Live data from Hacker News

Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

energyrealityproject.com

261–270 of 393 posts

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

#261

The article is completely unprofessional. The tone itself is very one-sided - which is bad enough. However, the factual omissions are ridiculous. Here are a few examples: the area used for wind turbines is large, but it is usually re-usable for agriculture, or increasingly off shore official nuclear death are low - but there is a lot of dispute on the "long tail" of long term deaths from the big nuclear disasters of…

Most importantly, IMHO, they completely ignore the learning curve for solar & wind. This is a proven trend, over last decades, appears to be set to continue, and completely changes the discussion.

By 'learning curve,' I guess you mean the rapidly increasing efficiency curves these technologies are on, and in the case of solar(maybe wind as well, not sure) exponentially so.

I certainly agree with you, this is the most important factor in any discussion of current and future energy generation, and carries great weight for why we should all be highly skeptical and indeed hostile towards any thing like future developments of highly destructive energy projects like fracking, or potentially highly destructive like nuclear.

Things like fracking and nuclear carry huge unaccounted for costs that are totally absent from the bottom lines of the companies developing them. It is absolutely absurd and criminal that fracking companies in particular are allowed to run roughshod over our shared environmental heritage creating negative effects that may last for generations. And it is all the more tragic when one looks at the development curve of renewables and applies a little foresight.

Fracking's huge costs in the form of negative externalities are quite apparent to anyone wanting to look for them today, but nuclear fits quite well into this line of thinking as well. Why would we want to burden our grandchildren with the hassle of nuclear waste?

If we don't clean up our act, it's hard to see how future generations aren't going to look back on us as party guests that showed up on this planet, made a huge mess, poured rum in the aquarium and killed the fish, and left without cleaning it all up.

It may sound a little pollyanna-ish, but as you say, the evidence bears it out, if everybody can just chill for a minute or two and maybe look for ways to make their current energy use more efficient, we're on the cusp of having more than enough energy supplied from sources that are harmonious with our environment rather than destructive of it.

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

#262

The article is completely unprofessional. The tone itself is very one-sided - which is bad enough. However, the factual omissions are ridiculous. Here are a few examples: the area used for wind turbines is large, but it is usually re-usable for agriculture, or increasingly off shore official nuclear death are low - but there is a lot of dispute on the "long tail" of long term deaths from the big nuclear disasters of…

> official nuclear death are low - but there is a lot of dispute on the "long tail" of long term deaths from the big nuclear disasters of Ukraine and Japan

Fukushima happened too soon, and it will be a long time before the results of that disaster on the healthy of the surrounding people can be properly analysed.

Chernobyl on the other hand has been studied extensively and considering the scale of the disaster the toll on human life, including increase in cancer rates is lower than expected at the time of the accident.

In particular the Chernobyl Forum's 2005 report found that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer in children had caused 5000 additional cases due to the release of radioactive iodine from Chernobyl.

These are seen as the only additional deaths due to radiation exposure other than the estimated 2000 caused due to directed exposure to clean up workers at the site itself.

You can find an summary of the finding on the World Health organisations website, as well as read the report directly.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf

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

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watt is joule/second. Write it out and algebraically cancel the units and you'l understand that you don't understand, and then maybe you will. As a rule, in future, try to understand before mocking, its a better way to live, take it from me...

I think you've misunderstood the point. Terawatt-hours is ambiguous, without specifying a time period. In particular, Terawatt-hours can be converted to Joules. To say that humanity's energy usage is X Joules is meaningless without specifying the time period that that energy is used over. For example, it means very different things to say that humanity uses 5 TWh per day than to say that humanity uses 5 TWh per year…

The context is deathprint” (casualties per terawatt-hour) or deaths/joule, time cancels out. If you read the NERD Note alone your right of course.

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

#264
post #241
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is simply not enough uranium for a full build out of 3rd generation nuclear This is really important and is often avoided to be discussed: even if the 10% of all world's energy needs are covered by the nuclear energy at this moment, we know we're using some 70 Ktons of uranium per year. Then to use only nuclear energy we'd need 700 Ktons per year. Currently identified uranium resources total 5.5 Mtons, which…

Only thorium breeders seem feasible for commercial production. Plutonium breeders are terribly unsafe.

Do you have any link of any real development of any useful thorium reactor? If it has benefits, why isn't anybody getting rich developing it now? Even if the western politicians or corporations have any supposed agenda, why don't Russia and China develop or use them instead of scheduling the plutonium (Pu) reactors?

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

#265
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: htt…

Do you burn it? Why is it than that every reactor I know of, in US, WE, Japan, stores tones of extremely dangerous waste on site?

Because "just burning it" requires engineering and implementing a different nuclear technology with its own issues.

Nuke advocates always practice magical thinking. Wave away safety concerns. Write off intractable waste disposal issues as "just bury it". The reality is that nuclear as it stands today is a relic of the Cold War. Solar, wind and gas are the future.

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

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watt is joule/second. Write it out and algebraically cancel the units and you'l understand that you don't understand, and then maybe you will. As a rule, in future, try to understand before mocking, its a better way to live, take it from me...

You might say, for example, that "in 2008, the world total of electricity production was 20,279 terawatt-hours (TWh)." You need the time period however for it to make sense. Referring to a continuous generation capacity would be measured simply in terrawatts. As in "this number corresponds to an average rate of around 2.3 terawatts continuously during the year." The original article has an error as pointed out by the…

There is not time period in context of deaths/joule. There is only a error if the note is taken out of context. On its own its ambiguous sure.

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

#268
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can build a lot of PVs and turbines in the same amount of time, and place them closer to where they're being used (reduce transmission loss). You can also place them on top of buildings (reduces AC load by 2%) and on top of parking lots (reduces car heat and urban heat island effect). That was not the point. The argument was that nobody can build all the hundreds of nuclear plants that we would need. How can we…

>How can we build the millions of PV's and thousands of turbines? Those things fall off an assembly line. Nuclear power plants can't be massed-produced. >Why not? Who's going to invest that much money? While you're waiting around for a nuke plant and all of the infrastructure to be built, a few PV's can make a washing machine work and then girls can go to school.

You don't make wind turbine pylons or blades on assembly line either. You don't install solar panels to rooftops by assembly line. If nuclear gets enough momentum, large portion of the parts can be produced on assembly line too. But I think this is better covered by cost analysis than any argument about serial production.

If the absolutely poorest parts of the world are not going to get fission plants in near future, that doesn't mean places like China, India and Indonesia could not get them. This is what matters if we want to combat climate change. But I'm not opposed to solar panels either. Whatever can be done quickly that cuts CO2 emissions.

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

#269
post #264
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only thorium breeders seem feasible for commercial production. Plutonium breeders are terribly unsafe.

Do you have any link of any real development of any useful thorium reactor? If it has benefits, why isn't anybody getting rich developing it now? Even if the western politicians or corporations have any supposed agenda, why don't Russia and China develop or use them instead of scheduling the plutonium (Pu) reactors?

China have announced plans to research development of thorium reactors. The initial schedule put possible commercial deployment as not before ~2040. Some managerial rattling prompted more ambitious schedules, though so far as I can tell, that was based far more on wishful thinking (we want an energy solution sooner) than any significant technological breakthrough.

So, yes, even the can-do, optimistic Chinese see practical application of thorium / MSR designs as decades off.

Previously: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uy239/energy_...

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

#270
post #257
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen Ignition! referenced quite a few times on this site. Is there a reasonable place to get a reprint?

It's available online: http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf

Thank you, went to save it to my dropbox and found a copy already there...
Post reply on HN