347298)
that we have so many pro nuclear articles here on HN is remarkable to me, too. However, I come from Germany where the general sentiment is negative. I'd guess in the US (where probably most of HN users come from?!) the sentiment is more positive? I can't explain it any other way (well, lobbyism, astroturfing... okay, but I wouldn't go that far without evidence). What I miss in all these energy discussions is arguments about reducing the load or better managing the load (with flexible pricing etc.), especially since that could be very data driven which should align well with the HN crowd. And those discussions should come before we start even thinking about nuclear. Same argument as with recycling: the best garbage [energy] is the one which never was (reduce > recycle).
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by cestith on Thursday March 04, 2021 @03:13PM (#26347612)
Light water reactors are not the only option for nuclear power. CANDU reactors have a wonderful safety record. MSRs are on the brink of becoming commercially viable and have been for a long time, but funding is currently insufficient. Funding is insufficient largely because light water and heavy water (like CANDU and derivatives) plants are already researched on the one hand and light water reactors have created negative sentiment for all things nuclear on the other.

Would I like nuclear power that fails safe and doesn't produce bomb material? Absolutely. Would I live next door to a molten thorium salt reactor? I'd love to. Do I want to see new light water reactors built anywhere in the world? No.

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by Hammershaft on Thursday March 04, 2021 @03:40PM (#26347955)
In my opinion Germany's experience denuclearizing (and replacing it with renewables and lignite coal) has been some of the strongest evidence I've seen in favor of nuclear energy.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by Krasnol on Friday March 05, 2021 @02:14AM (#26353801)
Why? It's not like Germany ran out of power or something like that.

The opposite is the case. It has been a frontrunner for renewable energy for years and moved the development for everybody on this planet and now they even have a plan (law) to phase out coal despite it being an important source for jobs in regions struck with unemployment.

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by wsc981 on Thursday March 04, 2021 @03:04PM (#26347457)
I've never had a negative sentiment against nuclear energy, even though most of the people from my country seem to be or at least were so in the past.

And I feel many of the measures the Dutch government is taking these days to reduce CO2 seem borderline crazy. For example burning trees for energy (biomass), wood that is imported from the USA and Canada and shipped in huge container ships to The Netherlands [0]. And let's not forget that trees actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Or the fact that the Dutch government wants the whole country cut off from gas for heating, while neighbouring countries (like Germany) are trying to get people to use gas for heating. In The Netherlands every house if connected to the gas network, but soon everybody will need to switch to waterpumps for heating.

Or the fact that the whole country will be covered with wind turbines which ruin the view, produce a lot of noise, need a lot of space and kill many birds.

---

[0]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https:/...

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by nickik on Thursday March 04, 2021 @03:20PM (#26347692)
Its always fucking baffling to me when people believe everything about nuclear is lobbying. Its a tiny industry that absolutely sucks at lobbying.

> reducing the load or better managing the load (with flexible pricing etc.), especially since that could be very data driven which should align well with the HN crowd.

Nobody is against that, but its not a actual solution, its an optimisation that doesn't play into the overall discussion.

At the end of the day you need to generate a lot of energy, no matter how much you want to reduce or recycle.

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by jeffbee on Thursday March 04, 2021 @03:19PM (#26347689)
HN hates data on energy discussions. The HN vibe is strongly in favor of EVs, for example, despite the fact that EVs are the slowest and most expensive way to reduce transport greenhouse gas emissions. Fission is, likewise, the slowest and most expensive way to add electrical generation today. Fission is the only power source where the costs increased in the last 10 years. PV is now five times cheaper than fission. Onshore wind costs the same as PV. Batteries are easy to mass-produce. The substantive debate is over.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by hntrader on Thursday March 04, 2021 @03:49PM (#26348065)
"Batteries are easy to mass-produce."

There's people here saying the battery tech isn't ready yet for large scale grid storage of solar/wind. Is that untrue?

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by Hammershaft on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:11PM (#26348377)
Take a look at my reply to him to see some unfortunately grim stats on this issue. I would argue nuclear is currently our only choice.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by jeffbee on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:09PM (#26348364)
California has 250MW of battery facilities online right now. If you can do 250MW, you can do 50GW. The CAISO roadmap for energy storage does not list any technological risks.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by hntrader on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:37PM (#26348740)
Not saying it can't be done, but is it cheaper than nuclear?
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by drran on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:42PM (#26348803)
BTW, nuclear energy will be cheaper with massive power storage, because nuclear power can be accumulated at night then.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by Hammershaft on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:08PM (#26348355)
> HN hates data on energy discussions.

>PV is now five times cheaper than fission. Onshore wind costs the same as PV. Batteries are easy to mass-produce.

This is an odd contrast of statements considering you gave no data to support your argument. I take issue with dismissing the massive problem of intermittancy and storage with "Battaries are easy to mass-produce".

"A cost-optimal wind-solar mix with storage reaches cost-competitiveness with a nuclear fission plant providing baseload electricity at a cost of $0.075/kWh27 at an energy storage capacity cost of $10-20/kWh. To reach cost-competitiveness with a peaker natural gas plant at $0.077/kWh, energy storage capacity costs must instead fall below $5/kWh."

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9

"The largest announced storage system, comprising more than 18,000 Li-ion batteries, is being built in Long Beach for Southern California Edison by AES Corp. When it’s completed, in 2021, it will be capable of running at 100 megawatts for 4 hours. But that energy total of 400 megawatt-hours is still two orders of magnitude lower than what a large Asian city would need if deprived of its intermittent supply. For example, just 2 GW for two days comes to 96 gigawatt-hours.

We have to scale up storage, but how? Sodium-sulfur batteries have higher energy density than Li-ion ones, but hot liquid metal is a most inconvenient electrolyte. Flow batteries, which store energy directly in the electrolyte, are still in an early stage of deployment. Supercapacitors can’t provide electricity over a long enough time. And compressed air and flywheels, the perennial favorites of popular journalism, have made it into only a dozen or so small and midsize installations. We could use solar electricity to electrolyze water and store the hydrogen, but still, a hydrogen-based economy is not imminent.

And so when going big we must still rely on a technology introduced in the 1890s: pumped storage. You build one reservoir high up, link it with pipes to another one lower down and use cheaper, nighttime electricity to pump water uphill so that it can turn turbines during times of peak demand. Pumped storage accounts for more than 99 percent of the world’s storage capacity, but inevitably, it entails energy loss on the order of 25 percent. Many installations have short-term capacities in excess of 1 GW—the largest one is about 3 GW—and more than one would be needed for a megacity completely dependent on solar and wind generation.

But most megacities are nowhere near the steep escarpments or deep-cut mountain valleys you’d need for pumped storage. Many, including Shanghai, Kolkata, and Karachi, are on coastal plains. They could rely on pumped storage only if it were provided through long-distance transmission. The need for more compact, more flexible, larger-scale, less costly electricity storage is self-evident. But the miracle has been slow in coming."

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/batteries-need-t...

"Given the magnitude of the battery material demand growth across all scenarios, global production capacity for Li, Co, and Ni (black lines in Fig. 3) will have to increase drastically (see Supplementary Tables 9 and 10). For Li and Co, demand could outgrow current production capacities even before 2025. For Ni, the situation appears to be less dramatic, although by 2040 EV batteries alone could consume as much as the global primary Ni production in 2019. Other battery materials could be supplied without exceeding existing production capacities (Supplementary Tables 9 and 10), although supplies may still have to increase to meet demands from other sectors5,9. The known reserves for Li, Ni, and Co (black lines in Fig. 4) could be depleted before 2050 in the SD scenario and for Co also in the STEP scenario. For all other materials known reserves exceed demand from EV batteries until 2050 (Supplementary Table 5). In 2019 around 64% of natural graphite and 64% of Si are produced in China32, which could create vulnerabilities to supply reliability."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-020-00095-x

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by hntrader on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:27PM (#26348606)
So storage reaches cost competitiveness with nuclear at $10-$20/kWh.

Do we know what the current cost is today?

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by drran on Thursday March 04, 2021 @05:13PM (#26349180)
I have no idea where you got these numbers, but nuclear energy is good for base load, while batteries are good for handling load peaks. These two types of load are very different.

With big batteries, nuclear energy can be accumulated at night and used at evening, which improve performance of nuclear stations a lot. Try it yourself at simulation: https://www.tennet.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Our_Key_Tasks/In...

Current cost of power storage is below $100 per kWh stored in the newest designs.

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by hntrader on Thursday March 04, 2021 @07:03PM (#26350351)
It's a near verbatim quote from the Cell article in the post above mine.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by Hammershaft on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:36PM (#26348737)
~ $300 - $700 /kWh.

that figure could be outdated but its in the ballpark

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by hntrader on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:38PM (#26348758)
So nuclear is much much much much cheaper and until the storage costs come way down, we have no other choice (aside from natgas peakers). Correct?
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by Hammershaft on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:43PM (#26348810)
For baseline power the answer is yes. The only two forms of low carbon baseline energy we currently have are nuclear and hydro.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by hntrader on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:50PM (#26348903)
Do you know why California is using batteries instead of cheaper nuclear? Is it just for cynical political reasons?
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by fallingknife on Thursday March 04, 2021 @06:09PM (#26349814)
No one is using batteries at a large scale at this point.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by hntrader on Thursday March 04, 2021 @06:46PM (#26350188)
User "jeffbee" said that California has 250MW of battery facilities right now
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by fallingknife on Thursday March 04, 2021 @07:49PM (#26350852)
I assume that's 250MWh, and California consumes 260 TWh per year, so that's 30s of power consumption.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by jeffbee on Thursday March 04, 2021 @08:15PM (#26351118)
No, it's 250MW of peak power. I'm not sure what the total energy storage capacity is for California, but the typical project has 4 hours of capacity.

For an example please see this PG&E project which is coming online in Summer 2021. These installations have 700MW of power capacity and each has a 4-hour discharge time.

https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/adviceletter/ELEC_582...

Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by fallingknife on Friday March 05, 2021 @12:05AM (#26352960)
You're right about the numbers, but still this is tiny at the scale of the grid. 2.8GWh is still only around 5 mins of consumption. You would probably need a few days of storage to run a 100% wind/solar grid, so that's about 1000x more.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by jeffbee on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:11PM (#26348395)
Nobody cares how bad the lifecycle efficiency is for pumped storage because the input doesn't cost anything.
Re:Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched by Hammershaft on Thursday March 04, 2021 @04:21PM (#26348522)
That is only one of the multiple problems discussed with mass pumped storage. Regardless, the efficiency does matter as if you are attempting to store peak power as %100 of baseline power then your input is no longer free. It is a factor in the energy output of the PV / Turbine over the course of its lifecycle. Lower efficiency means more PVs / Turbines and more massive pumped storage projects.