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

91–100 of 248 posts

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

#91

Post by pjc50 »

benj111 wrote: post #76
pjc50 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That seems reasonable - no point in closing functioning, safe, carbon free plant that's already been paid for.

The UK has already almost entirely replaced coal.

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

#92

Post by mooseburger »

ambicapter wrote: post #53
gravy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Its just as forbidding for the future of nuclear though. If there's one thing you can count on, is that people don't change.

Eh. The Soviet Union really was a uniquely dysfunctional place. The level of reality denial and sucking up to the higher ups that led to Chernobyl is not commonplace.

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

#93

Post by politician »

Meandering wrote: post #83
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?

This is one of the issues with solar power that gets overlooked. The physical 'stuff' needed to build a large solar farm is far more than a base nuclear plant. After a quick search: Solar Panels Lifespan - ~25 years - Good Grid Battery Lifespan - 5-10 years - ehh.. If we switched to 100% solar, with a majority of the equipment probably manufactured in China, there would be an orders of magnitude more physical product…

Nuclear plant lifespan - 75+ years - Best

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

#94

Post by briandear »

Tharkun wrote: post #27

Placing economic sanctions on oil states which want to build nuclear reactors does seem counterproductive wrt climate goals.

However in the case of Iran where they have both stated and have made significant nuclear weapons progress as well as expressed an official position of “wiping Israel off the map,” it would be a folly. But Europe, North and South America and much of Africa doesn’t have destroying another county as a stated ambition. Iran, for example, could be pursing rapid expansion of solar in addition to nuclear if getting off fossil fuels was their actual goal, but it’s not. Same for North Korea. There are some governments that absolutely can’t be trusted with dual-use nuclear technology. I would be equally nervous if Saudi Arabia were to develop a sudden interest in nuclear power.

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

#95

Post by magduf »

chrisco255 wrote: post #22
bilbo0s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Exactly; in places where wind works really, really well, you might as well take advantage of it. If you really can get your power from wind, why bother with nuclear? (But what about when the wind dies down?)

But there's many places where wind power just isn't feasible.

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

#96

Post by mncolinlee »

JTbane wrote: post #47

I often hear the argument that "nuclear is bad because there is a chance of a catastrophic loss of life". Well, there has not yet been any large scale nuclear disaster. Cars kill hundreds and we still use them.

Both coal and nuclear have potentially killed millions. Just because it can take decades for Chernobyl, Fukushima, and coal air pollution to result in some cancers, that does not mean they aren't primarily responsible for those deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...

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

#97

Post by pjc50 »

sdinsn wrote: post #79
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.

Keeping the contaminated water out of the groundwater is the big problem.

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

#98

Post by tomp »

rndgermandude wrote: post #54
dclowd9901 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going from 5-580 is much easier than going from 580->2500. Just ask anyone how hard it was to make their first 100,000, million, billion, etc. Using multiples is actually oversimplifying the issue (i.e. "to make a hundred dollars, you just have to make $10 10 times, so making $1000 from $100 should be just as easy")

No, that's not how it works. It's hard in the beginning, because of research and development. After that, you got the technology side covered, you got the processes side covered, all you need is to build and install. Making the first mobile phones was hard. Making another million mobile phones today: not that hard. Especially if you make a million more of an established model.

No, that's not how it works. Every growth process has limits. Solar has much more limits than mobile phones: land, resources (phones are tiny compared to solar panels), labour (not just production, but also placing the panels and maintaining them)... I reckon if we treat solar panels like mobile phones (throw away every 1.5 years) we won't get far...

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

#99

Post by magduf »

perfunctory wrote: post #70
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.

also modern airplanes with modern software never crash.

Modern planes really do crash less than older ones. Just stay away from 737MAX models.
Post reply on HN