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

51–60 of 666 posts

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

#51

Post by ianai »

DennisP wrote: post #31
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.

Only mass hysteria will force societal change.

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

#52

Post by jerkstate »

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…

Sure. You first.

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

#53

Post by MichaelBurge »

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…

A. Who exactly are you suggesting do something?

B. What exactly are you suggesting they do?

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

#54

Post by grzm »

aianus wrote: post #45
jat850 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Germany replaced their nuclear power with new coal. It boggles the mind. https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyro...

It sounds like this is something that's important to you. There were reasons why this is happening, regardless of whether you agree with them or that they're rational. If this is an issue you would like to be more active about, rather than remaining boggled, I encourage you to dig in to determine what those reasons are so you can effectively counteract them.

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

#55

Post by unclebucknasty »

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…

I think you're right that what the terminology conjures in the mind is important. And, it can be tricky to communicate some of these ideas positively. For instance, the phrase "reducing the population" is probably as unpalatable as "eugenics" for some. It does sound a bit callous; as if we are saying that we want/need people (i.e. members of the existing population) to die.

Even phrases like "population control" and "population management" carry this negative connotation. There probably needs to be a new, friendlier term. Something positive-sounding like "right-sizing" or "harmonizing".

In short, these ideas need better PR.

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

#56

Post by cma »

hueving wrote: post #47
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…

>in an era where solar is competitively priced We're not in that era though. Solar is only competitive if you don't account for storage, which is required if it's going to replace any large percentage of generation.

Nuclear waste storage is subsidized and nuclear liability is too (capped near $12billion; plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion).

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

#57

Post by ianai »

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, afaik, requires a natural gas installation, too, for off hours.

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

#58

Post by maxerickson »

waynecochran wrote: post #43
oconnore wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oops your right. My bad.

Immigrants and their children do account for most of the population growth in the US though.

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

#59

Post by adventured »

wildmusings wrote: post #8
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…

People = economic power. Consumption = economic power. It's very likely that China and/or India will eventually be the most powerful countries in the world. Why? The simple fact that they have the most people and will have the biggest markets. And anyhow, if we can sustainably support double or triple the current population, then why not?

Very large populations will increasingly be a liability in the age of robotics + AI. China and India will suffer immensely because they're simultaneously extremely poor, extremely under-educated and overpopulated at exactly the wrong time. Their over-population will be a persistent drag on raising the standard of living for all of their people, leading to stagnation once their easy fill-in growth is done (China's ended years ago). There is no scenario under which either nation can substantially boost the economic output of their bottom ~800 million, the global economy will never grow fast enough to allow for it. For example, India's path forward on easy GDP growth is already blocked by the end of the manufacturing boom that China was riding for decades (and that regional competitors in east Asia are already deep into taking from China). India coming from extraordinary poverty, will find it very easy to maintain 5% & 6% type growth for years to come, the economic wall will show up as they try to leap toward the middle of nations economically.

It's very likely that neither China nor India will ever become the most powerful countries.

Post reply on HN