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

301–310 of 666 posts

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

#301

Post by hokkos »

lispm wrote: post #276
aianus wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

France is a net exporter of electricity in all months :

https://opendata.rte-france.com/chart/embed/?dataChart=eyJ0a...

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

#302

Post by dreistdreist »

pizza wrote: post #261
dreistdreist wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The laws of thermodynamics have not changed, but try examining a really-really-really-really-really high dimensional phase without getting tendrils/'tubes' that appear essentially random w.r.t. prior conditions. How would you know the direction of a volume of phase space with fairly significant perturbation across all the variables that can change? A flippant counter-example: eat only carbohydrates with a 1000 calori…

I don't think the obesity problem is due to lean body mass (which water weight is)...

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

#304

Post by 72deluxe »

ianai wrote: post #51
DennisP wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar plus all the infrastructure required to run a wind/solar grid without fossil backup is not yet competitively priced. It looks great at low market penetration but we need to eliminate emissions, not just lower them a little. We're going to end up with plenty of mass hysteria if we don't put the brakes on climate change as fast as we possibly can, by every means available.

Only mass hysteria will force societal change.

I'm still waiting for someone to invent a mathematical formula for predicting society's behaviour, akin to Hari Seldon in Asimov's books!

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

#306

Post by damptowel »

zakk wrote: post #287
throwaway1892 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So increasing emissions. That's very bad.

I dont't get how people can choose possible local disaster (nuclear) over certain global disaster (co2 emmiting power generation). Not to mention deaths from air polution.

I'm all for solar and improved storage solutions, but we have something we know works and works right now, without uncertainties regarding constant baseload.

Worst of all are green parties everywhere wanting to shut down nuclear, resulting in the building of gas, coal, or paying for importing either those or nuclear. In which universe is that the green solution?

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

#308

Post by lmm »

lispm wrote: post #273
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.

For some perspective on the current 'success' of France with nuclear power: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21711087-electricit-d...

Incredibly strict safety regulations are being applied to nuclear plants, because the public is a lot more worried about that. But someone who falls off a ladder installing a solar panel can die just as dead as someone who gets exposed to radiation, and megawatt for megawatt there are a lot more of the former than the latter.

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

#309

Post by pl-94 »

Unfortunately, we still need nuclear power: 1) Wind and solar are intermittent. Even if you produce more than what you consume, you still have to deal with the huge consumption peak of the evening. This is huge. No solution for now about it. 2) Energy storage is not scalable. It is available for smart homes, but there is just not enough lithium-ion on Earth to deal with the evening peak. Flywheels have too small performances. 3) Germany consumes more coals now that it has stopped its nuclear plants. 4) With respect to coal and gas, nuclear power is better: less dependance to Middle East, no CO2, very good EROEI, and actually, it is responsable for much less deaths than other energy sources.

The real issues about nuclear powers are: 1) It provides less jobs than renewable energies (mainly when people will produce their own energy). 2) It will cost more than solar panels. But not yet.'

So. The solution is to continue the current nuclear plants for 20 years, not to invest in new ones; and expecting in the meantime that storage is becoming scalable.

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

#310

Post by makomk »

paulddraper wrote: post #224
afterburner wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Realistically, even 60s-era plants are expensive enough to construct that the existing plants are going to continue to operate for as long as possible.
Post reply on HN