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

161–170 of 666 posts

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

#161

Post by kashkhan »

scurvy wrote: post #151

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…

The expense comes from unwise regulation and lack of development i.e. pork.

It works perfectly fine in france which is 80% powered by nuclear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media...

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

#162

Post by ianai »

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!

I'm glad you caught my earnestness. The saying is that "counties will say they're going to war for whatever reasons, but it always boils down to water, food, or resources." That's because it takes a serious threat to the livelihood of every single person for people to rise up in one way or another. Right now, climate change does pose a threat and has harmed many. The negatives are too diverse though. People won't demand change until the Florida Keys aren't anymore. They're going to need to see camera footage of an entire nation finally washing under the sea. They're going to need to see crazy things coming their way before burning oil becomes unpalatable. Only then will they see the actual motive to change.

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

#163

Post by adwn »

ekianjo wrote: post #126
labster wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you want to see "societies" making decisions every single day, look at the market. Not so irrational at all, though.

Except for the stock market crashes of 1929 and 1987, the dot-com bubble, the housing bouble followed a crash, the tulip mania, ... Markets are not always rational.

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

#164

Post by CN7R »

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…

That means the only countries that are going to invest and progress in nuclear technology are the ones not subjected to public accountability, such as China. Perhaps we need other coubtries to either outpace us or show what can be accomplished before the United States jumps in.

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

#165

Post by kashkhan »

JacksonGariety wrote: post #160
kashkhan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes. Modern large airplanes are more complex than reactors and have more uncertainty, and have more places on the chain they can go wrong. But they don't, at least not in the US in last 15 years. Why?

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

#166

Post by kuschku »

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.

> with years or decades of lifespan left

But that’s not what happened. Merkel arbitrarily increased the lifespan of reactors, without any technical viability tests, then, after fukushima, turned it down to exactly what the experts had suggested originally.

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

#167

Post by grzm »

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.

What resources have you found particularly useful? I've seen more than one comment on HN cite how few human lives have been lost as a result of Fukushima, which is one metric that can be used to quantify the effects of a nuclear reactor disaster. I'm not arguing that it's a useful metric, so recommending concise references available that support your position would be very helpful.

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

#168

Post by mikeyouse »

niftich wrote: post #106
jlj wrote: post #86

Is it technically possible to have a global power grid, where solar generated on the sunny side of the earth can be used on the dark side, eliminating the need for energy storage?

Massive infrastructure costs, the need for political coordination, and transmission losses [1] make this scenario unlikely. [1] http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...

Transmission losses aren't the restriction that many people imply. Modern HVDC lines have less than half the losses as compared to a similar-length AC line.

There's a cable under construction from Scotland to England that will have a 2,200MW capacity, will run over 400km, and will have losses under 3%.[1]

Brazil finished a 7,700MW line that runs 2,400km from a series of hydroelectric dams to major population centers with something like 8% losses. Sure, 8% of 7,700MW is a ton of energy lost, but 8% for moving power from the equivalent distance of Denver to NYC is pretty damn good.

It's not out of the realm of possibilities to build a HVDC line from England to the US within the next decade or two. If you figure 6,000km and 1.5% losses per 1,000km, you might be able to keep the total loss below 10%. Run an 800KV line (or a pair of 800KV lines) and you could probably install a 15+ GW of transmission capacity.

[1] - http://www.eaem.co.uk/news/world-beating-%E2%82%AC11bn-under...

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

#169

Post by ianai »

ekianjo wrote: post #126
labster wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The paradox of the efficient market hypothesis disagrees with you. For EHM to hold enough people must be acting irrationally.

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

#170

Post by ekianjo »

ianai wrote: post #51
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.

Only mass hysteria will force societal change.

Ridiculous claim. Societal changes occur when the right incentives are at play for the change to occur.
Post reply on HN