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

Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

iea.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 248 posts

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#21

Post by arethuza »

gravy wrote: post #14
AlwaysRock wrote: post #8

So many people are grossly unaware of nuclear power and it's potential vs its risks. Many people in the USA live much closer to a nuclear power plant than they realize. It has huge potential but its scare factor keep it from widespread adoption.

This is kind of why I'm a little concerned with how well HBO's Chernobyl is being received...I really hope it doesn't lead to widespread fears of nuclear plants.

HBO's Chernobyl really is very good, but the writer made an execellent point:

"The lesson of Chernobyl isn't that modern nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that lying, arrogance and suppression of criticism is dangerous. The flaws that led to Chernobyl are the same flaws shown by climate change deniers today."

https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/1115135743045718016?lang=...

Edit: Purely by coincidence I read "Chernobyl: History of a Tregedy" by Serhii Plokhy a few months back - one of the few books that has moved me to tears - the self sacrifice of many who worked there with full knowledge of what the awful consequences would be is stunning.

"If not us then who?"

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#22

Post by chrisco255 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #12
umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

In fairness, no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants. The problem is the renewables. In Iowa, they are in the process of shuttering their nuclear plants. Now no one in Iowa was out protesting the plants or anything, but here's the issue. Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere. (Seriously, drive through I…

I've seen the same thing in north Texas and Kansas but wind isn't everywhere in such large quantities (with tons of farm land to easily build on to boot).

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#23

Post by Tharkun »

umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

> Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades?

I thought you were being snarky at first, but the rest of the comment appears to indicate you're being serious. In Belgium we've been stuck in endless discussions regarding what to do with our nuclear waste. We used to dump it in the sea, which was probably a bad idea. Now it's stored in barrels which are apparently leaking some kind of radioactive goo[1].

So either this waste recycling isn't as good everywhere, or we have a different definition of the word "good".

[1] https://fanc.fgov.be/nl/informatiedossiers/radioactief-afval... (Dutch)

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#24

Post by Robotbeat »

ilaksh wrote: post #3

I grew up in San Diego. I have seen a very encouraging amount of solar deployment on houses there. But there is still a massive potential for more residential solar. When I visited my brother in Ft. Worth I saw almost no residential solar. I also noticed that there was a massive supply of wind blowing around the neighborhood. Is it really not feasible to harness solar and wind better? Maybe it requires moving to a mo…

The urgency of needing to deal with climate change mandates we do both renewables and nuclear.

We have the resources to push hard on both sides.

There's this idea that we should prioritize resources on one or the other. In my opinion, we have plenty of resources such that we'll reach diminishing returns (due to employment/skill/geographical/material bottlenecks) if we applied all of those resources to one or the other such that there's nothing lost by investing in both.

As an example, at very least we can address the siting constraints of nuclear by installing any new reactors at existing sites and maintaining and upgrading existing reactors. Solar and wind can both saturate an area and reach diminishing returns (see: duck curve) and require curtailment such that the resources become much less economic than you think they would be. And curtailment is not a totally bad thing, either.

So absolutely it's feasible to add more solar and wind (even to the point of curtailing a lot of it), but there's no time to waste by not also pursuing nuclear. We have more money than time (and costs of nuclear, if scaled out, are exaggerated).

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#25

Post by nickik »

umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

No. Unfortunatly research and devlopment into all things nuclear has been systematically eradicated. Regulation that were put in place have essentially eliminated all progress specially progress that isn't incredibly incremental.

The problem is that it is essentially impossible to bring these new technologies to market as a private companies. And government have shown zero interest in doing anything by themselves or even having a regulatory system that is in any way sensible.

Current plants in the west are pretty safe in general but recycling is non-existent. Only France does any kind of nuclear waste reprocessing at all (outside of research).

Sadly the anti nuclear wave went incredibly deep and has since basically destroyed the industry and a whole field of engineering.

The only positive thing is that both with democrats and republicans a new pro nuclear consensus is emerging. The US regulatory agency are slowly waking up to the fact that they have utterly destroyed the nuclear industry and are taking small steps in the right direction. Thanks to these changes a few important changes have gone threw congress and are getting implemented by the Department on Energy. Sadly these things are way to slow.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#26

Post by nickik »

Tepix wrote: post #11
umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

No, quite the contrary. Just as an example, in Germany the search for the ultimate disposal place has just started over from scratch after decades of failed attempts. In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific: https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/a-dome-holding-nuclear-waste-... Here's another story from 12 days ago: "Years of mismanagement, delays at nuclear waste sites could pose risk, report says" htt…

Typical lie.

In fact nuclear waste management from civilian power has fantastic.

In fact all nuclear power stations include cleanup and waste management as part of the cost.

Germany problem is not technical but political and anybody that has ever looked into nuclear power in Germany knows this. Not to mention that finding a 'ultimate disposal' a pretty unnecessary and wrongheaded that is only being perused because limited understanding of nuclear power in the first place.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#28

Post by nickik »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #8

So many people are grossly unaware of nuclear power and it's potential vs its risks. Many people in the USA live much closer to a nuclear power plant than they realize. It has huge potential but its scare factor keep it from widespread adoption.

What keeps it from widespread adoption isn't that people are scared. Its the regulatory framework that was put into place after the accidents. They have killed the industry and pretty much all progress.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#29

Post by gravy »

arethuza wrote: post #21
gravy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of why I'm a little concerned with how well HBO's Chernobyl is being received...I really hope it doesn't lead to widespread fears of nuclear plants.

HBO's Chernobyl really is very good, but the writer made an execellent point: "The lesson of Chernobyl isn't that modern nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that lying, arrogance and suppression of criticism is dangerous. The flaws that led to Chernobyl are the same flaws shown by climate change deniers today." https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/1115135743045718016?lang=... Edit: Purely by coincidence I read "C…

That's exactly true. That's the lesson I'm getting out of the series.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#30

Post by pjc50 »

umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

There's really two kinds of waste: spent fuel (which can be effectively recycled, leaving only a tiny bit of extremely dangerous lanthanides, actinides, and plutonium), and "lower level" waste. The latter includes pretty much every other part of the reactor building after it's decomissioned.

> positive PR campaign

The nuclear industry has been at this for decades; at this stage, the PR is part of the problem.

My view on this is that it's probably too late to start building new nuclear plants, the cost overrun problems are severe, and there are plenty of countries that they should not be built in. But that doesn't mean we should close the existing ones early. If they can be refurbished economically without compromising safety, we should do that.

Switching from nuclear to natural gas indicates that gas is too cheap, and should be subject to carbon pricing and curtailment of new drilling and fracking.

Post reply on HN