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

121–130 of 666 posts

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

#121

Post by SapphireSun »

EGreg wrote: post #74

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 t…

Were these the graphs you were looking at?

global temperature anomaly since 1880 -- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ carbon dioxide for last 400k years -- http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

One person I met seemed to think that CO2 would be balanced by algae blooms in the oceans, but he wasn't a climate scientist. Nonetheless, if the ice caps melt enough before CO2 is compensated for, they'll release tons of methane which is an order of magnitude more potent than CO2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

Here's NASA's site on the evidence for global warming: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Here's a site that discusses the evidence that humans are at fault: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...

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

#122

Post by omginternets »

kalleboo wrote: post #67
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 oil? Working on it (see: solar). And failing at it, oil use is still going up > Less food? Working on it (see: /r/progresspics, and all the science and journalism on this, soda bans, etc). And failing at it, see worldwide obesity statistics > Less cars? Working on it (see: Waze, Uber, Lyft, public transit, et al). And failing at it, see the meteoric rise of motorization in developing countries > Do you suggest…

>And failing at it, see worldwide obesity statistics

This is more of a food quality issue than a food quantity issue. The strict hypercaloremic hypothesis is one that really is ready for retirement (and more or less has been retired in research circles).

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

#123

Post by KVFinn »

smaddox wrote: post #72
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.

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.

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

Yup. Larger power markets benefits every kind of power: wind, solar, and nuclear. There is a lot of resistance to this though. Every state would prefer wind sites build in their own state, rather than buying power from the windier state farther away.

If you had a truly national sized grid then the power distribution between even just wind and solar is remarkably stable.

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

#124

Post by redial »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #97
ibejoeb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So are reactors, in fact everything is bulletproof if you only count the successes.

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

#125

Post by omginternets »

trevyn wrote: post #12
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?

The human drive to reproduce.

First-world countries with ready access to contraception are facing a birth deficit, which is being eased by immigration.

Sex-drive is hard to stamp out. Actual reproduction, not so much.

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

#126

Post by ekianjo »

labster wrote: post #117
ianai wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only mass hysteria will force societal change.

This is the kind of comment that sounds sarcastic on first read, but is entirely genuine. Human societies, en masse, are terrible rational decision makers. Or maybe it's that they're very good rational decision makers on the individual level, leading to the tragedy of the commons? So we'd need mass hysteria to cause group rationality? Ooop, that's the bell, Pretzel Logic class dismissed!

> Human societies, en masse, are terrible rational decision makers.

Never seen "societies" making any decision. Most of the time, there are very few people in positions of power who make such decisions. If you want to see "societies" making decisions every single day, look at the market. Not so irrational at all, though.

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

#128

Post by rz2k »

EGreg wrote: post #74

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 t…

I don't think I understand what you mean about the composition of the atmosphere not having changed very much.

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

#129

Post by sfifs »

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…

Without large scale energy usage (eg. heating/cooling), large parts of the world (anything outside say +/-10 to 30 degrees of latitude) are practically unliveable for most parts of the year in modern standards of comfortable living. So you practically cannot reduce energy consumption without depopulating.

In terms of population reduction, history suggests any culture that does not propogate will be pushed aside by one that does. It will be interesting to see if there will still be a Japan in 3 generations.

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

#130

Post by hossbeast »

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…

Until fusion comes online
Post reply on HN