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

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

#621

Post by Analog24 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:36 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #598

Analog24 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people think of the Fukushima disaster the two direct and unfortunate deaths caused by the insufficient sea wall are not what come to mind. The meltdown of the reactor is the primary concern. If a meltdown had never occurred the Fukushima incident would have never been mentioned on this thread or in any other conversation about the safety issues with nuclear power. So I'm sorry but bringing up the inadequate sea…

Without the damage from the tidal wave Fukushima would have been far less of an issue. With a proper wall there would not have been significant issues with the Tsunami, thus making that wall a critical safety feature that failed. As to passive safety systems, many modern designs can't be left unattended for a month. Because they are not passively safe only being able to go longer without issues. Anyway this is all ab…

I will admit that had there been a better sea wall the Fukushima incident would have much less severe. But I still think it's beside the point.

As to your point about passive safety systems only working for a finite period of time before causing issues, would you mind providing some sources for this claim? As far as I know this is completely false. The very nature of 'passive' safety system is that the laws of physics provide a negative feedback loop that stop a chain reaction and dissipate heat away from the core. This isn't the case for every reactor design of the past few decades, but that's not my argument, I'm simply stating that there are reactor designs out there that are completely passively safe (in terms of preventing a meltdown). You will still be left with the radioactive remnants of the (non-active) core but this can be easily shielded by water for an indefinite period of time.

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

#622

Post by amai » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:38 PM UTC

And to even reverse global warming I suggest a full blown nuclear war. All the CO2 producing industry will be destroyed and the nuclear winter afterwards should be cold enough even for hardcore global warming alarmists.

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

#623

Post by ChuckMcM » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:49 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #505

ChuckMcM wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the interesting thing is that no nuclear plant built starting today would have any of the issues that hit Fukishima, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island. Both because the material safety is better today, and we better understand how to engineer these to passively fail safe rather than have safety systems that can themselves fail. But the political will is hard to muster. And even though something like the traveling w…

>no nuclear plant built starting today would have any of the issues They still have the issue that they are inherently centralized technology that puts control of energy in the hands of big government and big corporations. I'd rather see control at a local level, down to the individual property owner. So from that perspective any nuclear power plants built starting today absolutely do have the same issues. Not the sa…

Have you seen the 10MW plants? Toshiba and others have an interesting series of small nuclear plants like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

At that scale you could have a community that used solar and nuclear and electric cars which would have zero carbon foot print. That combination along with some efficiency engineering would probably support a community of up to 10,000 people.

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

#624

Post by alex_hitchins » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

NoGravitas wrote: post #419

alex_hitchins wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all reactors result in long term storage of waste, I believe some designs can use existing spent fuel even. I would really like to see investment in other types of reactors such as pebblebed, molten salt etc. If we don't build the stations to create nuclear missiles, we can make them much more 'friendly'.

> Not all reactors result in long term storage of waste, I believe some designs can use existing spent fuel even. Yes, those are the ones that have proliferation problems.

I'd hope that these obstacles could be battled with research and funding. All countries require affordable and carbon-free power, if we jointly took on research I strongly feel we could engineer out or around some of the issues.

Perhaps It's just an idealistic layman's perspective, either way I think more research in the nuclear power provision would be sensible.

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

#625

Post by omginternets » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

dreistdreist wrote: post #252

omginternets wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And failing at it, see worldwide obesity statistics This is more of a food quality issue than a food quantity issue. The strict hypercaloremic hypothesis is one that really is ready for retirement (and more or less has been retired in research circles).

Why did nobody notify me that the law of thermodynamics changed? It is not physicially possible to gain weight when you have a caloric deficit. Where would it even come from?

They haven't.

The body is not a closed system.

The laws of thermodynamics tell you your caloric equations have to be balanced, but the internal state of the body can alter behaviors such as feeding and moving, so appealing to the laws of thermodynamics is pretty much off-topic. It's a common fallacy, and you're not alone in committing it. Obesity is increasingly seen as a metabolic disease with behavioral consequences rather than the other way around.

Here are two arbitrary papers I've blindly pulled out of the google-scholar hat, both of which discuss aspects of the issue at hand. Much has been written on the subject, and I respectfully urge you to investigate further.

1. http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ncpendmet0220...

2. https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2...

Also, if you're going to be sardonic, you really should make sure you're not missing anything...

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

#626

Post by Graphon1 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #543

mkaziz wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with a wind farm, out of curiosity? I personally love driving by a windmill farm that's near a local highway.

Driving by it to see a novelty is different from living next to an eyesore.

I don't understand why a large structure is automatically an eyesore. It doesn't emit smoke. It's mostly pretty quiet. Are windfarms uglier than, say... a nicely constructed bridge like the SF Bay Bridge?

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

#627

Post by Graphon1 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:25 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #566

natch wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you seem not to have thought of it, you can also get power from the grid at night. Or from batteries. The grid gets its power from diverse sources. So your logic doesn't quite hold up.

Your logic doesn't hold up. You cannot ignore externalities when... arguing against them to begin with. I'd much rather live with a nuclear power station in my backyard, than install solar knowing I'm robbing those who can't afford it for my usage of the free grid battery. Rooftop solar as implemented today is not sustainable, and is a regressive tax. So the only honest way to do this is with your own energy storage…

> Rooftop solar as implemented today is not sustainable, and is a regressive tax.

So are electric cars. Both are solvable problems, and will be solved as adoption increases.

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

#628

Post by Graphon1 » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:27 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #587

Chathamization wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every design will be old after a few decades. If, when these old designs were being built, people were saying "they're not so safe, but in a few decades we'll have a much safer design" and are now saying that we have a safer design, then, it seems reliable. However, if people were saying a few decades ago, "These new designs are much safer than the old ones" and are now saying "Well, THESE new designs are much safer…

> Every design will be old after a few decades. Time passes. A truly stunning insight. You've somehow managed to miss the entire point you were responding to. A power plant that is designed today is designed with 50 more years' knowledge of possible failure modes than a plant that was designed 50 years ago. Does that mean that it cannot fail? No, but as adults we are constantly exposed to risks of all kinds and life…

> Time passes. A truly stunning insight.

completely unnecessary sarcasm.

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

#629

Post by dctoedt » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 10:06 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…

I became very skeptical about civilian nuclear power back when I was a Navy nuclear engineering officer in the Rickover program, aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which had eight nuclear reactors. After a couple of years of sea duty, with shipyard maintenance periods from time to time, one of my colleagues and I were sent back to Washington DC to take the two-day chief engineer's exam (which we both passed). Before the exam, we were put through a one-week review course; one of the things we did was to play the what-if game with senior officers about various unpleasant scenarios that could occur --- things we hadn't covered in basic nuclear power school. That was eye-opening. I'm still not convinced civilian workers would operate safely enough without the ferociously zero-defects culture of the Rickover program and military discipline.

(Of course, this was in the late 1970s. I've not heard of any operator-error reactor accidents since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which is causing me to revisit my thinking.)

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

#630

Post by pvaldes » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 10:37 PM UTC

n2dasun wrote: post #579

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…

I graduated 3 years after you (just snooped your linkedin) and was a Nuke Submariner. I've always been a big proponent of nuclear, even after leaving it, but I'd have to agree somewhat with your statements. Fear drives narratives very easily. The Fukushima disaster occurred 5.5 years ago, and still holds a leading spot in news headlines today.

> The Fukushima disaster occurred 5.5 years ago, and still holds a leading spot in news headlines today

Maybe is for the recurrent events of "oups, another leak of radioactive water to the ocean, the third this month. Our salutes to Alaska" in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.