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

141–150 of 666 posts

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

#141

Post by visarga »

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 costs are now estimated at 250 billion dollars

I call it a fat research grant for disaster recovery robotics that will pay off in future applications.

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

#142

Post by EGreg »

SapphireSun wrote: post #121
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, the…

See my reply to a sister comment for the data I am speaking of.

I agree that currently we have some correlation of global warming and CO2 increase, but this doesn't prove causation esp considering the 70s experienced global cooling.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enha...

AND the main point is that there is a limit on how much more Co2 can be released: roughly the same amount that already has, if we reached peak fossil fuels. To put things in perspective, that's going from 0.03% to max 0.06% concentration. CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas should be measured as a function of its concentration relative to the TOTAL atmosphere. Maybe it rises exponentially, but maybe not. Like putting layers of paint on a window. We'd need hard numbers.

Meanwhile... no matter what you do, carbon credits or not, eventually ALL the fossil fuels WILL be burned up so it's only a matter of time. Better to learn to build artificial carbon sinks and methane sinks to capture the CO2 back underground. It's called forests and algae. Want to save the world? Plant forests!

http://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/north-americ...

On the other hand we CAN reduce the amount of methane by reducing the amount of cows we raise for hamburgers etc.

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

#143

Post by Spooky23 »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #99
toomuchtodo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Nuclear is a mess. You either are left with a waste problem that doesn't go away or a proliferation risk. The US government or successors will be subsidizing 20th century waste for hundreds of years.

Energy storage is a problem, but a transient problem that can be addressed with a variety of storage techniques and backed up by natural gas.

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

#144

Post by hackuser »

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 downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. ... The political capital lost in a reactor accident isn't worth it. The lost of faith in technology, the loss of trust in science

That omits what is by far the largest risk and issue, climate change. The cost of climate change dwarfs the risks mentioned above.

If solar or other renewable sources can't prevent climate change, then nuclear is a small price to pay.

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

#145

Post by visarga »

torpfactory wrote: post #41
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…

This. Do we really need more stuff? I think the HN crowd is certainly beyond this sort of simplistic understanding. But what about non-physical things? Do we need more entertainment? We are without a doubt the most entertained people in the history of the world. Do we need better connectedness? (I think we do, but it's not the kind on offer by Facebook). I think writing letters and using snail mail is about the bandw…

While I like the sentiment, I think global warming won't make us consumption minimalists. New materials and automation will make production cheaper. Automation will also make earth cleaner and self-cleaning. We're not just on the cusp of AI, but also of nanotechnology (where we manufacture with DNA and proteins), nuclear fusion (see the amazing new REBCO tape superconductors), 3d-printing and probably a dozen other emerging tech trends.

We don't, as a society, go the way of minimalism. Technology progress happens as if it has a will of its own, not dependent on individuals, governments and even wars going on. We're witnessing the birth of a new bootstrapped entity - we had the virus, the cell, the organism and now the machine. The moment we make a self replicating factory that only uses cheap local materials, we've seen the birth of this new life form. It will be the new cell, the bootstrapped, self-replicating, self-repairing, adaptive source of everything we need and capable of improving itself by continuous optimization.

We can't stop the birth of technological life.

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

#146

Post by Turing_Machine »

fulafel wrote: post #133
Turing_Machine wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Compared to nuclear?" Yes. Compared to nuclear. "That very few nations recycle or reprocesses?" Way wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s... I count ten countries on that list. " And where all the waste ends up in cooling pools forever?" No country keeps waste "in cooling pools forever".

There are plants of various ages beacause it was an area of active research in late 1900s, and a handful of industrial scale plants that are operating. But it's not generally happening or growing. For most used fuel there is no plan, or going to be buried underground.

All the ones shown in green are still operating.

It hasn't been in high demand because virgin uranium is still cheap. That won't be the case forever, and the used fuel pellets will be waiting when that occurs.

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

#147

Post by swehner »

sanjeetsuhag wrote: post #107
swehner wrote: post #101

Garbage from the New York Times, as usual.

Quality contribution to the discussion right here. Do you mind elaborating what do you think is the problem with the article ?

Sorry if your sense of entitlement to quality contributions was offended.

The article has no substance, makes arbitrary suggestions.

What's the "slow" in the title about? The word occurs once on the page, and that is in the title.

Let's go through some paragraphs.

1st paragraph: garbage 2nd paragraph: garbage (Not the qualifier to "emissions from the electricity sector") 3rd paragraph: garbage 4th paragraph: garbage

Note, no alternative energy sources are looked at or mentioned, except for "fossil fuels".

It's just gossip.

BTW, author is claimed to be "Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee"

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

#148

Post by probablybanned »

I'm not a nuclear engineer so I hesitate to shit up the thread with my armchair opinion, but I'm a big fan of small, low maintenance reactor designs like the Toshiba 4S. I feel like that's the way it ought to go: Away from large stationary reactor installations that require a huge amount of skilled labor on site for construction and maintenance, and toward modular banks of reactors that can be taken offline and refurbished off-site.

With a smaller, one size fits all design, one might expect to find economies of scale that don't currently exist. In much the same way, SpaceX seeks to make Falcon launches routine and push down costs of their incredibly complex machine through rapid iteration and refinement -- although reactor failures in the field must not be of the "energetic" variety of course.

Are there limitations of physics that will keep nuclear power stuck in the mainframe era, or might we see a commodity revolution?

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

#149

Post by tehabe »

aianus wrote: post #102
tehabe wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Shutting down nuclear reactors as they age out and replacing them with renewables (even expensive renewables) is fine, but shutting down perfectly functioning nuclear reactors with years or decades of lifespan left to build new coal seems indefensible to me.

Replacing them with coal plants is indeed stupid and indefensible. But shutting them down was the right choice. Some of them were in a bad shape. In one plant, Krümmel I think, they even had trouble getting replacement parts. Another one, it turned out had a flaw in the emergency power system and didn't even have an emergency control centre.

Of course, you could refit them but also that will costs money and it might be better invested in newer technologies than in those old reactors.

And we have enough issues with nuclear power already, no final repository, Asse II is still a problem. At one nuclear power plant it turned out, they store radio active waste in the basement and those barrel are complete eroded over the decades. AFAIK nobody knows what to do. The company didn't put CCTV in place because they wouldn't work well with the radiation.

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

#150

Post by flexie »

hackuser wrote: post #144
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 downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. ... The political capital lost in a reactor accident isn't worth it. The lost of faith in technology, the loss of trust in science That omits what is by far the largest risk and issue, climate change. The cost of climate change dwarfs the risks mentioned above. If solar or other renewable sources can't prevent climate change, t…

Are you sure about that? Wouldn't a 1 or 2 degrees temperature increase be preferable to nuclear meltdowns becoming more frequent because we get much more nuclear power plants?
Post reply on HN