To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by paulddraper » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:14 AM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #187

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…

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

Most estimates are inflated. From 2002 to 2008 UCS's estimate for a nuclear plant went from $2 to $8 million, for no real reason.

Actual, real-life plants (like from the 60s) have much lower costs than recent estimates have claimed (adjusted for inflation).

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

#192

Post by MichaelApproved » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:16 AM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #139

hueving wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion Citation? Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors and it wasn't $1t.

Fukushima is up to $200bn and rising.

Here's a recent source that puts it close to that figure ($180 billion) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248

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

#193

Post by Rylinks » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:16 AM UTC

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…

Just to remind the hydroelectric fans here: the cost of Banqiao Reservoir Dam is 170,000 people dead and resettlement of 11 million.

That is ONE dam gone wrong. Why anyone would build another one is beyond me.

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

#194

Post by Twisell » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:18 AM UTC

wamatt wrote: post #173

It's kind of unfortunate that the label "nuclear power" seems to inevitably bundle both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion into the same public policy debate. Their respective safety profiles couldn't be further apart. While the economic risks for a failed nuclear fusion strategy can be argued, given even a modest chance for eventually producing large amounts of clean and safe energy output 24/7, should we not be pur…

Last year I met a doctor that work at the experimental ITER fusion plant. He was pretty optimistic about the technology but totally desperate about budget.

It's an international initiative and US are actually one of the country that pay the least compared to its Income per capita...

By today funding it's clear that real solutions won't be ready until 2050, hence fission is still required in the mix until then. I don't get how people can blinding defend that renewable alone is the answer, because once you do the math it just don't work.

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

#195

Post by petre » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:20 AM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #116

sounds wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Once a country hungry enough (China) succeeds with nuclear, US politics will catch up. They always do. At least one journalist believes we are already trailing behind China, and have been for a while now[1] 1 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_prit...

China licensed almost evey nuclear reactor design out there and sent its finest nuclear scientists to study in the West. They are going to copy every design and build new ones. India already has a working research Thorium reactor based on their modified version of CANDU (the Canadians pulled out when India made its first nuke).

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

#196

Post by kijin » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:20 AM UTC

shadykiller wrote: post #83

Always been curious about this - wont nuclear plants increase thermal input of earth ? True for fossil fuels too which were never burnt in such vast quantity These energy sources are outside of solar energy so how much more can they warm up the earth ?

All energy produced in any type of power plant eventually becomes heat. Fossil fuels have the additional property of making Earth retain more of it.

Solar could also increase the temperature if it traps energy that would otherwise be immediately reflected back to space. I'm not sure if the difference is significant, though, compared to the effect of greenhouse gases.

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

#197

Post by scurvy » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:23 AM UTC

kashkhan wrote: post #161

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...

"We? No, we are not French. We're American, because you're in America, okay? Greatest country on the planet." (movie quote before anyone gets too upset)

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

#198

Post by afterburner » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:25 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #191

afterburner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

Most estimates are inflated. From 2002 to 2008 UCS's estimate for a nuclear plant went from $2 to $8 million, for no real reason. Actual, real-life plants (like from the 60s) have much lower costs than recent estimates have claimed (adjusted for inflation).

I wouldn't want a plant from the 60s, and I would wonder how costs were hidden back then, and how much subsequent safety overhauls cost.

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

#199

Post by schiffern » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:26 AM UTC

adwn wrote: post #163

ekianjo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You forgot the biggest insanity of all: the wholesale undermining of our ecosystem for short-term private gain. The biggest offender by far is idiotic practices that deforest and degrade soil in agriculture and animal husbandry. Throughout history these practices have made more land "useless" through desertification than nuclear accidents could even dream of.

Currently the Amazon rainforest is being slashed and burned for a mere decade or so of beef production, before the fertility is washed out to sea, the vegetation dies, the continental transpiration cycle shuts down, and that land too is desertified. A similar process has already happened the Middle East, which was forested in accounts as recently as Napoleon's campaigns.

I liken it to the crew of your spaceship busily axing away at the life support generators... :-\

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

#200

Post by beders » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:30 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #186

sounds wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Once a small reactor, or a country hungry enough (China) succeeds with nuclear France has been succeeding for quite some time. The majority of their power comes from nuclear.

Unless you live 15 miles away from it. There's no succeeding with nuclear.