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

91–100 of 666 posts

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

#91

Post by r00fus »

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…

Two words: Baseload power... solar is cheap but batteries at scale are not yet.

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

#92

Post by grzm »

aianus wrote: post #68
grzm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know if you consider this an effective rebuttal but I live in a place (Ontario, Canada) that made the opposite move at the same time as Germany. All coal plants have been shut down and replaced with additional Nuclear, Hydro, and Natural Gas generation. We now have some of the cheapest electricity in the world (~$0.055 per kwh residential off peak vs. something crazy like $0.30 in Berlin) and haven't had a si…

It wasn't intended as a rebuttal. I'd rather not see increased CO₂ emissions as a result of electricity production.

I was, however, pushing back a little at "It boggles the mind", which in this context carries with it snarky connotations of condescension, which does nothing to solve the problem, and doesn't admit to even the possibility of understanding the situation. As I mentioned in my initial comment, there are reasons why this decision was made, and the first step in changing the situation is understanding why it came about. And changing the situation is the goal, isn't it?

What caused your locale to make this decision while Germany made another?

Edit to add: Please note I'm not saying or even implying you don't know why Germany made the decision to build more coal plants. I don't know the situations in Germany or Ontario. I just think it's more constructive to discuss the situation than dismissing it as startling, confusing, or overwhelming.

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

#93

Post by pdkl95 »

leodeid wrote: post #65
jat850 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect a significant percentage of people know that nuclear explosion is not a risk of nuclear power.

I would be surprised, to be honest, if more than half the american population knew that a nuclear power plant literally cannot blow up like an atomic bomb. However, I can't find any information to support either of our gut feelings. All of the polling information is of the form "how much do you like nuclear" or "what is the best non-fossil fuel power source". I'd love to see answers to "why do you think nuclear energ…

While it isn't proper poll, Veritasium's interviews[1] with the general public support the supposition that most people lack basic information about anything nuclear.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQmnztyXwVA

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

#94

Post by sounds »

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…

So let me get this straight:

1. It's a given that somehow, somewhere, a nuke is going to get away from humanity. I'm honestly optimistic that it'll just be a reactor problem, and that we -- humanity -- learn every time one happens. (Because engineers are a careful lot.) Then the environmental damage will be less than Fukushima.

2. Solar + A Storage Miracle (that much storage would be a certifiable wonder of the world) is competitive to nuclear on the following axes: risk, cost, and ability to regulate to match demand.

Because I don't think that's true. Happy to be proven wrong, but the problem appears to be political, only. Once a small reactor, or a country hungry enough (China) succeeds with nuclear, US politics will catch up. They always do.

tl;dr: I'm long on nuclear.

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

#95

Post by fulafel »

freehunter wrote: post #14
triplesec wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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?

Basic human nature is to further the species through population growth. It's literally the only thing that everyone can agree on as being "why we're here". Every instinct ingrained in every living creature is to produce offspring. Telling people to stop producing offspring goes against basic human nature, and requires a pretty educated populace in order to understand why they have to stop this instinctual process.

Europe and Russia have low birth rates. Population decline is not generally prevented by reproduction instincts.

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

#96

Post by underrun »

fgpwd wrote: post #90

The initial estimates for the cost to repair the damage caused by Fukushima were as far as I remember, around 50 billion dollars. According to a recent news article [1], the costs are now estimated at 250 billion dollars. They just keep on increasing. And then there is also the human/environmental damage to consider. I have been excited about nuclear since my school days, but at this point the downside if something g…

The advantages of advancing technology and building smaller safer reactors would go a long way to avoiding such disasters. Because things can go wrong is not a reason to stop research into making them better and safer. The real way to keep ahead of this is not to extend the life span of existing reactors but to build aggressively in order to take older ones offline as newer smaller safer reactors are ready.

And keep doing that.

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

#97

Post by toomuchtodo »

ibejoeb wrote: post #89
m_mueller wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with enough batteries or hydroelectric storage.

As I understand it, the batteries are dangerous also, being lithium or sodium. These are potentially city block-size Note 7s, right?

Not when engineered properly.

https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-saf...

EDIT:

Wide swaths of land aren't off limits to humans for decades when a lithium ion substation burns down.

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

#99

Post by Turing_Machine »

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…

"We've got these things you know, batteries."

Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective.

"Nuclear lost. Its never coming back."

There are currently 55 new power reactors under construction and scheduled to be in operation by 2020. China alone has 20 in active construction, with many more planned.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and...

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

#100

Post by barney54 »

smaddox wrote: post #64
DennisP wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a perfectly valid complaint, but it's not necessarily a good argument for nuclear, since nuclear has similar issues, I.e. controlling production to meet demand. In particular, nuclear cannot provide more than the minimum base load without huge investments in storage and/or transmission.

No, nuclear would provide all the base load and it can we ramped up and down some too. Solar is far more limited.
Post reply on HN