To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) • Hacker News Board

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

#451

Post by freehunter » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

krzyk wrote: post #232

freehunter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't, but if we met those goals we may be able to get away with not using nuclear. Nuclear produces a lot of power with relatively low side effects, but solar and wind produce a smaller amount of power with no side effects. If we can globally bring our power consumption down to that smaller amount that can be met by solar and wind, we could get rid of the economic and political arguments that keep nuclear from…

> solar and wind produce a smaller amount of power with no side effects Without side effects? wind? Have you by any chance seen what wind plants do to birds? Or have you had the opportunity to live in a house near a wind plant? The noise is very annoying. Water plants looks much better than wind plants.

None of those things have any impact on climate change, which is the topic at hand.

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

#452

Post by Retric » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:23 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #449

Retric wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assuming each homeowner near the power plant has a $1M cost to move, that works out to a $3,000/person cost ($1,900 after time discounting at a 1% discount rate). Assuming there are 100,000 people within 40 miles of the plant, that's $190M, or 5-20% of the cost of a plant. This hardly seems like an insurmountable barrier.

100,000 homes within 40 miles is probably on the low side. Also, a reasonable penalty for unwanted risk bumps up the costs. Further the value of property and possessions likely increases faster than inflation making the time value equation tricky.

More importantly Nuclear is already to expencive before this cost, increasing things further and it's really not worth it.

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

#453

Post by kogepathic » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:24 PM UTC

Had to look up the writers of this op-ed: they're Lamar Alexander (R-TN)[0] and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)[1].

Not sure if they're in the pocket of the nuclear industry or not, but given the (correct) points by others that nuclear is more expensive than other renewables, it wouldn't surprise me if there is an ulterior motive to this op-ed than stopping climate change.

Specifically, I'd have to disagree with this statement:

> For one thing, we should extend existing reactor licenses from 60 to 80 years, in cases where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it is safe to do so.

In almost no cases should reactors that are 60 years old have their operating licenses extended. These are almost all Generation II reactor designs [2] which have the same safety faults as Fukushima. For example, the Generation III design includes facilities designed to contain a melted core [3]. While these obviously haven't been tested with a real core melt-down, these kind of improvements could have made Fukushima arguably less of an environmental disaster.

I really wish the US would look into LFTR again, as they did in the 70's and China is doing now [4]. LFTR have some distinct safety advantages to the PWR/BWR designs favoured by the industry. Unfortunately, all the big money is behind PWR/BWR and no one wants to take the risk and invest in developing LFTR reactors for civilian use in the USA.

Costs less to modify the flawed but time tested PWR/BWR designs than to risk investing in designing an LFTR reactor that no utility would every pay money for due to the lack of a proven track record.

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

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

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

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

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...

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

#454

Post by natch » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

I favor solar instead because it's not so subject to control by a centralized power (corporations and governments).

Given the right conditions, any property owner can just add solar to their property, generally at an affordable cost and with incremental rollout if needed, and they have full control over at least that slice of their energy use.

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

#455

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #177

fgpwd wrote: post #90

The initial estimates for the cost to repair the damage caused by Fukushima were as far as I remember, around 50 billion dollars. According to a recent news article [1], the costs are now estimated at 250 billion dollars. They just keep on increasing. And then there is also the human/environmental damage to consider. I have been excited about nuclear since my school days, but at this point the downside if something g…

> I would much rather pay 2x for a safer solar plant That kind of cost increase would hurt a lot more people than the (very) occasional reactor malfunction. Quality of life is strongly dependent on energy availability. We need an incredible amount of energy for modern food logistics, goods production, infrastructure, R&D, etc. Keeping society energy-impoverished is a sure way to harm as many people as possible.

[deleted]

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

#456

Post by Retric » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #445

Retric wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.

Risk X exists has nothing to do with risk Y. Nuclear powerplants increase risks so the local population should be compensated.

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

#457

Post by wangchow » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

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…

Solar is better because it is decentralized whereas other sources we have today are controlled by single entities. This puts the power (hehe) back in the hands of the people.

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

#458

Post by losvedir » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #363

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to know why you think that is what Fukishima taught us? A giant earthquake AND a tsunami hits the plant and not a single person is killed... For me it reinforced the fact that nuclear energy is one of the most tightly regulated industries in the world in terms of safety.

This comment taught me that 100,000 people still unable to return to their homes five years later is no big deal... And if you actually believe that "not a single person killed" bullshit, I got a bridge to sell you. Death from cancer is still death, even if it takes a year or two.

> Death from cancer is still death, even if it takes a year or two.

Yes, but even those are monitored. And the expected increase in cancer deaths over the next several decades due to Fukushima is still modeled to be fewer than 100 people.

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

#459

Post by natch » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:43 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #445

Retric wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.

If your house explodes due to natural gas, your property and that of all your neighbors and their neighbors and the surrounding community isn't contaminated for a period of time exceeding your natural lifespan. If you have a radiation accident instead, it very well may be. The two scenarios are quite different.

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

#460

Post by andromeduck » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 2:43 PM UTC

CN7R wrote: post #164

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…

That means the only countries that are going to invest and progress in nuclear technology are the ones not subjected to public accountability, such as China. Perhaps we need other coubtries to either outpace us or show what can be accomplished before the United States jumps in.

China, France, Canada, and Japan? What a group of deplorable countries.