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

71–80 of 666 posts

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

#71

Post by welly »

Taek wrote: post #63
niels_olson wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you mean. What consumption shall we reduce? Less oil? Working on it (see: solar). Less food? Working on it (see: /r/progresspics, and all the science and journalism on this, soda bans, etc). Less cars? Working on it (see: Waze, Uber, Lyft, public transit, et al). Do you suggest that China didn't try population control at scale for generations? (1) What, exactly, do you mean? (1) https://www.wa…

Less transportation, less devices (instead of upgrading every year, how about using the same phone 5 years in a row?), don't eat meat, generally just reduce consumption. It does not count as less consumption if you replace oil with solar. Replace it with a void. Whatever activities you were doing that required energy, just don't do those things. We could do a lot better if we just lived like the 1600s.

"We could do a lot better if we just lived like the 1600s"

Sure, nothing like a bit of plague and disease to thin out the population a bit.

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

#72

Post by smaddox »

DennisP wrote: post #17
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'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.

France was able to run at 80% fission because they were selling excess production at low domestic demand times to adjacent territories. If you want to use nuclear for more than base load, you run into similar storage/transmission issues to solar/wind.

Either way, we need a larger and more capable grid, so that production and demand can be balanced over larger areas.

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

#73

Post by toomuchtodo »

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.

We've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't.

Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone.

Its over. Nuclear lost. Its never coming back. (10+ years to build a new nuclear generator and billions of dollars? With solar and wind getting cheaper every 6 months? What patsy is going to pay for nuclear?) Now go get some solar panels on your roof and a Powerwall in your garage. Or buy some renewables from your utility if they have a program where you choose your supplier.

Even the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees: http://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/renewable-energy-to-sur...

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

#74

Post by EGreg »

I used to think that global warming was a slam dunk.

But then I looked at the data... the carbon makeup of the atmosphere hasn't changed much at all, and we have already reached peak oil. If the carbon sinks (oceans etc.) can hold 2x the current amount they absorbed without much trouble then we are in the clear.

Perhaps CFCs and Ozone Depleting Substances present a danger but we have largely reduced their use since the 90s.

So I am not sure anymore than people will mess up the ATMOSPHERE globally. Locally - yes. And that doesn't let people off the hook when it comes to overfishing, logging forests, destroying ecosystems such as rainforests, wild bees and monarch butterflies, introducing new predators into oceans, non-biodegradable plastic, turning the world into farms etc etc.

Having said that, where is the data showing humans having a huge effect on the atmosphere composition??

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

#75

Post by iopq »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #73
hueving wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

We've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't. Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone. Its…

What happens to batteries that leak and no longer work?

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

#76

Post by tehabe »

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...

Except it isn't really true. The share of coal in the German energy mix is decreasing too. There was a hike in 2013 and 2014. And the construction of new coal plants in the last 10 years was big mistake but nevertheless, the switch to renewable sources is important and has to continue. In the end it will be cheaper than any new nuclear power plant which might or might not work.

Also renewable energy has a big plus vs nuclear power, while current nuclear plants are huge and build to last 60 years, renewable energy can be small and last for 20 to 30 years. So in 60 years we could have gone through three improved generations of solar panels or wind mills or something else. While the nuclear power plant build today will be the same inefficient one in 60 years.

The pro nuclear faction on HN baffles me every time. Nuclear power is a complex and big machine, the infrastructure and centralised systems you need is also expensive. For example, you need a also a huge grid. Renewable energy makes decentralised system possible, town and cities or even smaller community can produce their own electricity. Nationwide grids might be less important in a 100% renewable energy system than they are today. (At least I hope so)

For me that is an exciting future, which opens up much more possibilities for more people, to get creative, to create businesses, to build new things.

But well, I know what will happening.

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

#77

Post by tibarun »

"Nuclear power lobbyists and their marketing firms want us to believe that humankind’s current CO2 atmospheric releases would have been much worse were it not for those 438 nukes now operating. How much worse? The World Nuclear Association industry trade group estimates that an additional 1.1 GT of CO2 would have been created in 2015 if natural gas plants supplied the electricity instead of those 438 nukes[17].

Do the math! 1.1 additional GT out of 36 GT emitted is only a 3% difference. This 3% value is not a typographical error. Worldwide, all those nukes made only a 3% dent in yearly CO2 production. Put another way, each of the 438 individual nuclear plants contribute less than seven thousandths of one percent to CO2 reduction[18]. That’s hardly enough to justify claims that keeping your old local nuke running is necessary to prevent the sea from rising." Read more: https://fairewinds.squarespace.com/demystify//demystifying-n...

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

#78

Post by unethical_ban »

optforfon wrote: post #62

One thing that needs to be stressed is that realistically there is a rather limited amount of Uranium than can be extracted from the earth for nuclear power. That if we could magically convert to 100% nuclear power - it wouldn't last that long. from wikipedia "Still, the world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at the arbitrary price ceiling of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last for between…

Plutonium and Thorium are other options.

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

#79

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)

#80

Post by EGreg »

triplesec wrote: post #6
ams6110 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proposals that are contrary to basic human nature rarely gain much traction.

'Basic human nature'is a phrase that assumes a lot of things. How would you characterise this phrase in more detail, as it pertains to this topic? And how would you justify such claims?

Induced demand sir

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

Post reply on HN