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

551–560 of 731 posts

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

#551

Post by jason0597 »

kuzehanka wrote: post #438
Tomte wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would we leave out terrorist attacks? Because they destroy your argument?

What would a terrorist do with a nuclear powerplant exactly? We've flown fighter jets into nuclear powerplants to test them[1]. They're protected by armed guards. The US has a nuclear emergency task force ready to fly pumps and generators to any plant. The best attack even a highly resourced terrorist could mount would be to damage the cooling tower and not really make any difference? If you're imagining some kind of…

A bit off-topic (but still nuclear-related): All that adds big cost to nuclear and makes it less feasible

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

#552

Post by Gondolin »

lispm wrote: post #549
Gondolin wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I count lignite + coal + natural gas + mineral oil, it goes from 76.9GW in 2010 to 79.3GW in 2019. So it did not go down either. That's because Germany needs a back up energy source for now. It could have gone down by 10GW had Germany closed coal rather than nuclear first.

What does GW measure in this context? Electricity production is usually measured in TWh.

This is the production capacity (you are right it is not a good measure), but I was replying based on the graphic.

If I look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany Germany went from 60% fossil, 23% nuclear, 17% renewable to 49%/13%/38% respectively.

How much further down do you expect fossil to go in ten years? I am pretty sure that by investing both on nuclear and renewable germany could have been at close to 0% right now or in a few years.

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

#553

Post by jason0597 »

capsulecorp wrote: post #356
option wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is anecdotal evidence. But having grew up there I obviously read up about it a lot and this is why I am speaking my opinion on this matter. Also, in my opinion, what I saw written about it in the US media is fear mongering or outright lies about death tolls, radiation levels in nearby areas, cancer rates, etc. To give you an example. Did you know that CNPP was profitably working until 2000 while the disaste…

>But having grew up there I obviously read up about it a lot I disagree, what you read isn't obvious and still doesn't qualify you to speak on the matter unless it was legitimate and vetted information. Reading a bunch of infowars doesn't make me a legitimate political commentator.

How do you know what they read?

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

#554

Post by pytester »

Gondolin wrote: post #543
pytester wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

If I count lignite + coal + natural gas + mineral oil, it goes from 76.9GW in 2010 to 79.3GW in 2019. So it did not go down either. That's because Germany needs a back up energy source for now. It could have gone down by 10GW had Germany closed coal rather than nuclear first.

Yes, maybe they should have closed coal rather than nuclear first between 2010 and 2014.

However, from this point onward it makes little difference. It makes little economic sense to build new nuclear plants given that they are more expensive and no sense to build coal. Renewables are more than capable of taking over as old nuclear and coal plants are phased out.

The issue now is how fast to phase out rickety old nuclear plants and rickety old coal plants.

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

#555

Post by vlehto »

jason0597 wrote: post #547
vlehto wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you doubting nuclear or are you doubting climate change?

I'm a bit on the pro-nuclear side, but if you met a banker and asked him for a couple of billion upfront to build a nuclear plant, and said those things, he'd reject you outright.

Of course. I'm not arguing to get funding here. I'm arguing that if you believe the IPCC storyline about climate change, then nuclear is the only viable option. Building should have started yesterday and the voting public of democratic nations should be fully aware of this.

If you don't believe the IPCC storyline, nuclear is still best power source right now. But there is no hurry. We can safely dabble with renewables and batteries and such until oil, gas and coal run out. No political hard decisions are needed, because prices of fossil fuels will increase well in advance to any catastrophe. So it will become economically sound to produce energy in some other way. Maybe it won't be nuclear then, I don't really care.

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

#556

Post by leetcrew »

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

what makes you think we will run out of fissile materials in 50 years?

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

#557

Post by wtallis »

Xylakant wrote: post #535
wtallis wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It’s perfectly safe to occasionally eat normal amounts’ but dismissing it as bananas is not appropriate.

I'm not seeing anyone here trying to imply that it's as safe as bananas, but I do see a comment that tries to imply that the degree of Cs-137 contamination is about a thousand times higher than safe levels (300 years, ~30 year half-life). As your citation shows, the worst measurements of bioaccumulated Cs-137 in recent years have been merely 2-3x safe levels, with older outliers having been 10x safe levels.

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

#558

Post by radford-neal »

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

Since 50 years is about the lifetime of a nuclear power plant, why not?

But in any case, thorium is very plentiful, and there has been good progress on extracting uranium from seawater. Plus, experience with other minerals would lead one to believe that there is probably more uranium that could be mined if there were a motive to find it.

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

#559

Post by lispm »

kuzehanka wrote: post #505
aurelwu wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the energy density would be a factor if we had any actual space issues. But the area needed for solar and wind is not what is the problem. I agree with you that it is an emergency where not enough action is taken, but even then why not go for 100% Renewables (with Battery, Power-To-Gas, Power-To-Liquid etc. as storage) when that is cheaper than nuclear.

Three reasons. 1: It's not actually cheaper than nuclear. The majority of the cost associated with nuclear is regulatory compliance and political rather than practical in nature (see: China). Discounting this cost makes nuclear the dominant option. Factoring for lifecycle costs pushes it much further ahead. Fun fact: there is currently no way to recycle photovoltaics whose useful lifespan is 20 years. 2: Use of landm…

> is regulatory compliance and political rather than practical in nature (see: China)

Any opposition to the the energy policy in China will see themselves in a labor camp. That's a cheap way to deal with it.

If you think that nuclear is cheaper in China than in the West, then part of the reason is that it has other hidden costs.

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

#560

Post by pytester »

yostrovs wrote: post #545
pytester wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Calculate how many wind generators you need to guarantee the same production as Hinkley point Hinkley Point = 3200 MW Average wind turbine generates = 3 MW That's about 1,100 wind turbines at current tech. GE is working on a 12 MW wind turbine - it would take 270 of them would replace Hinkley point.

... when the wind blows.

Yep, although:

* The wind is always blowing somewhere.

* At current prices it makes sense just to overproduce and figure out ways to time shift demand (e.g. start using electric storage heaters again)

Post reply on HN