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

311–320 of 666 posts

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

#311

Post by Iv »

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…

Price is not the only factor if we seriously want to fight global warming.

1. What is the energy ROI? (ie how much energy does it cost to build a station) 2. At what speed can we transition out of fossil fuel?

Germany tried to phase out of nuclear. What happened? They raised their part of renewable sources a lot, but that still amounted to only about 15-20% of their national needs. They ended up reopening coal plants.

We know how to build a shit ton of nuclear power plant fast. It has been done in the past, the tech is proven, the grid is appropriate.

Even in France, where a lot of the electricity is nuclear (~70%) transitioning out of fossil fuel would require to double the nuclear capacity. Oh, and the plants are getting old so they need to be decommissioned/restored.

I agree that the politcal factor is important, but, damn! People should not say they are concerned about global warming if they refuse to consider the nuclear option. It is a shortcut to a post-fossil fuel future. (No, uranium is not a fossil resource) It would then allow a much more optimal and stressless path toward full renewables.

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

#312

Post by aninhumer »

aamederen wrote: post #214

The thing I worry about nuclear power is that, with the latest events in 2015 and 2016, once again we saw that, we are still pretty bad at preventing terrorist attacks and I cannot think about how a terrorist attack to a nuclear plant end up? I am even surprised that no big attack has been made to such a dangerous facility.

I think you might be overestimating the risk here.

A nuclear power plant is essentially a massive concrete bunker. It's designed to contain a nuclear reaction, so I suspect you'd need a phenomenal amount of explosives to cause any damage, and if you have those, there are likely much more effective ways to use them for terrorism.

If instead you attack the facility to attempt to gain control and cause a meltdown, you'd need to gain access to all the various safety overrides, and then hold that position for as long as it takes the reactor to meltdown. And that's assuming there are no absolute fail-safes that can't be disabled.

And all this is assuming that the failure mode of the reactor is even bad enough to cause significant damage, which is less the case with newer reactors.

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

#313

Post by pl-94 »

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...

France has one of the cheapest electricity price in Europe thanks to nuclear plants. The reactors were checked if they respect to new regulations from the post-Fukushima era.

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

#314

Post by makomk »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #146
fulafel wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plants of various ages beacause it was an area of active research in late 1900s, and a handful of industrial scale plants that are operating. But it's not generally happening or growing. For most used fuel there is no plan, or going to be buried underground.

All the ones shown in green are still operating. It hasn't been in high demand because virgin uranium is still cheap. That won't be the case forever, and the used fuel pellets will be waiting when that occurs.

The UK reprocessing plants at least are environmental disasters with a history of large-scale radioactive discharges into the surrounding environment. (Russia's were even worse, apparently.) They also lost their foreign customers for falsifying data on fuel shipments. They're due to shut down altogether in the next few years as their existing contracts come to an end. Unfortunately, the Sellafield site is probably impossible to decommission safely due to massive contamination and poorly-designed containments with no documentation of the contents.

Also, most of the big reprocessing plants out there were originally constructed as part of nuclear weapons programs, including the UK, US, French and Russian ones. They're just not economically viable otherwise.

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

#315

Post by CurtMonash »

For nuclear power to be feasible, we need different kinds of designs than the historically common ones.

1. Passive safety features are a must, period -- especially in a world full of hackers and terrorists (or at least terrorist wannabes). Obviously, they don't protect against all human error, accidental or deliberate as the case may be. But they sure could lower the risks.

2. We also need truly standardized manufacturing. It seems that the buzzword there is "SMR" -- Small Modular Reactor. This is for multiple reasons. Cost and general safety are the most obvious. Further, site-specific safety analyses would actually have a chance of being correct.

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

#316

Post by jcoffland »

For those of you suggesting solar as a better solution read this article [1] about the toxic waste (silicon tetrachloride) produced in solar panel manufacturing. Add to that the storage problems [2] [3] and impact of land use of massive solar installations [4] and it's no longer a home run even if the price is coming down.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03...

[2] http://www.npr.org/2015/08/04/427734398/when-relying-on-the-...

[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-energy-storage-prob...

[4] https://carnegiescience.edu/news/solar-energy%E2%80%99s-land...

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

#317

Post by roryisok »

ludston wrote: post #293
Twisell wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was a thread about nuclear power on here during the year, and some commenter had crunched the numbers on how many nuclear power plants we'd need to fully power the planet. It was in the tens of thousands. Even in the best case scenario, at this density we'd be looking at a Fukushima style disasters occurring regularly, not just every 30 years. That's best case scenario.

Worst case scenario is that it gets more cloudy and our solar doesn't work as well. But lets not forget solar power still works on a cloudy day, just not as well

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

#318

Post by mcv »

sounds wrote: post #94
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…

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…

I think what Fukushima taught us, is that profit-driven companies will always be looking for ways to cut costs. Nuclear, like oil, requires extremely tight regulation to keep the companies involved from cutting corners and creating unreasonable safety problems.

Also, doesn't nuclear also still have a storage problem? Storing electricity is mostly a solved issue: batteries. We just need to do it cheaper and on a larger scale. And it doesn't even have to be centralized: a Tesla Powerwall in every home will also solve the problem.

I think it's a bad idea to take perfectly working nuclear power plants offline, but it's really only a temporary solution during the transition towards full solar.

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

#319

Post by pjc50 »

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…

A lot of people are talking about the political cost only in a Western context, but let's not forget that the rest of the world needs electricity, even if its political stability is poor. I know talking about nuclear proliferation is unfashionable, but this is the reason Iran's reactor got held up for decades.

Solar can be deployed incrementally down to the level of individual watts, and it works better the closer you are to the equator. It doesn't need the same level of political stability or security as nuclear (although you do need to make sure nobody steals the panels). It's the obvious first choice for large areas of Africa and South America.

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

#320

Post by jsilence »

roryisok wrote: post #317
ludston wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There was a thread about nuclear power on here during the year, and some commenter had crunched the numbers on how many nuclear power plants we'd need to fully power the planet. It was in the tens of thousands. Even in the best case scenario, at this density we'd be looking at a Fukushima style disasters occurring regularly, not just every 30 years. That's best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that it gets more…

Depending on the type of cell and on the type/severity of overcast, power generation might even be better than that of bright unhindered sunshine.
Post reply on HN