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

To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 666 posts

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#31

Post by DennisP »

niels_olson wrote: post #3

My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…

Solar plus all the infrastructure required to run a wind/solar grid without fossil backup is not yet competitively priced. It looks great at low market penetration but we need to eliminate emissions, not just lower them a little.

We're going to end up with plenty of mass hysteria if we don't put the brakes on climate change as fast as we possibly can, by every means available.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#32

Post by DrScump »

freehunter wrote: post #20
DrScump wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reducing consumption (and) population Those goals don't conflict with a shift to nuclear.

They don't, but if we met those goals we may be able to get away with not using nuclear. Nuclear produces a lot of power with relatively low side effects, but solar and wind produce a smaller amount of power with no side effects. If we can globally bring our power consumption down to that smaller amount that can be met by solar and wind, we could get rid of the economic and political arguments that keep nuclear from…

  solar and wind produce a smaller amount of power with no side effects
Actually, manufacture, transportation, and installation consume mostly fossil fuels, and manufacture has environmental impacts (including waste products). I'd consider that a "side effect".

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#33

Post by antidaily »

niels_olson wrote: post #3

My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…

The problem is that these old plants are getting replaced with coal and natural gas.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#34

Post by stellar678 »

spodek wrote: post #2

When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…

We're actually all over that, and it will only continue to get better.

The US energy productivity (GDP per unit of energy) has gone up 58% in the last 25 years, and most other regions of the world have seen large gains as well: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032

Our energy use per capita also continues to decline.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#35

Post by oconnore »

waynecochran wrote: post #18
spodek wrote: post #2

When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…

Population would be declining in us w/o migrants entering the country. So the US is doing its part on population reduction. https://www.census.gov/popclock/

I don't think you read that right. The growth rate is still (net) 1 person every 24 seconds without migrants.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#36

Post by [deleted] »

spodek wrote: post #2

When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…

[deleted]

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#37

Post by freehunter »

DrScump wrote: post #32
freehunter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't, but if we met those goals we may be able to get away with not using nuclear. Nuclear produces a lot of power with relatively low side effects, but solar and wind produce a smaller amount of power with no side effects. If we can globally bring our power consumption down to that smaller amount that can be met by solar and wind, we could get rid of the economic and political arguments that keep nuclear from…

solar and wind produce a smaller amount of power with no side effects Actually, manufacture, transportation, and installation consume mostly fossil fuels, and manufacture has environmental impacts (including waste products). I'd consider that a "side effect".

But that's true of nuclear as well. Building a power plant and disposing of waste (not to mention disposing of waste water, which is often an environmental challenge) have huge costs that are fed by fossil fuels as well.

What's implied by "produce power with no side effects" is it does not take fossil fuels to keep them running, nor do they put out any harmful by-products. Even hot water discharged into a lake and steam discharged into the air is more of a harmful by-product than the literally nothing that solar and wind generators produce.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#38

Post by DennisP »

omegaworks wrote: post #30
DennisP wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been splitting atoms for 70 years. France has run its electric grid on 80% nuclear power. What's our track record on reducing consumption and population? Not saying we shouldn't do them all, but I don't think nuclear is the most difficult of these three.

>What's our track record on reducing consumption and population? As for the latter, it's great actually. Lifting people out of poverty and keeping their kids alive lowers their birth rate.

Globally we haven't reduced population, we've just reduced its rate of increase. Our success rate on actually reducing global population is zero.

And generally, lifting people out of poverty has meant increasing their carbon emissions.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#39

Post by flukus »

Retra wrote: post #24
flukus wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desire to breed is pretty hard wired, species die without it. Sex is only fun because it rewards our desire to breed.

Sex is fun irrespective of it causing breeding. They are evolutionarily linked, but the have no moral relationship within the human brain. The desire to have sex and the desire to have children are for most people, completely independent desires. And for what it's worth, humans have no obligations to our evolutionary past. "How we evolved" has no direct bearing on what we want (or 'are meant') to do with our lives. I…

The desire to have sex is because it's enjoyable, it's enjoyable as a result of evolution.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#40

Post by jat850 »

antidaily wrote: post #33
niels_olson wrote: post #3

My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…

The problem is that these old plants are getting replaced with coal and natural gas.

Are they really replacing with coal, still? Natural gas contribution to energy is on the rise, but coal seems to be on the decline. (I'm not calling you wrong, I just can't find data to back numbers of plants - only coal as an energy production method.)
Post reply on HN