HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Your comment loses it's value when you're trying to poke all the holes.

> Storage is also plunging in cost, and additional technologies are already in commercial use (iron flow, for example.)

> HVDC transmission is spreading, with higher capacity, lower cost, and higher efficiency for moving electricity greater distances (in other words, it's less of a deal if it's really windy in one spot and not in another, and ideally-suited wind sites can be further from where electricity is needed.)

How do you transform DC up and down? By converting it to AC. Running it through a transformer and converting it back, HVDC isn't gonna take over the world, certain stretches might be HVDC where beneficial but not all over the world.

The difference with nuclear is that anyone can build and operate next-gen storage, so you're commercial right out the door. I could hook my UPS up to the grid and feed back, commercial success!

> Wind and solar are as distributable and scaleable as you want.

Not without storage, which is harder to scale than production of other kinds.

> You don't need to worry about geological stability with wind and solar.

I don't see the USP, there are plenty of geologically stable areas in most countries.

> Wind and solar don't require tens or hundreds of megawatts of cold-start / post-operation (cooling) power.

They have the added downside of only producing power when the weather guy says so.

> Wind/solar don't generate waste that is weaponizeable.

Good point, for now.

> You don't need a highly trained workforce to install, operate, repair, and decommission wind/solar.

No, you need a disposable workforce that can die from workforce accidents without anyone batting an eye.

Bill Gates is a good example of someone with a bit of time around the smartest people on earth asking for advice where he can make a difference, here's a TED talk where he explains that we'll need all solutions to come together rather than one single silver bullet: https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I

Does it sound reasonable that we should use all good tech we have? To me it does, and it includes all energy sources in different amounts and situations.

⬐ ineedasername

>here's a TED talk where he explains that we'll need all solutions to come together rather than one single silver bullet

Yes, this is a core problem. It seems like a large number of people want to focus on only one solution. They complain that solutions $X is more expensive or solution $Y is less proven or solution $Z isn't consistent. That sounds like a great reason to embrace them all to have each one's strengths complement the other's weaknesses. Cost should also be a secondary issue to speed of scale out & reliability. We're racing a clock where going too slow has its own costs, in capital & lives. It should be a factor but not the factor.

Instead of using the money to research renewable or more efficient energy production, reduce pollution etc his foundation uses the money for vaccines and health services which surprisingly has as target, as he says in a ted video (link below), to decrease human population which he sees it as the major problem of today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I&t=278&cc_load_po...

"The world today has about 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15%"

⬐ adventured

> Instead of using the money to research renewable or more efficient energy production

That's incorrect. Gates has dedicated vast sums of money, over more than a decade, to energy research and has openly and frequently stated that dramatic energy breakthroughs are among the most important goals he or anyone can have to further humanity.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/bill-ga...

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-talks-private-nucl...

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-interview-energy-m...

http://fortune.com/2016/09/15/bill-gates-backs-renmatix/

https://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-invests-in-algae-fuel/

TED talk - Elon musk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgKWPdJWuBQ

D10 conference - Steve jobs and Bill gates - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw8x7ASpRIY

TED talk - Bill gates (Innovation to Zero) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

A good starting point is Bill Gates TED Talk Innovating to Zero. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

⬐ dthunt

Great talk.

Gates's foundation has made a handful of bad investments (generally small) but I'm generally really impressed with the thought they put into where to invest and why.

While it's a little bit scary that Japan and Germany are both trending (more than trending) away from nuclear, maybe that's not the worst thing in the world. Neither country will go for coal. Both countries will need to invest in other technologies (some basic, some consumer-oriented) in order to meet their emissions reductions goals.

But I get scared about the possibility of additional countries backing away from nuclear.

⬐ tehabe

I'm more scared about countries who start using nuclear power.

⬐ pjscott

Most of them are going to be using the latest iteration of some tried-and-true series of reactors from another country. Russia is exporting the VVER-1200, Korea is exporting their APR-1400, and China is looking to export their ACPR-1000 and large components of American, Japanese, and European reactors.

The common thread here is that all of these are very conventional, directly descended from designs that have seen extensive service and have an excellent record of reliability. You're not going to see newbie countries screwing up the designs. (You might see them mess up the operations.)

⬐ da3da

I'm curious why that is? I remember a table that showed the deaths per terawatt-hour of each energy source [1]. Coal was the highest, and nuclear was the lowest (below all the renewables even). I don't know if this data is accurate, but assuming it is, I can't understand why nuclear doesn't have more support.

[1] http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...

⬐ TeMPOraL

I'd guess mostly because of "large amount of uninformed opposition ("nu-cu-lar is baaaaaad")", to quote from another comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4857371).

⬐ tehabe

It is not so much a meltdown. Those meltdowns are rare. And most people don't die at the point of the meltdown but from the long term consequences of the meltdown. But many Nuclear supporters doesn't accept those death as consequences of the nuclear meltdown. BTW, not knowing data is accurate but assuming it is, is like finding a gun and assuming it is not loaded.

What I'm really concerned about nuclear power is the problem of waste. The dream of fuel recycling has been dreamt for 40 years now and those existing plants are everything but clean. Currently the idea of a closed fuel circle for nuclear power is just a dream.

Also citing new reactor designs is pointless. Old designs are still running. Old Russian designs are still running, and I don't speak about Chernobyl like reactors. And it would take decades to replace those reactors and you still have to deal with the old ones. E.g. Germany shut down all Russian WWER reactors in the East after the reunification, those reactors are still there, the deconstruction of those reactors has just started a few years ago.

In that time frame you might just as good replace nuclear power with a decentralized system of renewable energy. I really wonder, why people who love the internet, love freedom, love markets don't root for that. Decentralized renewable energy are much less likely to create a monopoly for electricity. It is much more likely that you could have an autonomous energy supply.

⬐ tjoff

"Neither country will go for coal."

Uh? Not only does Germany rely on coal energy (more so since they plan to get rid of nuclear) they also export it (which is great for politicians in Sweden, cut back on nuclear and call yourself green is great PR (then import coal energy from Germany)).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/merkel-s-green-shif...

None of those can replace coal / nuclear.

EDIT: Here's Bill Gates explaining why nuclear is not optional: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I