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

151–160 of 666 posts

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

#151

Post by scurvy »

Isn't nuclear still really expensive? I read that Entergy was shutting down some nuclear plants they recently acquired because they had not-good track records and it cost more to produce energy than what they could sell it for [0].

In networking terms, nuclear energy always felt like Infinband or ATM to me. In theory, superior in many ways but in reality a pain in the ass that never really quite worked well. What the world needs is Ethernet and nothing more. I'm not sure what the energy equivalent of Ethernet is, but I know it aint nuclear.

[0] http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Nuclear-Plant-on-La...

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

#152

Post by beders »

Just to remind the nuclear fans here: cost of Chernobyl: estimated around 201b euros, cost of lives: between 4000 and several hundred thousands indirectly, the area is a radioactive wasteland for centuries to come, the reactor still needs additional protection. The effects are still measurable all over Europe, resettlement of thousands of people.

That is ONE reactor gone wrong.

Why anyone would build another one when solar is down to .21 per watts is beyond me.

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

#153

Post by nandemo »

sounds wrote: post #94
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…

I think the issue is moot because the real danger isn't a nuclear reactor accident, it's a nuclear weapon detonation -- especially if it's from an nuclear power to another.

I think worrying about global warming is rather optimistic.

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

#154

Post by goatlover »

beders wrote: post #152

Just to remind the nuclear fans here: cost of Chernobyl: estimated around 201b euros, cost of lives: between 4000 and several hundred thousands indirectly, the area is a radioactive wasteland for centuries to come, the reactor still needs additional protection. The effects are still measurable all over Europe, resettlement of thousands of people. That is ONE reactor gone wrong. Why anyone would build another one when…

By wasteland, you mean humans no longer live there, but I've seen video, and it looks like plants and animals are doing okay. You wouldn't be able to tell there had been a meltdown. Maybe some of the animals have a higher cancer rate than normal, or other health issues? Would be curious to know. Looked to me like nature had taken over after humans left.

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

#155

Post by fulafel »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #146
fulafel wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The list has 6 active ones with > 100t/year capacity, more are being decommissioned than built.

Uranium is going to stay sufficiently cheap to our best current knowledge (we'll probably keep find new deposits, or it can be extracted from seawater for much cheaper than reprocessing spent fuel)

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

#156

Post by Bluestrike2 »

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…

You're reading your own biases and preconceptions into your source material. The Union of Concerned Scientists post doesn't state that nuclear has lost and renewables have won. All it states is that, as a percentage of net electricity production, renewables are projected to increase, nuclear is largely staying flat, coal is declining, and natural gas has gone through the roof.

Renewables are going to be a huge part of future energy production, but you're deluding yourself if you think that they'll be able to manage 100% in most regions. As renewables displace fossil fuels, they place more and more pressure on storage demands. And just buying PowerWalls and millions of batteries isn't going to cut it without creating other problems elsewhere. The cost analyses that you're referring to do not include storage.

That's where nuclear energy is eventually going to come into play, ensuring that there's a consistent base load available that's not subject to weather conditions. Rolling blackouts are very much an undesirable side effect.

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

#158

Post by kashkhan »

beders wrote: post #152

Just to remind the nuclear fans here: cost of Chernobyl: estimated around 201b euros, cost of lives: between 4000 and several hundred thousands indirectly, the area is a radioactive wasteland for centuries to come, the reactor still needs additional protection. The effects are still measurable all over Europe, resettlement of thousands of people. That is ONE reactor gone wrong. Why anyone would build another one when…

France is mostly powered by nuclear. How many french have died from it?

Yes it's possible to make a nuclear wasteland. But it's also possible to not make it.

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

#159

Post by kashkhan »

JacksonGariety wrote: post #157

Please, HN: read more about fukushima. This could be the end of it all. All of human history could go out in the blink of an eye.

Fukushima was badly built, badly protected, and badly operated.

First few decades airplanes were deadly. Now not so much. All tech can be tamed if you put in the effort.

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

#160

Post by JacksonGariety »

kashkhan wrote: post #159
JacksonGariety wrote: post #157

Please, HN: read more about fukushima. This could be the end of it all. All of human history could go out in the blink of an eye.

Fukushima was badly built, badly protected, and badly operated. First few decades airplanes were deadly. Now not so much. All tech can be tamed if you put in the effort.

But what if someone doesn't. A chain is as strong as its weakest link.
Post reply on HN