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

71–80 of 248 posts

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

#71

Post by ageofwant »

Valgrim wrote: post #60
mbell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. This is the type of fear mongering that caused the current situation.

Long term, large scale containment of radioactive waste is an unsolved problem. Nuclear advocates have two answers to this problem: A) We'll solve it later (we should research fuel reprocessing, we have an urgency to act, etc.) B) It's not really a problem (people don't actually die from radioactive waste, most nuclear plants have proven themselves safely managed, etc.) Both answer sound like sweeping the dust under…

What if technicolor monkeys start flying out of my arse ? Whataboutism aside, today, right now, thousands of coal fired power plants are polluting the air I breathe with more radioactive waste, particulates and CO2, to a degree not seen in the last 800k years. Your catastrophe is real and happening right now, in real time, today, this minute.

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

#72

Post by umvi »

Valgrim wrote: post #60
mbell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. This is the type of fear mongering that caused the current situation.

Long term, large scale containment of radioactive waste is an unsolved problem. Nuclear advocates have two answers to this problem: A) We'll solve it later (we should research fuel reprocessing, we have an urgency to act, etc.) B) It's not really a problem (people don't actually die from radioactive waste, most nuclear plants have proven themselves safely managed, etc.) Both answer sound like sweeping the dust under…

A modern thorium/uranium recycling pipeline should only produce small amounts of "final" waste (and only after waste has been iteratively recycled many times). That final waste takes a few hundred years to decay, but if contained, it is harmless to the environment. So, create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste, and create a pipeline. At the end of the pipeline, the containers are empty and can be used at the start again. Who knows, we may even be able to figure out a way to extract even more energy from the "final" waste eventually.

Consider that the final nuclear waste passively disappears after a few hundred years, whereas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not passively disappear in a few hundred years - it must be actively removed by plants, but the plants can't keep up with humans.

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

#73

Post by Tharkun »

jhallenworld wrote: post #65

Solar is growing so fast that it is creating its own waste problem: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23... What happens when we add the necessary batteries (to replace the nuclear base) to this problem?

Lead acid batteries have a recycling rate of around 100%. LiIon can be recycled with relative ease. This seems like a much easier problem to solve than PV cells or nuclear waste.

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

#74

Post by jobigoud »

Cederfjard wrote: post #42
Tharkun wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 leak…

The grandparent comment mentioned modern recycling. Perhaps Belgium is operating old types of reactors that aren't amenable to modern ways of dealing with waste? A quick search yielded that all of Belgium's reactors were built in the 70's and 80's.

But then if we need to replace all the old reactors by new ones, the argument that renewables are just ramping up is moot.

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

#75

Post by tpkj »

isolli wrote: post #36
jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

It reminds me of this: https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/866313289306963969/p... tl;dr The International Energy Agency kept predicting, year after year, in the face of all the evidence, that solar production would plateau.

We could be at the point where solar adoption takes off exponentially.

On a big picture view:

Tony Seba: Clean Disruption - Energy & Transportation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0

On a more micro level view:

Solar power solutions coming to places with no grid:

https://medium.com/zolaelectric/infinity-smart-grid-deliveri...

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

#76

Post by benj111 »

pjc50 wrote: post #44
ekianjo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenpeace has successfully spent several decades painting nuclear power as Evil so its going to be difficult to convince voters to support it from now on.

Hoisting my previous comment on Greenpeace from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17774347 The backlash against nuclear comes from four points and a meta-point: 1) Weapons proliferation. The standard fission cycle is just too convenient for this (after all, that's why it was developed) and so an international infrastructure needs to be developed around restricting this. See Iran for example. This also prompted a l…

All reasonable points, but would you not agree that in the here and now, our first priority should be replacing that coal power station with renewables, and then the gas, then the nuclear?

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

#77

Post by danielbln »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #67
thinkcontext wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants Germany decided to shut their nukes before their coal plants

In a panic over a Tsunami - note that Germany doesn't have a coast to speak off and is not prone to tsunamis. It was also used to keep the Greens on side though you do have to ask who benefits and is keeping coal plant open longer really a green solution.

The nuclear exit was planned long before Fukushima, all Fukishima did was create public pressure to not go through with the prolonging of the nuclear exit that was originally planned. There are 7 reactors operational still, although most are in the process of deconstruction.

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

#78

Post by Tharkun »

Cederfjard wrote: post #42
Tharkun wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 leak…

The grandparent comment mentioned modern recycling. Perhaps Belgium is operating old types of reactors that aren't amenable to modern ways of dealing with waste? A quick search yielded that all of Belgium's reactors were built in the 70's and 80's.

That's a good point. These reactors are ancient. I wasn't aware of any major improvements in spent fuel handling, so I've got some reading to do!

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

#79

Post by sdinsn »

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.

People also overestimate the amount of waste. Very little waste is produced. Also, the only safety feature needed to store nuclear waste is water.

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

#80

Post by perfunctory »

mbell wrote: post #19
Tepix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. This is the type of fear mongering that caused the current situation.

> That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power.

Why not?

Post reply on HN