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

431–440 of 666 posts

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

#431

Post by dexterdog »

jsilence wrote: post #371
spangry wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more with your point about electricity car take-up. I've made the same point in the past but it's always gotten a lukewarm reception. In my mind, it's probably our best chance of achieving sufficient scale grid energy storage. It's also kinda brilliant on Elon Musk's part: he's selling people these 'mobile grid batteries' while also being super long solar.

And the cars are anything but boring golf carts. A stigma electric cars have had for a long time. These might even get you laid.

For the price they better not be anything close to a golf cart.

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

#432

Post by douche »

na85 wrote: post #388
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…

>The downside of solar is approximately 0 Solar doesn't work at night, and suffers greatly on cloudy days. How will baseline demand overnight be supplied with solar? How will people run their air conditioners and datacentres?

> How will baseline demand overnight be supplied with solar? How will people run their air conditioners and datacentres?

Coal, natural gas, and hydro, the way we've always done it.

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

#433

Post by dexterdog »

kuschku wrote: post #408
spangry wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 qua…

Except, he's missing quite a few facts. Like, that there's still unsolved engineering problems with finding naterials that survive the corrosive environment within of molten salt reactors. Like, that he didn't inckude waste storage at all. Like, that he calculated prices for renewables based on buying the most expensive panels, but for nuclear, based on the lowest estimates. In reality, the ROI level of renewables ha…

> It's no coincidence that the only success story for nuclear is a country where all reactors are government-owned and don't have to turn a profit necessarily.

I don't have the numbers, but I would also have to imagine that the government-owned reactors are the most expensive on paper because there will always be political powers that will want to make it appear more expensive than it is.

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

#434

Post by douche »

aianus wrote: post #68
grzm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like this is something that's important to you. There were reasons why this is happening, regardless of whether you agree with them or that they're rational. If this is an issue you would like to be more active about, rather than remaining boggled, I encourage you to dig in to determine what those reasons are so you can effectively counteract them.

I don't know if you consider this an effective rebuttal but I live in a place (Ontario, Canada) that made the opposite move at the same time as Germany. All coal plants have been shut down and replaced with additional Nuclear, Hydro, and Natural Gas generation. We now have some of the cheapest electricity in the world (~$0.055 per kwh residential off peak vs. something crazy like $0.30 in Berlin) and haven't had a si…

Canada does have the advantage of having huge, almost depopulated areas with rivers suitable for hydro power. HydroQuebec can build dams pretty much where ever they feel like in the northern part of the province, with little of the collateral damage that similar projects would have in most of the US or in Europe.

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

#435

Post by mcv »

rplst8 wrote: post #397
mcv wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Nuclear plants are not good at rapidly changing to accommodate demand. Powering down a nuclear reactor is a big operation. Powering down a smaller reactor may be a smaller operation, but they still don't adapt as easily as gas turbines. Or batteries.

But the storage problem I was alluding to is the storage of nuclear waste. Some of it remains dangerous for an extremely long time, and storing it safely is far from trivial. There are several options, but they all have problems.

Similar to batteries for electricity storage, perhaps: there are millions of ways to store electrical energy. None of them are perfect, but on the other hand, they are improving rapidly.

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

#436

Post by saint_fiasco »

arviewer wrote: post #374
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…

In 30 years, solar will have taken over. Using safe existing nuclear power plants is OK for me, building new ones seems stupid. For some countries, replacing an old unsafe one with a good new one seems plausible, but more seems a bad choice.

Existing nuclear power plants are old designs, much less safe than a new one would be.

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

#437

Post by mcv »

nzjrs wrote: post #405
mcv wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Storing electricity is mostly a solved issue: batteries. Ok.... > We just need to do it cheaper and on a larger scale So it's not at all a solved issue then!

We can already store it. With more research, we may be able to store it more efficiently. But we do already have a lot of options for electricity storage.

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

#438

Post by brohee »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #104
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…

> The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. The downside of solar is that it provides no electricity at night. We should be building enough nuclear to provide the nighttime load and enough solar to make up the difference between that and the daytime load. > The political capital lost in a reactor accident isn't worth it. The only use for political capital in favor of nuc…

Solar is not only photovoltaic. Thermal solar (heat stored in molten salt) provides electricity at night. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station

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

#439

Post by aianus »

brandon272 wrote: post #183
aianus wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you consider this an effective rebuttal but I live in a place (Ontario, Canada) that made the opposite move at the same time as Germany. All coal plants have been shut down and replaced with additional Nuclear, Hydro, and Natural Gas generation. We now have some of the cheapest electricity in the world (~$0.055 per kwh residential off peak vs. something crazy like $0.30 in Berlin) and haven't had a si…

I see Ontario in the news frequently due to high and rising power costs. [1] What am I missing? 1. ‪ http://www.cbc.ca/1.3860314‬

They've been going up fast recently... to $0.065 per kwh now, still 4x cheaper than Berlin.

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

#440

Post by Analog24 »

hubert123 wrote: post #416
mseebach wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the train has indeed left the platform, but the inflection point for solar only happened this year. If the parties to Kyoto had gone home back then and created said regulatory environment for nuclear and gotten on with it, we'd be looking at a 80-90% carbon emissions free electrical grid across the entire western hemisphere today. Climate change would have been more or less solved, and yes, we knew that then,…

I prefer not having fukushima events and I'm happy to wait and use coal in the meantime

The Fukushima reactor was old and outdated. Modern reactors are built with passive safety systems that essentially make it impossible for a Fukushima style meltdown to occur.

Ignorance and coal are not the answer.

Post reply on HN