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

391–400 of 666 posts

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

#391

Post by witty_username »

patall wrote: post #375
mseebach wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…

It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant.…

Any such decrease in property value is precisely because of the irrational fear of nuclear power.

> So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows.

Government should not fund or provide any guarantees to such projects; we should tax carbon and let people decide what to do (in which case, we wouldn't even need to argue which is cheaper and we can just let power companies figure it out).

> So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with radioactive waste, why would you chose that one?

Isn't solar more expensive when you factor in the cost of batteries (which would be required if solar scales up; i.e. a diseconomy of scale)? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

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

#392

Post by rplst8 »

gnud wrote: post #385
Crito wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only so much pumped hydro storage you can make...

Pumped hydro seems simplest, and we often have the power plant already in place. But temperature differential storage, pressure differential storage, and creating hydrogen all seems to scale better to me.

I've read some things about pumped hydro. The losses reduce efficiency and the amount of water you need to pump is pretty unbelievably large.

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

#393

Post by laumars »

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.

Nuclear reactors cannot explode. Even in the case of a core meltdown you wouldn't see a chain reaction leading to any kind of explosion.

What might happen in disaster situations is the backup generators that power the cooling systems explode. But that wouldn't cause radioactive material to rain down either since these generators would be running off a petroleum (or similar) fuel.

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

#395

Post by eeZah7Ux »

damptowel wrote: post #306
zakk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

If anything, nuclear disasters are 100x worse. Released CO2 will be decreased by being absorbed by vegetation and CO2 capture, once the world decreases its CO2 production.

Increases in atmospheric background radiation, on the other hand...

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

#396

Post by Retric »

witty_username wrote: post #391
patall wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant.…

Any such decrease in property value is precisely because of the irrational fear of nuclear power. > So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows. Government should not fund or provide any guarantees to such projects; we should tax carbon and let people decide what to do (in which case, we wouldn't even need to argue which is cheaper and we can…

It's completely rational to reduce property values when there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. If the risk is say 0.3% over the next hundred years paying every homeowner ~20,000$ within 40 miles when the plant is built to offset that risk is completely rational, but would make nuclear Even less viable.

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

#397

Post by rplst8 »

mcv wrote: post #318
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…

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 large…

Why do we need storage for nuclear? It has always on capacity. If surge capability is the need - this can mostly be fixed with demand scheduling or smaller more nimble power plants.

Electricity storage is far from a "solved" problem. Long term storage losses are high, battery safety is concern, durability/life is still a concern, scarcity of the materials to make batteries is a concern, recycling the materials used is a concern.

We have batteries, but not very good ones, and not ones that are anywhere near close to solving the intermittent nature of solar and wind, nor the demand cycles of each working day.

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

#398

Post by spangry »

mseebach wrote: post #332
afterburner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…

Indeed. Production and use of solar and wind cause more deaths for GW/H than current nuclear fission (which is responsible for around 19.5% of the US' energy generation [0]). The problem is that deaths from nuclear generation are concentrated in very short, dramatic events. I mean, if you're looking for the biggest killer (by at least an order of magnitude), it's fossil fuels: boringly due to the reduction in air quality, leading to higher incidence of asthma/respiratory related deaths.

And although this guy is clearly keen on nuclear fission (MSRs specifically), he's actually gone to the trouble or running the numbers on cost, which you are free to critique (http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear...). Here are his four conclusions:

- It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totalling the area of Indiana.

- It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totalling the area of West Virginia.

- We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totalling a few square miles.

- We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as a secondary fuel.

As for those arguing against nuclear power because of well publicised nuclear accidents, it's worth considering the facts:

- Three Mile Island: no direct fatalities, average exposure dose equivalent to a chest x-ray. Some academic dispute about whether it increased cancer-related deaths, in many cases because the numbers being argued over are incredibly small.[1]

- Fukushima: WHO 2013 report concluded health impacts likely to be below detectable levels, although slight increase in cancer probability if linear no-threshold hypothesis applied. More people were killed because of the (probably unnecessary) evacuation of the surrounding areas.[2]

- Chernobyl - UN estimates final total of premature deaths from disaster will be around 4000 (49 of these were immediate). Also made a sizeable area of land uninhabitable for some time.[3]

A 2012 estimate of 'deaths per trillion kWh' [4] from various energy sources has it at:

- Coal (global): 100,000

- Natural gas: 4,000

- Solar (rooftop only): 440

- Wind: 150

- Nuclear (global): 90

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Unit...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_hea...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities

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

#400

Post by tripzilch »

Hondor wrote: post #386
roryisok wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's wrong with regular Fukushima scale disasters? They're not very deadly. We already have frequent mining disasters in the coal industry and don't care about that. If anything, nuclear power needs less safety to reduce costs and become competitive. For some reason people are still scared of radiation even after seeing how harmless Chernobyl turned out to be compared to predictions.

> Fukushima scale disasters? They're not very deadly.

except for the people that literally had to give up their lives in order to save the situation and not let it grow many times worse. knowing they were stepping into the radiation that would kill them in a few hours (if they were lucky).

hey if it's not very deadly, why don't you volunteer for being one of those heroes the next disaster

also Fukushima is not yet done doing damage, not by a long shot.

let's evaluate the "once every 30 years is no biggie, really" thing once we spent 30 years trying to clean it up.

> how harmless Chernobyl turned out to be

because all those malformed children being born must've been a hoax, or something.

btw I wasn't against nuclear energy at all (except by now it's kinda too late really, and once we realize the next plan B will be too late, but at least we'll keep on making new humans to witness the carnage) but it was because I thought we could actually do better than Chernobyl and Fukushima, not to take it as a calculated risk. That is horrible. I'd easily give up "air-conditioning and data centres" to prevent that shit (easy to say, I don't have AC, and data ... well we could really do with a little bit less of those, take a moment and think about what is stored in those because it's so ridiculously cheap, at best it's worthless data).

Post reply on HN