Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 731 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#531

Post by lispm »

Gondolin wrote: post #507
pytester wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, Hinkley point is ~£95 per MWh while renewables are ~£45. It makes no sense to complain about how polluting coal plants are in relation to nuclear. It isn't the main source of competition. Germany has been taking both nuclear and coal offline and renewables have been plugging the gap for both for some years now and will likely continue to do so. It boggles my mind that the nuclear industry itself demands that all…

Germany has been taking coal offline after taking nuclear offline; and are replacing coal by gas (so they depend even more on Russia) instead of replacing it by nuclear or renewable. They produce 3x the CO2 of France, despite their commitment against global warming. In an ideal world, renewable would replace everything. We are not yet in this ideal world, and we don't know the time frame to get to it (there are huge…

> Germany has been taking coal offline after taking nuclear offline; and are replacing coal by gas (so they depend even more on Russia) instead of replacing it by nuclear or renewable

Germany's Energiewende is a many decade long plan with going beyond 80+ renewable energy for electricity in 2050.

The Energiewende is not just about CO2 reductions, it is about making renewable energy viable in an industrialized country. This has impact for all of us. Not just in Germany.

If the US had a forward looking government and population, we would much further along the way. The energy consumption in the US is twice as high per capita as in Germany and there is no credible energy policy beyond fracking gas. The current US president is a coal lover and he was voted for that into his office. Imagine the amount of research money and infrastructure money the US COULD invest into a new energy systems - instead it wastes money on wars, consumption and trillion dollar deficits.

> investing into nuclear too alongside renewable (rather than instead) seems the safer bet

That's why it has to go and somebody has to invest to make that viable. Germany is doing exactly that.

> Focusing on closing nuclear first (like Germany did!)

Germany did focus on renewable energy and the most incompatible industry had to go first.

Renewable energy is not about nuclear and renewable side by side - this won't work.

Nuclear is a huge state owned monopolistic system. Renewable is market oriented, decentralized, non-monopolistic. The break-up of the old system was inevitable to jump-start the new energy system.

It's a complete paradigm shift like going from Mainframe computing to a distributed Internet.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#532

Post by vlehto »

aurelwu wrote: post #478
vlehto wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://withouthotair.com/ "A vital tool agains global warming" means that it's our only possibility. It's not about cost, it's about what is physically possible.

It's always about cost, if it wasn't about cost we could just build so much PV/Wind + Power to Gas/Liquid Facilities as we need and be done with it. And building new nuclear is way more expensive than projected in your link , (No blame to the authors, 10 years ago they couldn't know that those numbers are not realistic) while Wind/PV are still becoming cheaper every year) they assume ~1,3 Billion per 1 GW nuclear cap…

It's not about cost, because there is not enough wind, solar, tidal and geothermal energy combined on the British isles to satisfy power consumption.

If you take single fuck up, that's been shown in court to be fuck up and then deduct from there that nuclear power is all over as expensive Olkiluoto 3, then umm.

Do you also smoke because your granny smoked and lived to her nineties?

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#533

Post by throw082 »

ElBarto wrote: post #508
pytester wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, Hinkley point is ~£95 per MWh while renewables are ~£45. It makes no sense to complain about how polluting coal plants are in relation to nuclear. It isn't the main source of competition. Germany has been taking both nuclear and coal offline and renewables have been plugging the gap for both for some years now and will likely continue to do so. It boggles my mind that the nuclear industry itself demands that all…

Calculate how many wind generators you need to guarantee the same production as Hinkley point and you'll see that it is not really realistic. Then, take into account the goal of making of vehicles electric in the next 20 years. There is no viable alternative to nuclear as of today even if renewables should of course be pushed as much as possible. Germany is emitting heavily because most of its electricity comes from…

Regarding your comment on wood fired plants: To me it seems that you imply that that is not renewable, which I do not understand. If you regrow the trees that you've burned (cleanly) down then your net impact will be zero, right?

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#534

Post by pytester »

Gondolin wrote: post #507
pytester wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, Hinkley point is ~£95 per MWh while renewables are ~£45. It makes no sense to complain about how polluting coal plants are in relation to nuclear. It isn't the main source of competition. Germany has been taking both nuclear and coal offline and renewables have been plugging the gap for both for some years now and will likely continue to do so. It boggles my mind that the nuclear industry itself demands that all…

Germany has been taking coal offline after taking nuclear offline; and are replacing coal by gas (so they depend even more on Russia) instead of replacing it by nuclear or renewable. They produce 3x the CO2 of France, despite their commitment against global warming. In an ideal world, renewable would replace everything. We are not yet in this ideal world, and we don't know the time frame to get to it (there are huge…

It certainly doesn't look like natural gas usage is ramping up:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...

>They produce 3x the CO2 of France, despite their commitment against global warming.

That's because France started replacing fossil fuels with nuclear in the 80s. That was the only sensible approach to reducing CO2 in the 80s. This isn't the 80s though.

>In an ideal world, renewable would replace everything. We are not yet in this ideal world

I mean, it's half the cost of nuclear and it doesn't include the risks (however small) of catastrophe.

In an ideal world we could swap out fossil fuels for something clean overnight - obviously it takes about 30 years. The question isn't "what can we replace fossil fuels with overnight", it's "what can take over from fossil fuels?"

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#535

Post by Xylakant »

wtallis wrote: post #511
Xylakant wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the banana equivalent dose. It entirely papers over the substantial difference between alpha, beta and gamma radiation, ignores where radioactive substances accumulate in the body and what effect those differences on the actual inflicted damage have. It’s a cheap stunt to dismiss any sort of reasonable debate. If you cite it in defence of any actual nuclear fallout pollution, I personally consider it as proof…

I think you've somehow ended up with the exact opposite understanding of what the banana equivalent does is intended for. It serves to call attention to the fact that measurable radioactivity is not necessarily dangerous enough to worry about, and that an actual safety assessment requires more detail than just pointing out that something is radioactive. Similarly, pointing out that there is a measurable amount of Cs-…

> It serves to call attention to the fact that measurable radioactivity is not necessarily dangerous enough to worry about

That’s what it may have been created for, but it’s not what it’s used for.

> Similarly, pointing out that there is a measurable amount of Cs-137 in wildlife in Germany is not a statement about safety.

It’s been quantified and researched and the recommendation is still that one should control its intake of game meat and especially mushrooms from these regions because the CS-137 concentration can (depending on the kind) have multiples of the legal maximum (1) It’s perfectly safe to occasionally eat normal amounts’ but dismissing it as bananas is not appropriate.

(1) https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/umwelt/lebensmittel/pilze-w...

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#536

Post by tangue »

Gondolin wrote: post #400

I am flabbergasted that some commenters here argue against nuclear because of waste and accidents, while ignoring that - coal produce radioactive waste too - it kills a lot more persons (without taking into account global warning) due to air pollution - the economic cost of nuclear may be underestimated, but this is nothing compared to the economic cost of global warming. Renewable (wind and solar) are extremely impo…

what strikes me about pro nuclear comments, is the fact that never it's mentionned that uranium is a finite ressouce. So we're going to invest billions in a technology that will last 50 years ? The key word in renewable energies is renewable

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#537

Post by pfdietz »

selectodude wrote: post #231
hugi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima was an excellent demonstration of what can happen. You devastate huge areas of land and make them unlivable for generations. This is especially applicable to the United States that has proven entirely unable to handle it's own nuclear waste and just accumulates it at the sites where it's generated, waiting for disaster to happen.

Hiroshima was literally leveled by an atomic bomb and wasn’t unlivable for even a full generation.

A 13 kiloton fission bomb produces about .01% of the long lived fission products that are resident in the core of a 1 GW(e) reactor just before refueling.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#538

Post by jason0597 »

tangue wrote: post #536
Gondolin wrote: post #400

I am flabbergasted that some commenters here argue against nuclear because of waste and accidents, while ignoring that - coal produce radioactive waste too - it kills a lot more persons (without taking into account global warning) due to air pollution - the economic cost of nuclear may be underestimated, but this is nothing compared to the economic cost of global warming. Renewable (wind and solar) are extremely impo…

what strikes me about pro nuclear comments, is the fact that never it's mentionned that uranium is a finite ressouce. So we're going to invest billions in a technology that will last 50 years ? The key word in renewable energies is renewable

If you use the ancient reactor technology of a PWR burner, then sure. However, most pro-nuclear people are for breeder reactors, not burner reactors.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#540

Post by vlehto »

lazyjones wrote: post #479
vlehto wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually." https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/ Ten fold increase over the next century seems believable given that the projected effect has hardly started yet.

> Ten fold increase over the next century seems believable given that the projected effect has hardly started yet. Good example for how these numbers are pulled out of thin air: take an old WHO estimate (which includes Malaria deaths), multiply by 10 for the heck of it and sum over 100 years...

Predicting the future is always very imprecise. Take a look at the work of Thomas Malthus for taste.

If you want accurate numbers, could you first give accurate numbers of future dangers of nuclear? I want precise calculations based on reality. My hunch is that the number is zero, can you prove otherwise?

I would also appreciate numbers on things like why we have the time to dabble with renewables? Why it's going to be cost effective? How the power storage is solved? And how much land and natural resources are going to be used?

Post reply on HN