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

Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 364 posts

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#281

Post by pvaldes »

renaudg wrote: post #218
pvaldes wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they start repeating again that radiation didn't killed anybody, or only one people, or whatever... they lose any credibility. If they makeup the second part of the statement, I assume that the first is also embellished and that the "but estimated 10.000 deaths" part is also false. Why they still try such silly strategy first with Chernobyl and now with Fukushima, is a mystery to me. It does not work.

> When they start repeating again that radiation didn't killed anybody, or only one people, or whatever... they lose any credibility. I guess Wikipedia doesn't have any credibility left then. Most of the casualties were from the tsunami : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... > "but estimated 10.000 deaths" part is also false. Actually you are right on this one, my mistake. It's 23.300 prema…

There are serious estimates, by several international organisms, that calculated between 1600 and 2000 deaths by the nuclear plant accident, just for the first two years.

Many by the evacuation, other because the hospitals in the area closed, other by stress of losing its home... and all of this happened because there was a damaged nuclear plant in the area. Not more, not less. Most of them had a slow death instead being instantly fried, but there is nothing here to rejoice. In the end is the same result.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fukushima-evacuation-has-...

To claim that only one people died by Fukushima and compare indirect deaths by coal with direct deaths by nuclear is an insult to the intelligence, specially when the consequences are still deploying and the process is far from being over. Nuclear kills thousands of people indirectly, for decades. The nuclear plant killed more people yet than the Tsunami did in the same area.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#282

Post by dntbnmpls »

pfdietz wrote: post #209
dntbnmpls wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar panels are much cheaper than when the film was made. It's this reduction in cost that's driving the energy disruption, not increase in efficiency (although that helps). Solar is a nonfactor in energy. It counts for absolutely nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi... The only energy disruption we've had is natural gas in the last few decades. To show you how insignificant solar…

> Solar is a nonfactor in energy. It counts for absolutely nothing. You appear to be confusing the past with the future. And, really, a reference from 2016? Four years is FOREVER in the energy business now. PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in the last decade, you know.

> And, really, a reference from 2016?

And what reference did you provide? Other than your supposed ability to predict the future?

> Four years is FOREVER in the energy business now.

It isn't. Also, considering solar subsidies have collapsed throughout the world, especially since 2016, it's far more likely solar has lost ground. Going from insignificant to worthless. But that's probably why you haven't posted any sources right? So you should be thanking me for using 2016 data because solar has taken a beating since 2016.

> PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in the last decade, you know.

5 times nothing is still nothing. You know.

Solar was a nonfactor in 2016. Solar is a nonfactor today. Solar will be a nonfactor in the future. Mindless zealotry won't change the facts on the ground.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#283

Post by alecmg »

stubish wrote: post #252
Scoundreller wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a lot quicker than nuclear. Dunno if it's cheaper to just raze the coal plant and build a natural gas one somewhere. I'll assume any hydro opportunities are tapped out. Conservation is already big in Germany. Wind and solar can only go so far. And natural gas would provide better peaking capacity to balance it out.

The article discusses the switch of a major plant in the UK to compressed wood pellets, sourced from the US. I would think that Germany (and most of Europe) would have a good climate for wood pellet production.

are they for real? Wood is so inefficient as fuel that shipping it over anything more than 500km (number taken out of my behind, but it is in the ballpark) takes more energy than is contained in it.

The only reason to do so is to end up with high value in "biofuels" category. Just for show.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#284

Post by winrid »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #266
toyg wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure we have. Basically we just bury it and hope for the best, it will be someone else's problem anyway. > The Onkalo repository is expected to be large enough to accept canisters [...] until around 2120.[13] At this point, the final encapsulation and burial will take place, and the access tunnel will be backfilled and sealed. We go from "dig it out" to "dig it in". Very sustainable. /s

> Basically we just bury it and hope for the best, it will be someone else's problem anyway. It's rather more involved than that. The short version is that we find a place where the rock has remained undisturbed for more than a billion years, and bury them deep enough that they should remain undisturbed for the next billion years. Then it's no-one's problem.

The idea that we can build something that will last a billion years is mind boggling, and I'll admit I have my doubts.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Internationa...

They don't seem to define "specific conditions" in this article.

Also, tried to get a non-amp link and failed...

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#285

Post by scotty79 »

renaudg wrote: post #222
scotty79 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poland looks horrible when you count CO2 per kWh. But pretty good if you count CO2 per capita per unit of time. We use so little energy per capita when compared to western world that our CO2 emissions look better than some bit greener countries (for example UK or Germany) despite getting nearly all of energy from coal.

Not really, Poland burns so much coal that even the absolute numbers don't look great : https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-lignite-plants-e...

These seem to be specifically CO2 emissions from coal. When you look at total CO2 from all energy sources Poland fares better also than UK or Czechia I think.

We also buy less stuff and are not really into eating cows.

I'm not saying it's great. We are bad, but in total not as bad as this map suggests: https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/CO2-emissions-per-capita

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#286

Post by Ma8ee »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #151
Ma8ee wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mining and transport of uranium ore, processed fuel and nuclear waste. I don’t know how significant those are. My main concern with nuclear power is that they still haven’t managed to create any active long term storage of the nuclear waste. And before that, we don’t know the full actual cost of the energy.

> Mining and transport of uranium ore, processed fuel and nuclear waste. I don’t know how significant those are. Completely and utterly insignificant, to the point where it is downright insulting when they are brought into a discussion about how 10000 people die of coal-related air quality problems every year in Europe. > My main concern with nuclear power is that they still haven’t managed to create any active long…

> Completely and utterly insignificant

Do you have any sources for that? And no sensible person is advocating that we should continue burning coal as we have. So it is not nuclear vs coal, but nuclear vs renewables.

The Onkalo repository is still not active. It is projected to begin storing this year, I can't find any more exact status. And that is one site for the whole world. You have to agree that that is a rather meager result considering that they have been trying to find a solution for at least half a century.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#287

Post by 1_player »

winrid wrote: post #284
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically we just bury it and hope for the best, it will be someone else's problem anyway. It's rather more involved than that. The short version is that we find a place where the rock has remained undisturbed for more than a billion years, and bury them deep enough that they should remain undisturbed for the next billion years. Then it's no-one's problem.

The idea that we can build something that will last a billion years is mind boggling, and I'll admit I have my doubts. https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Internationa... They don't seem to define "specific conditions" in this article. Also, tried to get a non-amp link and failed...

A recent article about Finland's long term nuclear waste storage: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-100-000-year-tomb-for-finland...

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#288

Post by Ma8ee »

aksss wrote: post #141
Ma8ee wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mining and transport of uranium ore, processed fuel and nuclear waste. I don’t know how significant those are. My main concern with nuclear power is that they still haven’t managed to create any active long term storage of the nuclear waste. And before that, we don’t know the full actual cost of the energy.

I haven't kept up on it, but aren't travelling wave reactors supposed to use the spent rods from light water reactors?[0] Seems like an elegant use of nuclear waste. There was an argument made last year [1] that the problem with nuclear power generation is that everything we have in production is 50+ yo technology. Modern reactors are far cleaner, far safer, but the political hurdles for regulatory approval and NIMBY…

There are always a lot of interesting research projects brought up about what to do with the nuclear waste in the future. But never anything cost effective actually in production yet, and it's not like they haven't hade some decades to get them going. If we can cite as our solution, I suggest that we go with fusion reactors directly.

The main barriers for building new nuclear plants are that they aren't cost effective, so no one wants to invest in them. I'm certain they could be built cheaper without regulations about safety and funds for long term storage of waste. But I don't think we want to go there.

(Your second link directs me to a documentary about Bill Gates. How is that relevant?)

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#289

Post by Ma8ee »

glogla wrote: post #138
Ma8ee wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mining and transport of uranium ore, processed fuel and nuclear waste. I don’t know how significant those are. My main concern with nuclear power is that they still haven’t managed to create any active long term storage of the nuclear waste. And before that, we don’t know the full actual cost of the energy.

> My main concern with nuclear power is that they still haven’t managed to create any active long term storage of the nuclear waste. And before that, we don’t know the full actual cost of the energy. That's a red herring. The "waste" has a lot of energy remaining (otherwise, it would not be radioactive [1]). There are reactor designs that can use "waste" from current reactors as fuel. Only, we're not building them. B…

No, it is not a red herring. It doesn't matter that it in theory has a lot of energy remaining if there isn't any cost-efficient and safe way to extract it. And the reason we aren't building them is because other forms of energy, including wind, water and sun, are cheaper.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#290

Post by BLKNSLVR »

stan_rogers wrote: post #271
LilBytes wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australian and former ex-pat of the UK here. I'm happy to see our Government getting rightly ridiculed on an increasing basis in more and more of these types of conversations.

Is there anything like Clarke and Dawe anymore? [1] I'd have thought they'd have a broad chorus started by now. [1] https://www.youtube.com/user/ClarkeAndDawe

There are these guys, which are pretty sharp, but totally different style of delivery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CMUtKWubxg

Vale John Clarke, yet another great Australian who happened to have been born in New Zealand.

and in reply to LilBytes, I think, unfortunately, the increasing ridicule of our Government still resides within an echo chamber. There's a fair way to go before critical mass. The opposition just don't hold them to public account on much other than trivialities.

Post reply on HN