Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved • Hacker News Board

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#91

Post by 7952 » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #33

pg_bot wrote: post #26

I think the greatest irony of our age is the progression of climate change due to environmentalists protesting against the development of nuclear power. While nuclear power admittedly has risks, the tradeoffs are clearly worth making if you look at emissions and deaths per megawatt hour. We didn't curtail energy demand, and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear.

Nuclear hasn’t suffered because of environmentalists protesting. Nuclear has suffered because it is expensive and uneconomical. The only way it is even feasible is by having laws that protect the owners from liabilities caused due to catastrophic failure. Blaming environmentalists gives them way more power than they possess. Environmentalists have struggled to even stop pipelines running through the US whose sole pur…

For existing sites local people tend to be in favour and see the benefits. You would have difficulty building a new site, but that is true of any large scale development and is hardly unique to nuclear. Some people are just opposed to any development and will use whatever argument makes sense to try and stop the scheme. But with political support that opposition can be overcome. But that political support needs to be economically viable for the government involved, and that is the problem.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#92

Post by strainer » Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

realreality wrote: post #86

strainer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is not a certain level of emissions, as you say - negative emissions would be desirable. A 50% reduction will be a great improvement, a 90% reduction will be almost as good as 100%. 110% even better... Our task is to reduce emissions as fast as possible. But what is "possible" still entails economic, environmental and safety limitations and priorities.

There is a carbon budget that countries have agreed to (though the budget is too optimistic, and countries aren’t really committed to it). Either we stick to the agreements we made, or we keep doing whatever we feel like doing.

The UK's agreed carbon budget is to achieve 80% reduction by 2050, and the US administration is no longer even officially interested in its own.

Those agreements are bust on their own terms never mind the idea of zero emissions. Don't over rate their importance, we should and can do much better, much quicker.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#93

Post by JBReefer » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #48

sonnyblarney wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but in the long run, it might have been a healthy warning signal. Negative populism aside, we need to know that 'corner cases happen' and that there are consequences. In a funny way, we're lucky it was a rather minor fallout in a 'good country' wherein we can take measurements, do experiments etc.. Fukishima should help us make more rational decisions if we can get over the populism.

Hmmm. There are many signals already in the nuclear industry that could have prevented a Fukushima. Fukushima isn't a signal. It's one of the thing that might happens when signals are ignored.

Or you could consider it a signal that in one of the most orderly, fastidious, and organized cultures on the planet (probably THE most), people still manage to catastrophically fuck up nuclear, and if the Japanese can't do it, realistically no one can.

Re: Vietnam Going Solar After Nuclear Power Plants Shelved

#94

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 7:58 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #65

WhompingWindows wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All nuclear plants are expensive at this point. Until you get modularized reactors that don't face political/public backlash, you'll not see many nuclear facilities built outside of China. Even the nuclear plants we have built in the USA, they are expensive to maintain but provide carbon-free energy, so some true climate hawks are for subsidizing them. As far as new-builds go, look at the absolutely terrible debacle…

Not totally carbon free. Mining uranium still emits carbon, so too the rest if the fuel cycle. It certainly is very low carbon.

[deleted]