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

471–480 of 666 posts

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

#471

Post by abledon »

Altay- wrote: post #294

Per-capita energy usage is already falling across the developed world. And that's just with current trends. We could easily tax electricity far higher in most countries, mandate higher efficiency (the US still uses giant furnaces and hot water heaters) and tax carbon. Why do people on Hacker News seem so drawn to Nuclear? Its insanely expensive, it takes forever for a plant to come online, and worst of all for an ind…

"Why do people on Hacker News seem so drawn to Nuclear? Its insanely expensive, it takes forever for a plant to come online, and worst of all for an industry that likes to remain 'boring' -- it draws too much public attention."

Because we are numbed from too many waterfall style management projects and can't imagine any other way ;)

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

#472

Post by Diederich »

ams6110 wrote: post #427
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…

> parcels of land totalling the area of Indiana This to me is one of the biggest issue with solar (and wind) is you need huge amounts of land if you want to really try to replace what is being generated by fossil fuels. Sunlight just doesn't provide all that much energy per square foot. When we stand in the sun on a clear day, we feel comfortable warmth not searing heat. Do all the cost estimates showing Solar is com…

One reasonable approach is, for example, Tesla's solar powered roofs along with its home integrated power wall for storage.

They claim that their solar roof costs less than a traditional roof, and lasts longer. And produces sufficient power for the house.

This approach nicely works around a lot of the very real problems associated with the traditional, more centralized solar generation methodologies.

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

#473

Post by JanezStupar »

jessaustin wrote: post #368
evgen wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because in energy production timing matters. If you over-produce and dump your energy into our shared grid then I must throttle back my base load production, and then when the sun goes down and you do not have enough capacity to handle your needs and require me to increase my production so that you avoid brownouts then your energy production plan is flawed. If the only way you can make your energy production…

Is the German army involved in this dastardly scheme? How else could one explain the atrocities of international power distribution that you describe? Oh, right, there are contracts for all of this stuff. Power companies freely negotiate how they sell power to each other. "Externalities", try again.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-gree...

When they have their surpluses - they are actually paying their neighbors to take power from them. I.e. they are selling it at a negative rate.

When the renewables are offline - they are paying a premium for electricity from fossil fuels.

While Germany does indeed _produce_ stellar amounts of renewable energy. They are completely dependent on their own and neighbors fossil power production.

Thus they can claim that they are "exporting" renewables. The turth is that their renewables infrastructure and the retarded system of incentives they have set up - result in one of the most expensive electricity prices in the world: https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-elect...

Notice how the more renewables a country has - more expensive the electricity is.

Why? Because renewables are really not all that ecological as the activists would like to claim.

Simply because renewables cause more problems than they solve. And the surplus resources spent (or rather wasted) on "green" energy are also a form of energy. Thus one can argue that "green" energy is actually a net contributor to pollution - due to the aforementioned externalities.

Until we get insane amounts of storage (which will also pose a significant potential for pollution) - green energy industry is actually contributing to problems.

And while you are sarcastic - current state of affairs is not due to common sense or economics. But due to politics.

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

#474

Post by mason240 »

natch wrote: post #459
mason240 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

They are identical scenarios. The only difference is the scale.

In both scenarios I am "rolling the dice" on a catastrophic failure in exchange for energy - and if I am home when it happens it will shorten my lifespan significantly.

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

#475

Post by natch »

Analog24 wrote: post #440
hubert123 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's still the centralization problem. Nuclear power is centralized and lends itself to government or corporate control of the energy system, in contrast with solar which gives each property owner individual control.

I'm not saying we can't have both, it's just that the problems with nuclear are not only (perceived or real) safety problems and the fact that it yields byproducts the most tempting use of which is to make nuclear weapons.

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

#476

Post by EGreg »

wahern wrote: post #271
EGreg wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my reply to a sister comment for the data I am speaking of. I agree that currently we have some correlation of global warming and CO2 increase, but this doesn't prove causation esp considering the 70s experienced global cooling. https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enha... AND the main point is that there is a limit on how much more Co2 can be released: roughly the same amount that already has,…

I presume you're trolling, but I still think it worth pointing out that no science proves causation. The scientific method, for example, only rejects null hypotheses--that is, alternative explanations. Scientists and society writ large come to tentative, qualified conclusions about causation by assessing, among other things, 1) consistency with observed phenomena, especially consistent, multi-dimensional correlations…

"I won't even touch your other points."

That's too bad.

As for your comments I just refer you to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

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

#477

Post by mason240 »

Retric wrote: post #456
mason240 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Sure, but I live underneath an air traffic corridor. I want to be compensated for the chance that a plane crashes into my house.

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

#478

Post by zo1 »

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.…

>"Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power."

I don't understand. Why can't we put these things in the absolute middle of nowhere? Workers live on-site and you don't turn the camp into some sort of "work town". Problem solved, unless I'm missing something?

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

#479

Post by throwaway729 »

spangry wrote: post #353
makomk wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar can be ramped down pretty trivially, we just don't currently because we want to use solar in preference to other power sources for environmental reasons and the contractual and communications structures to do it aren't there yet.

Sorry you've completely lost me here. I thought the problem was mainly that we haven't figured out a way to control the sun or the clouds (soon though, soon...)

Parent said ramping DOWN, which is trivial regardless of weather. Ramping solar UP at night or during cloud coverage is indeed a much more difficult problem :)

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

#480

Post by ajnin »

lispm wrote: post #364
pl-94 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They were checked because the steel is bad. http://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-pla... > The discovery of widespread carbon segregation problems in critical nuclear plant components has crippled the French power industry—20 of the country’s 58 reactors are currently offline and under heavy scrutiny. France’s nuclear safety chairman said more anomalies “will likely be found,” as the extent of the…

> Generally the prices in France are kept low, because the tax payer pays for the expensive nuclear industry monopoly.

And also because the decommissioning costs are not factored in at all. Currently EDF is pushing to extend the operating life of old reactors to 60 years, and to postpone their decommissioning to 2100. They want to just leave them there in the meanwhile. The trouble is that they simply don't know how to do the decommissioning, and it proves incredibly more expensive than thought. The fund that was set up to pay for it is undersized by a large factor.

Post reply on HN