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

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=322394

by globalrev • 18 years ago

4 5 18 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

Would there be an energy crisis if we replaced all powersources with nuclear power plants? And then started using electric cars?

And then put all energy-research into solarpower to replace nuclear power when there is a major breakthrough?

I'm hardly an expert but it seems most other alternatives are either not viable or they are just a trade-off.

dkokelley• 18 years ago

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• 18 years ago

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• 18 years ago

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...

DabAsteroid• 18 years ago

[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• 18 years ago

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 ?

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

Related Stories