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

291–300 of 666 posts

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

#291

Post by JanezStupar »

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...

Offcourse they are exporting - or more accurately, forcing the neighbours to deal with their green energy surpluses.

Context matters, a lot.

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

#292

Post by _ph_ »

The article is one big fallacy. It is absolutely correct that today nuclear is the main source of carbon-free power generation. But that does not say much about what the best technology for new installations is. If built to good safety standards, nuclear is not cheap. Solar and wind should be much cheaper, and of course completely safe alternatives. Unfortunately, the article does not discuss any of these alternatives.

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

#293

Post by ludston »

Twisell wrote: post #243
jsilence wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"renewables' are also highly subsidized" Only this not true any more. Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyrbKBZ6SU Even before that the subsidies for solar have been dwarfed by the subsidies that are in place for nuclear power. Recently in Germany the nuclear companies' lobbyists managed to get rif of the problem of end storage of nuclear waste by…

Thanks for the ressource I'll definitely have a look. However the fact that it's price competitive still don't imply that it's enough to counter climate change. In a worst case scenario, if we go full solar, but are unable to slow a climat change that induce more cloudy weather (because more global evaporation) we are actually solving nothing. Nuclear have a lots of cons, but the one of the pro is that we know them,…

> In a worst case scenario, if we go full solar, but are unable to slow a climat change that induce more cloudy weather (because more global evaporation) we are actually solving nothing.

In the worst case scenario, all of the nuclear reactors simultaneously explode (because more earthquakes), raining down a radioactive armageddon on the hordes of screaming peasants below.

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

#294

Post by Altay- »

Per-capita energy usage is already falling across the developed world. And that's just with current trends. We could easily tax electricity far higher in most countries, mandate higher efficiency (the US still uses giant furnaces and hot water heaters) and tax carbon.

Why do people on Hacker News seem so drawn to Nuclear? Its insanely expensive, it takes forever for a plant to come online, and worst of all for an industry that likes to remain 'boring' -- it draws too much public attention.

Why fight all that? WHY?

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

#295

Post by jagger27 »

Altay- wrote: post #294

Per-capita energy usage is already falling across the developed world. And that's just with current trends. We could easily tax electricity far higher in most countries, mandate higher efficiency (the US still uses giant furnaces and hot water heaters) and tax carbon. Why do people on Hacker News seem so drawn to Nuclear? Its insanely expensive, it takes forever for a plant to come online, and worst of all for an ind…

Because when a super volcano eruption blocks out the sun for 6 months we could still have a stable baseline.

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

#296

Post by inimino »

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…

Do people lose faith and trust because of the accidents, or does it just uncover existing perspectives?

From a rational perspective, people should lose faith in technology when it spactacularly fails, or rather, we should prefer sober risk assessment over "faith" in the first place. I'm just not sure about the political capital argument.

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

#297

Post by saint-loup »

hguant wrote: post #178
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…

> That is ONE reactor gone wrong. That is ONE reactor that was of a design many years out of date at the time of the failure, a failure where the people at the controls turned off the safety controls, then turned off the back up safety controls, then intentionally put the reactor in an unsafe state. France gets 76% of its power from nuclear energy and has never gone above 4 on the INES scale, with an average clean up…

Areva, the french nuclear corporation, is in a state of constant near-bankruptcy [1] and under investigation for a massive coverup of safety and reliability issues [2]. Our nuclear infrastructure is, well, kind of a sorry mess [3] (in french, paywalled).

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-16/france-s-...

[2] http://www.wsj.com/articles/problems-at-nuclear-components-s...

[3] http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2016/11/24/le-parc-nucle...

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

#298

Post by thmsths »

jwr wrote: post #251
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.

As terrible as it sounds you are probably right.

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

#299

Post by philipkglass »

JanezStupar wrote: post #291
sqeezy wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Offcourse they are exporting - or more accurately, forcing the neighbours to deal with their green energy surpluses. Context matters, a lot.

Both France and Germany are net electricity exporters on an annual basis.

But when France sends surplus nuclear electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a plus for nuclear technology. When Germany sends surplus renewable electricity to its neighbors that's supposed to be a minus for renewable technology. Both nuclear and renewable generation are rigid in their own ways; neither is as flexible as gas powered generation, but of course neither has the substantial fuel costs or emissions of gas powered generation either.

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

#300

Post by hokkos »

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…

Because for example France peek electricity consumption is between January 20 to February 10 at 19h, and there is no sun at that time.
Post reply on HN