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

271–280 of 666 posts

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

#271

Post by wahern »

EGreg wrote: post #142
SapphireSun wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I presume you're trolling, but I still think it worth pointing out that no science proves causation. The scientific method, for example, only rejects null hypotheses--that is, alternative explanations. Scientists and society writ large come to tentative, qualified conclusions about causation by assessing, among other things,

  1) consistency with observed phenomena, especially
     consistent, multi-dimensional correlations
  2) predictive strength, including accurate and
     precise predictions (direct or indirect) coming to pass
     that demonstrate the explanatory power of a theory
  3) lack of alternative, more persuasive theories
None are necessary and none are always sufficient to cause us to tentatively adopt a theory of causation. But the stronger the evidence the better. Note that all three are, strictly speaking, categories of correlation; all are circumstantial. Therefore all science is fundamentally based on correlation. There's always the possibility of some kind of hidden structure or alternative explanation; you cannot rule out all such possibilities, only a subset. You select a working theory, if at all, from among the remaining, proposed explanations by heuristic and probabilistic methodologies.

If you reject climate change because it doesn't prove causation, then you're literally rejecting all of science. There is no scientific theory nor any kind of empirical "fact" that you cannot cast doubt upon in such a manner.

I won't even touch your other points.

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

#272

Post by open-source-ux »

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.

This live map of CO2 emissions for electricity in Europe shows that France has some of the lowest emissions in Europe. Click each country to see the energy mix that produces their electricity:

https://electricitymap.tmrow.co/

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

#273

Post by lispm »

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.

For some perspective on the current 'success' of France with nuclear power:

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21711087-electricit-d...

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

#274

Post by Animats »

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…

That design seemed so promising. The first plant, in China, was supposed to come on line in 2013. Current date is mid-2017. The original structural design was revised for better earthquake resistance. Then there was some big problem with the coolant pump manufacturer.

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

#275

Post by CountSessine »

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.

We generally have the mechanisms to implement binding international agreements about these things

Binding? Name one that doesn't involve nuclear weapon proliferation.

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

#276

Post by lispm »

aianus wrote: post #45
jat850 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they really replacing with coal, still? Natural gas contribution to energy is on the rise, but coal seems to be on the decline. (I'm not calling you wrong, I just can't find data to back numbers of plants - only coal as an energy production method.)

Germany replaced their nuclear power with new coal. It boggles the mind. https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyro...

That article is false.

> 2013, Germany’s electrical production required a 44 percent rise in coal power.

That's total nonsense.

Actually coal is under a lot of pressure in Germany. It helps a lot that Nuclear power in France is in such a bad shape: Germany can export a lot of surplus electricity during a cold winter to France.

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

#277

Post by madshiva »

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…

This is wrong, wrong analyze because it's not about accident. It's about toxic material first. We don't have any other solution than dig a big hole or throw them in the ocean. Maybe our future generation will not die directly with a bomb, explosion but they will suffer for the world that we will give to them. Nuclear was never a long term solution or in any way a good solution.

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

#278

Post by _coldfire »

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…

>But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced.

Competitively priced is a misnomer. Different regions have vastly differing needs. Renewable power generation is largely solved, storage is the problem now, barring an actual breakthrough from the 1900's tech we essentially still use, the other option is a move to smart metering and the energy regulator in your country deciding when your fridge and airconditioner turns on.

Letting someone else turn your fridge on and off is invisible to most, but when an algorithm decides your AC must turn off in the middle of a heatwave, there's going to be serious political resistance.

To me for all the huge engineering challenges of a storage breakthrough, it still seems much easier than convincing the public to give up control over their household appliances.

This is why nuclear still survives as an option.

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

#279

Post by m_mueller »

divanvisagie wrote: post #228
m_mueller wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with enough batteries or hydroelectric storage.

How many greenhouse gasses are created from manufacturing batteries?

Here you go [1]. You're looking for the blue part of the bars. Compared to operating and manufacturing the rest of the vehicle it seems rather negligible, i.e. switching to EVs (and plugin hybrids) and then switching the power grid to something Carbon neutral should be your first concern, only then should we think about how to optimise the footprint of batteries.

[1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-foot-print-of-manuf...

Edit: As a bonus, here's a map showing how much the grey part of the bar reduces depending on the country you live in:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16K4gNhy_AN8Eg4Ov3z7p...

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

#280

Post by tlocke »

hueving wrote: post #47
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…

>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.

On your point about storage, if more renewable electricity is generated than is needed in a particular area, it's much cheaper to transport it than to store it.

For example, this happens on a continental scale in Europe where there are interconnectors between countries that form a Europe-wide grid.

The losses for transmission of electricity are about 3.5% per 1,000 km. The losses for storage are at least 15%.

Post reply on HN