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

281–290 of 666 posts

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

#281

Post by thatfrenchguy »

pdkl95 wrote: post #70
spodek wrote: post #2

When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…

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…

> Any proposal that significantly reduces energy usage almost certainly involves telling a large portion of the world "no, you don't get a washing machine" or similar restrictions on the basic benefits of industrialization.

Probably more like "No you don't get a dryer" though, as a washing machine can use less water ?

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

#282

Post by WalterBright »

madshiva wrote: post #277
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.

A third solution is dispersal. I.e. dilute it to the point where the radiation level is insignificant. A fourth solution is concentration, since a smaller amount of material is easier to deal with a larger amount, and if the concentrated material produces heat, you can harvest more power from it.

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

#283

Post by lispm »

Again, these articles lack a specific plan. I would have thought that there would have been enough time to come up with numbers: how many reactors, over which period of time, costs, hiw to finance it, how to build-up the industry, what is the actual contribution in CO2 reduction, who would build them, ...

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

#285

Post by WalterBright »

_coldfire wrote: post #278
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 de…

By modulating the price, consumers will still have control, but they will voluntarily engage in time shifting usage, or deciding that they can live with a higher temperature during the heat wave.

Modulating price so that demand = supply works very well. For example, when a frost wipes out the orange crop in Florida, the consumer price of oranges rises. People cut back their use of oranges to match automatically.

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

#286

Post by m_mueller »

ibejoeb wrote: post #89
m_mueller wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with enough batteries or hydroelectric storage.

As I understand it, the batteries are dangerous also, being lithium or sodium. These are potentially city block-size Note 7s, right?

AFAIK the danger of Note 7s is mostly due to the small size of these batteries, i.e. how close anode/cathode are times the energy density times the amount of space it has for thermal expansion. In infrastructure sized batteries this isn't really a big issue.

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

#287

Post by zakk »

throwaway1892 wrote: post #265
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.

Well, Germany replaced its nuclear power plants with Wind turbines + coal/gas thermic power plants.

So increasing emissions. That's very bad.

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

#288

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway1892 wrote: post #265
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.

Well, Germany replaced its nuclear power plants with Wind turbines + coal/gas thermic power plants.

[deleted]

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

#289

Post by avar »

Qwertious wrote: post #225
ChuckMcM wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the interesting thing is that no nuclear plant built starting today would have any of the issues that hit Fukishima, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island. Both because the material safety is better today, and we better understand how to engineer these to passively fail safe rather than have safety systems that can themselves fail. But the political will is hard to muster. And even though something like the traveling w…

"No matter how detailed your design, or solid your physics and mathematics, they cannot win an argument with someone who is simply afraid of the concept." Yes, politics muddy the water rather badly for fission. Let me offer a much more rational drawback: Time. Nuclear plants take a decade to build (on paper; in reality they miss deadlines constantly and you're lucky if it's done within 20 years). A PV solar farm take…

    > Nuclear plants take a decade to build
That very much depends on the country & regulatory environment. If you browse through the ones China has been building [1] it seems to be taking them around 5-7 years from breaking first ground [2] and 5 years or so to add additional reactors to an existing site [3].

You can browse through other countries on that site & Wikipedia to see how long these things take to build. The only ones that take more than a decade are ones where the limiting factor is clearly not nuclear, but the regulatory environment.

1. https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.a...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changjiang_Nuclear_Power_Plant

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuqing_Nuclear_Power_Plant

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

#290

Post by Animats »

There's interest in small and medium nuclear reactors, including interest from Trump's transition team. The IAEA has a brochure on the 40 or so competing designs.[1] A few are under construction. None seem to be operating yet.

Russia is building more nuclear powered icebreakers. Those are close to completion. One with a new reactor design was launched in 2016 but is not yet operating.

2017 may be a good year for nuclear power. A few plants are scheduled to come on line.

[1] https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/SMR/files/IAE...

Post reply on HN