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

251–260 of 666 posts

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

#251

Post by jwr »

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…

…and this is how it will end. We will endlessly quabble over what is worth it and what isn't, burning fossil fuels in the meantime. Until climate change becomes irreversible.

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

#252

Post by dreistdreist »

omginternets wrote: post #122
kalleboo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Why did nobody notify me that the law of thermodynamics changed?

It is not physicially possible to gain weight when you have a caloric deficit. Where would it even come from?

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

#253

Post by dispose13432 »

fulafel wrote: post #113
pdkl95 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_... Hans Rosling has a very good argument that we need a certain minimum amount of energy usage if we want both social and population stability. Wasted energy in the developed world is an interesting discussion, but if we want to address climate change the focus has to be on the much larger population of the world that is trying to rapidly increase their ene…

It's easy to imagine many proposals that don't restrict access to washing machines. For example a per capita progressive CO2 tax would be one. We generally have the mechanisms to implement binding international agreements about these things, it's just a question of political will.

>For example a per capita progressive CO2 tax would be one

You can't Carbon tax people by income (because people don't pollute directly). You'll target polluters.

So you go to Apple and tell them that they emitted so many kg of CO2, pay ... tax,

Which will undoubtedly find its way to rising phone prices, which means (poor) people don't get nice things.

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

#254

Post by toomuchtodo »

hueving wrote: post #138
toomuchtodo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective. Compared to nuclear? That very few nations recycle or reprocesses? And where all the waste ends up in cooling pools forever? Don't be disingenuous. > 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…

You quoted this yourself! "The technical solutions are ready to be implemented when the political will reasserts itself" There is no technical reason not to move forward, the issues are all ignorant political stances based on FUD much like the stuff you are espousing here.

Where did I ever say the problem was technical? It might as well be; the political climate will not change. Nuclear will die a slow death while renewables and battery storage continue to have their tax credits for another five years.

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

#255

Post by soebbing »

bad_user wrote: post #216
paulddraper wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the borders with Germany.

Do you have a source for that? A quick search seems to suggest the contrary: https://energytransition.org/2015/06/is-germany-reliant-on-f...

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

#256

Post by bjelkeman-again »

philipkglass wrote: post #234
paulddraper wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't want a plant from the 60s Me neither. Unfortunately, that's all we have, since we're not building any more :(

There are 4 new AP1000 reactors under construction in the United States. Unfortunately, they're over budget and behind schedule. UCS is if anything charitable to estimate $8 billion for a new reactor. http://www.enr.com/articles/41134-turnaround-eludes-nuclear-... Last spring, at the Plant Vogtle construction site near Waynesboro, Ga., executives representing Georgia Power, its lead contractors and trades groups gath…

Meanwhile in Finland the cost overruns are several billion and the contractors are suing each other for billions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

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

#257

Post by grzm »

sqeezy wrote: post #250
bad_user wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the borders with Germany.

actually you are wrong. germany is exporting way more as they are importing http://phasenpruefer.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Handels...

The image is from the German-language article "Stromexport Deutschlands erreicht immer neue Rekorde (aktualisiert)", 7 October 2015.

http://phasenpruefer.info/deutschlands-stromexporte-bricht-r...

English title courtesy of Google Translate: "Germany's electricity exports are constantly growing (updated)".

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

#258

Post by dispose13432 »

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 the meteoric rise of motorization in developing countries

In contrast to popular opinion, cars are one of the greatest equalizers on the planet.

Before cars, who gets to enjoy a nice Sunday morning at the beach?

The rich with beachside estates. There aren't too many busses going there at random hours of the day.

Without cars, how would the poor get to a national park?

Practically, public transportation only works when you want to go where the crowds are.

If you want to stand out, you've got to take a car.

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

#259

Post by MaulingMonkey »

nl wrote: post #201
Turing_Machine wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective. Flow batteries[1] aren't especially dense storage, but nor are they expensive or environmentally horrible. They make a lot of sense in distributed power generation scenarios (ie, rooftop solar) . [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery

There's also pumped hydro - and possibly ARES, if that turns out to be cost effective.

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

#260

Post by f_allwein »

Nuclear power also leaves behind waste that is hazardous for between 10.000 and 1.000.000 years ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste ), i.e. has t be stored safely for that amount of time. Most countries using nuclear power haven't even found a site to store waste permanently (e. g. Germany), let alone figured out how to tell future generations to stay away.
Post reply on HN