Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

energyrealityproject.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 393 posts

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#31

Post by matthewmcg »

pyrocat wrote: post #4
peoii wrote: post #2

It's the sad truth that people seem very for nuclear, but no one wants to live near it. Of course, I've seen articles regarding people who don't want to live near wind turbines, so maybe people are just far to fickle.

People have been migrating to cities for years and years now, the rural areas of America are less populated than ever. I'm sure there's some middle ground where we can put new power plants that are relatively unpopulated.

Cooling water availability is a major factor in plant siting. So you're looking for unpopulated areas on coasts, lakes, or rivers, which is probably a smaller set.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#32

Post by linschn »

tomcam wrote: post #21

I am not reflexively anti-nuclear. However, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the simple question: "How do we store nuclear waste safely?"

The question is not about about "safely", the question is about "in a safer way than the alternatives".

So, let's look at how we can safely store coal/oil waste. We can't, it goes straight in the air, or in the sea. So in this sense, I'd argue even simply dumping our nuclear waste in the Mariana Trench would be safer.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#33

Post by brrt »

tomcam wrote: post #21

I am not reflexively anti-nuclear. However, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the simple question: "How do we store nuclear waste safely?"

We burn it! That is, nuclear burn it, not chemically. And what can't be burned can be bombarded with neutrons into radiological inertia. And what can't be neutralized in that sense can be molten into a ceramic, more specifically, a glass, and stored underground. Which is of course where it came from, when you think of it. Seriously, nuclear waste storage is not a problem. This page gives an excellent eplanation: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html

Nuclear energy has lots of problems, and I personally think this article is not worth this place on HN, but waste is not really one of them, especially compared to the scale of chemical wastes from fossil fuels.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#34

Post by Alupis »

vanessapu wrote: post #3

I absolutely agree that nuclear is our best option as long as the reactor and the waste is located in your backyard.

They aren't nearly as dangerous as the popular opinion would have you believe.

There has been only a single incident that I'm aware of (Chernobyl), all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...).

In fact, the technology and safety has come a long way since the 60's. Most US Navy ships are nuclear powered, and have not had incidents (and these are designed to go to war and survive). Japan was hit by multiple severe earthquakes and tsunamis (even at the same time!) and managed to keep the reactors from having an incident (this has got to be close to the worst possible case).

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#35

Post by yongjik »

tomcam wrote: post #21

I am not reflexively anti-nuclear. However, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the simple question: "How do we store nuclear waste safely?"

Bury it deep enough?

Somehow everybody freaks out about nuclear waste and says stuff like "But after 20,000 years it will still retain half of its radiation!"

Well, our industrial waste also contain mercury and other heavy metals. We usually just bury them. Somehow nobody freaks out and says "But after 20,000 years it will still retain ALL of its toxicity!"

I can't fathom why.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#36

Post by merpnderp »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #28
tomcam wrote: post #21

I am not reflexively anti-nuclear. However, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the simple question: "How do we store nuclear waste safely?"

Everyone brushes over that, the billions of dollars to build a plant, and the ~10 year construction time. Any nuclear power plant that has construction started today won't be cost competitive with renewables when it comes online. It would be like building a new coal plant in the US today. You simply can't compete with wind, solar, and natural gas (which is still superior to coal, and I don't mind it being a stranded…

How do wind and solar provide a solid baseline power. And China builds nuclear plants a lot faster and cheaper than we do, and no known accidents. Maybe we can learn something from them. Plus the whole 90% of a nuclear plant's cost is servicing the debt. Once completed the operational costs are a rounding error.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#37

Post by [deleted] »

voidlogic wrote: post #26
tomcam wrote: post #21

I am not reflexively anti-nuclear. However, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to the simple question: "How do we store nuclear waste safely?"

By not hiding it away, but using warehouses that are actively staffed just like the plant that made the waste. Of course these facilities should be secure installations. But the root of the problem is not wanted to actively take ownership responsibility for the waste. I imagine every major city having its secure storage installation. Consider the scale of waste generated as well. All the waste used to power a life of…

[deleted]

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#39

Post by peckrob »

Alupis wrote: post #34
vanessapu wrote: post #3

I absolutely agree that nuclear is our best option as long as the reactor and the waste is located in your backyard.

They aren't nearly as dangerous as the popular opinion would have you believe. There has been only a single incident that I'm aware of (Chernobyl), all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). In fact, the technology and safety has come a long way since the 60's. Most US Navy ships are nuclear powered, and have not had incidents (and these are designed to go to war and survive). Japan was hit by…

> all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...).

I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#40

Post by lighthawk »

bradleyjg wrote: post #30

The biggest problem with nuclear is making the numbers work. You end up paying something like 80% of the cost 1 GW/year * 50 years before you get your first cent in revenue. That's a very tough thing to finance. Cost and especially time overruns during construction can easily tank the project financially. About the only way to make it work is to be a regulated utility that has a long term captured audience for its po…

So you're saying that no nuclear plants are going to be built because of the threat of renewable energy sources becoming cheaper or perhaps other tech like fusion?:

http://www.geek.com/science/germany-is-ready-to-switch-on-it...

Post reply on HN