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

Why California May Go Nuclear

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#31

Post by sprafa »

option wrote: post #18
ixtli wrote: post #10

Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio. This is difficult for people because it requires engaging in politics because these things are only as safe as they are well maintained. But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear plants running rather well, and we should be…

We absolutely need nuclear energy. 1) Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation (measured in death/per mwatt) 2) Once operational it is always on and will substitute for solar/wind when those are unavailable 3) Energy conservation long term is not an option - quality of life correlates with amount of energy consumed 4) imagine, what if, energy were so cheap that desalination is profitable in CA.

Someone pointed out recently that nuclear is only as safe as its operator - the Us Navy has never had a reactor accident for instance.

Still the dangers are Chernobyl and Fukushima - uninhabitable areas where no one can go for generations.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#32

Post by danschumann »

overcast wrote: post #20
danschumann wrote: post #16

Can we shoot the waste into space? Also, if you could slow down a nuclear explosion, could you use for rocket fuel?

Sure, until that rocket fails, distributing nuclear waste over a large area.

Mitigate risks while emphasising benefits. What if we could make it safe? What if it was better than anything we could make otherwise?

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#33

Post by ajross »

MBCook wrote: post #29
ajross wrote: post #23

> “But we can’t make a serious dent in slowing the warming trend in the world without investment in nuclear power.” That's... not really true. Cost to build out nuclear power capacity remains much (seriously, MUCH) higher than for solar or wind. It's true that nuclear is carbon free, really quite safe, and very useful. You certainly don't want to be deliberately decomissioning reactors in a world where we're still tr…

Windmills can’t provide steady base load power all the time. They need to be paired with some sort of storage technology.

Then show numbers for why we need nuclear for peaking capacity instead of just using existing gas and hydro while we wait for new technologies to arrive.

Again, the problem isn't that the alternatives are perfect or that nuclear doesn't work, it's that nuclear power is outrageously expensive. And no amount of internet argumentation or industry-driven legislation is going to change that fact.

Make it cheaper, then come back and evangelize. In the mean time, stop getting in the way of building out cheap green power, please.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#34

Post by Krasnol »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #15
searine wrote: post #9

I don't think I'll ever forgive the environmental movement for turning their back on nuclear technology. Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inaction was the climate. I would take an accident or two over climate change any day.

And more plants could have meant decommissioning dangerous older plants, sooner. Could have saved accidents.

You could still decommission them for safety reasons and not just go on ignoring or hiding it. Maybe that would give back some of the lost faith in the technology.

Meanwhile humans doing stupid stuff are still a problem with nuclear. Recently we had this guy with his Bitcoin mining rig and whatever happened in Russia.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#36

Post by imgabe »

ajross wrote: post #26
ixtli wrote: post #10

Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio. This is difficult for people because it requires engaging in politics because these things are only as safe as they are well maintained. But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear plants running rather well, and we should be…

> Conservationists need to [...] Nuclear boosters need to start showing numbers proving this point instead of taking potshots on HN. Nuclear needs to be worthwhile on a balance sheet before anyone is going to take it seriously. Even now, it's cheaper to build out wind and solar. And the new technologies are rapidly getting cheaper. Show numbers.

Wind and solar, no matter how cheap, are never going to be reliable sources of baseline power. They fluctuate, and something needs to keep producing power when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#37

Post by mrweasel »

Isn’t this 20 year to late? Even if you “just” want 50% of Californias electicity to come from nuclear you’d need 4 or 5 new plant built, ideally built yesterday. New plants will be at least 10 years away and that’s being really optimistic.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#38

Post by JoeAltmaier »

sprafa wrote: post #31
option wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely need nuclear energy. 1) Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation (measured in death/per mwatt) 2) Once operational it is always on and will substitute for solar/wind when those are unavailable 3) Energy conservation long term is not an option - quality of life correlates with amount of energy consumed 4) imagine, what if, energy were so cheap that desalination is profitable in CA.

Someone pointed out recently that nuclear is only as safe as its operator - the Us Navy has never had a reactor accident for instance. Still the dangers are Chernobyl and Fukushima - uninhabitable areas where no one can go for generations.

Turns out, Chernobyl is pretty safe right now. Could be cleaned up with a Troop of Scouts with trash bags. Its the FUD surrounding 'nuclear' that keeps people out.

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#39

Post by Krasnol »

ashleyn wrote: post #17
searine wrote: post #9

I don't think I'll ever forgive the environmental movement for turning their back on nuclear technology. Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inaction was the climate. I would take an accident or two over climate change any day.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were practically PR disasters for the nuclear industry and all within ten years.

It doesn't stop. Recently we had a guy hooking up his Bitcoin mining rig, whatever happened in Russia, constant under-reporting in Europe, ...

Re: Why California May Go Nuclear

#40

Post by dev_dull »

ajross wrote: post #26
ixtli wrote: post #10

Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy portfolio. This is difficult for people because it requires engaging in politics because these things are only as safe as they are well maintained. But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear plants running rather well, and we should be…

> Conservationists need to [...] Nuclear boosters need to start showing numbers proving this point instead of taking potshots on HN. Nuclear needs to be worthwhile on a balance sheet before anyone is going to take it seriously. Even now, it's cheaper to build out wind and solar. And the new technologies are rapidly getting cheaper. Show numbers.

These technologies aren’t exclusive. You need wind, solar, and nuclear for a carbon-free replacement for our grid.

Nat gas is still one of the “cheapest” forms of energy, but you wouldn’t hold that against carbon-free alternatives right?

Post reply on HN