Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...

Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wasted that opportunity.

It’s been helpful, but suggesting it’s going to play a larger role anytime soon is seriously wishful thinking at this point.

View on HN

> Historically, hydro has

done harm to the ecosystems where they are installed. This is quite often overlooked and brushed aside.

There is no single method of generating electricity without downsides.

We’ve made dams long before we knew about electricity. At which point tacking hydropower to a dam that would exist either way has basically zero environmental impact.

Pure hydropower dams definitely do have significant environmental impact.

I just don't get the premise of your argument. Are you honestly saying that stopping the normal flow of water has no negative impact on the ecosystem? What about the area behind the dam that is now flooded? What about the area in front of the dam where there is now no way to traverse back up stream?

Maybe your just okay and willing to accept that kind of change. That's fine, just as some people are okay with the risk of nuclear, the use of land for solar/wind. But to just flat out deny that it has impact is just dishonest discourse at best

It’s the same premise as rooftop solar. You’re building a home anyway so adding solar panels to the roof isn’t destroying pristine habitat.

People build dams for many reasons not just electricity.

Having a reserve of rainwater is a big deal in California, Texas, etc. Letting millions of cubic meters more water flow into the ocean would make the water problems much worse in much of the world. Flood control is similarly a serious concern. Blaming 100% of the issues from dams on Hydropower is silly if outlawing hydropower isn’t going to remove those dams.

You are asserting building a dam has downsides. That’s correct (there are upsides too - flood control, fresh water storage etc)

However you are conflating dam building with hydro generation.

History is a great reference, but it doesn't solve our problems now. Just because hydro has prevented more CO2 until now doesn't mean that plus solar are the combination that delivers abundant, clean energy. There are power storage challenges and storage mechanisms aren't carbon neutral. Even if we assume that nuclear, wind, and solar (without storage) all have the same carbon footprint - I believe nuclear is less that solar pretty much equivalent to wind - you have to add the storage mechanisms for scenarios where there's no wind, sun, or water.

All of the above are significantly better than burning gas or coal - but nuclear is the clear winner from an CO2 and general availability perspective.

Seriously scaling nuclear would involve batteries. Nuclear has issues being cost effective at 80+% capacity factors. When you start talking sub 40% capacity factors the cost per kWh spirals.

The full cost of operating a multiple nuclear reactor for just 5 hours per day just costs more than a power plant at 80% capacity factor charging batteries.

> Seriously scaling nuclear would involve batteries. Nuclear has issues being cost effective at 80+% capacity factors.

I assume you mean that sub 80% capacity nuclear has issues being cost effective (which I agree is true).

You could pair the baseload nuclear with renewables during peak times and reduce battery dependency for scaling and maintaining higher utilization.

I meant even if you’re operating nuclear as baseload power looking forward the market rate for electricity looks rough without significant subsidies.

Daytime you’re facing solar head to head which is already dropping wholesale rates. Off peak is mostly users seeking cheap electricity so demand at 2AM is going to fall if power ends up cheaper at noon. Which means nuclear needs to make most of its money from the duck curve price peaks. But batteries are driving down peak prices.

Actually cheap nuclear would make this far easier, but there’s no obvious silver bullet.

That just goes to show how incredibly short sighted humanity is. We new about the risk of massive CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels but just ignored it while irrationally demonizing nuclear energy because it is scawy. If humans were sane and able to plan earth would be getting 100% of all electricity from super-efficient 7th generation nuclear reactors.

When talking to my parents, I hear a lot about Jane Fonda and the China Syndrome as far as the fears of nuclear power.

She's made the same baseless argument for a long time: "Nuclear power is slow, expensive — and wildly dangerous"

https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%....

CO2 issues aside, it's just outright safer than all forms of coal and gas and about as safe as solar and wind, all three of which are a bit safer than hydro (still very safe).

She’s two thirds right. It’s slow and expensive.

I agree costs could have dropped significantly, but I doubt 100% nuclear was ever going to happen.

Large scale dams will exist to store water, tacking hydroelectric on top of them is incredibly cost effective. Safety wise dams are seriously dangerous, but they also save a shocking number of lives by reducing flooding.

There was adequate evidence that nuclear is capable of killing millions of people and causing large scale environmental issues.

It’s still not clear today what effect CO2 or fossil fuel usage has on us.

Nuclear reactors are not nuclear bombs. Nuclear reactors are very safe on a Joules per death bases

> Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin.

Hydro is not evenly distributed and mostly tapped out outside of a few exceptions. Hydro literally can not solve the issue.

Even less so as AGW starts running meltwater sources dry.

I wasn’t imply it would, just covering the very short term.

Annual production from nuclear is getting passed by wind in 2025 and possibly 2024. So just this second it’s possibly #1 among wind, solar and nuclear but they are all well behind hydro.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com