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

521–530 of 666 posts

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

#521

Post by Retric »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #518
Retric wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima exclusion zone disagrees with you. Sure, if we limited reactors to 'safe' locations that reduces risks, but we still put them in stupid areas such as near fault lines.

"No modern plant"

"No true Scotsman." There are recent powerplants built with similar designs that would have had similar failure modes.

The core issue was the sea wall not the powerplant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant was closer to the quake but it's giant sea wall made a huge difference.

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

#522

Post by natch »

mason240 wrote: post #474
natch wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Saying the scenarios are identical doesn't make them so. And scale matters.

But... I'd say with truly modern nuclear power, safety is less of an issue. Perception of safety is still an issue. So your home value will go down. No biggie; you may be ok with that.

The issue that really bugs me though is that with nuclear, a large government or corporate entity has decided to roll the dice for you on your behalf. With something like solar, there is more possibility for local and individual control. So instead of bond issues, taxes, state-mandated insurance fees, contracts, and control by faceless entities with names like TEPCO who make decisions like "no let's not do the safety retrofit" you get to decide for yourself.

And, no gas explosions either! So, the best of both worlds.

I prefer local control. Nuclear is too centralized.

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

#523

Post by kgarten »

Sad to see again another propaganda nuclear article at HN. I remember the top article after the Fukushima disaster at HN was an astroturfing blog post on why Fukushima is no big deal (with a lot of misinformation).

Here we are again ...

Even if we take out the major catastrophy scenarios there's still the waste problem to deal with (and no it's not solved with the newest tech).

And of course, I will get downvotes for that ;)

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

#524

Post by clarkmoody »

Twisell wrote: post #194
wamatt wrote: post #173

It's kind of unfortunate that the label "nuclear power" seems to inevitably bundle both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion into the same public policy debate. Their respective safety profiles couldn't be further apart. While the economic risks for a failed nuclear fusion strategy can be argued, given even a modest chance for eventually producing large amounts of clean and safe energy output 24/7, should we not be pur…

Last year I met a doctor that work at the experimental ITER fusion plant. He was pretty optimistic about the technology but totally desperate about budget. It's an international initiative and US are actually one of the country that pay the least compared to its Income per capita... By today funding it's clear that real solutions won't be ready until 2050, hence fission is still required in the mix until then. I don'…

From a few weeks ago on HN, I watched this video[1] that made me much more optimistic about fusion. The bottom line is that the ITAR direction is misguided since superconducting technology has come so far in recent years.

The video is worth the watch.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4

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

#525

Post by natch »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #464
Retric wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hard to assess that risk. No modern plant has had catastrophic failure like that. Essentially there's no data to extrapolate from.

TEPCO had a modern plan to fix the issue before it happened. They decided not to act. Nuclear power takes the decision out of your hands, and puts it in the hands of organizations like that. I prefer something like solar which keeps power in my own control, local, decentralized, not decided by some huge behemoth that is driven by money and actuarial charts.

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

#526

Post by rwallace »

spangry wrote: post #337
mikeyouse wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can recycle almost all of the Lithium and other metals in modern batteries.

If cost-effectiveness is a factor, unless Tesla manage to reap some pretty massive economies of scale, realistically we should be talking about recycling lead-acid batteries (like the one in your car). They are, by a pretty large margin, the cheapest method of storing energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_battery_types#Co...

If the proposed solution is to scatter a zillion tons of lead around the place, I suggest we go back to burning coal instead. It would be less environmentally damaging.

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

#527

Post by natch »

hxegon wrote: post #515
natch wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Nuclear power is centralized and lends itself to government or corporate control of the energy system As opposed to what we have now?

As opposed to alternatives like solar.

Admittedly solar does not work everywhere, but there are transport mechanisms, and batteries, and it does work in some places. And we have to decide where to spend our money. Spending on solar is a choice that leads to more local control and less centralized control, as compared to spending on nuclear.

And it's not necessarily totally one or the other in every situation. I'm just saying I have a preference for things that favor local control.

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

#528

Post by yummyfajitas »

Retric wrote: post #452
yummyfajitas wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also the average American home price is $189k, not $1M. Round up to $200k for cost to move, and we're down to $380/person.

Add in the fact that the worst disaster (Chernobyl) has an exclusion zone of 1004 miles^2 (equivalent to a 17 mile circle, rather than your 40 miles) and we discover that my initial estimate was about 25x too pessimistic.

I'm beginning to think your concerns about cost are FUD. Out of curiosity, since cost is such a big concern for you, do you hold similar concerns about our bloated infrastructure costs? For example, given the bloated costs of the 2nd ave subway in NYC (1 mile of track there costs as much as the entire Delhi Metro), should we also curtail this project? Or is cost only an issue for nuclear energy?

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

#529

Post by logfromblammo »

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…

If a solar-tile roof lasts longer than an asphalt-shingle roof, any solar-installation accidents are actually stealing injuries from the next time the roof would have needed to be serviced.

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

#530

Post by thraway2016 »

sureshn wrote: post #361

The article appears to be written in a biased manner and lacks Rational and logic , till now no body has ever been able to come up with a solution on how to deal with nuclear waste in a safe way or how to deal with a accident in a nuclear plant

how to deal with nuclear waste in a safe way

Yucca Mountain was a damn good proposal, but NIMBY killed it.

Post reply on HN