We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal • Hacker News Board

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#41

Post by Klinky » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #27

pvaldes wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally different type of waste.

Indeed, one is the kind of waste you can drop a few oil drums of into Yucca Mountain and never have to worry about it again. On the other hand wind requires huge quantities of rare earth metals mined in open-air hellscapes in the far western reaches of China -- devastating the environment [1, 2]. So, why is it all mined in China you might ask, knowing rare earths are distributed all over the world? Specifically becau…

Yucca Mountain waste depot doesn't actually exist. You put it in holding pools indefinitely and wait for the DoE to superfund the site.

Nuclear fuel does not have to be mined or go through costly and toxic refinement processes? Reprocessing waste creates even larger amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes.

Nuclear is far far far away from being clean. It does allow for potentially better containment and concentration of the waste, but then you have the eternal political problem of where to put that waste.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#42

Post by arcticbull » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #33

ianai wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Solar is probably way more hazardous to work with at plants.

Holy fucking shit are you nuclear fanboys delusional (or well paid).

No my dude, you can find yourself on the other side of an argument without your opponents needing to be well-paid and delusional ;)

Nuclear energy accounts for about 6% of the world's energy mix. It is the safest source of carbon-free energy in terms of deaths per TWh in the world, leading to half a many deaths as industrial solar, 1/4 as many as wind and 1/10th as many as rooftop solar. [1]

The genuinely tiny amount of generated waste can simply be dropped into Yucca Mountain and never worried about again.

How afraid are you of, for instance, hydro power? Not very? Did you know Chernobyl, the worst radiological incident in the world killed 4,000 people in total? The worst hydro power accident, Bangqiao Dam, killed between 85,000 and 200,000 people [2].

I would also caution you against personal attacks, they're not welcome here.

[1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#43

Post by godelski » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

asimpletune wrote: post #19

There was an article posted on HN a while back, “Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs”. Not sure if the information is now dated, but I always think about it when I see articles like these. https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm...

Whenever I see articles like this I wonder why few people realize the strawman being put up. Having a single energy source for all your needs is pretty dumb. We've always had a diversified portfolio and the reasons for such aren't going away anytime soon.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#44

Post by pydry » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #28

pydry wrote: post #7

Why Renewables Aren't the Reason for California Blackouts: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/08/why-renew... LCOE of various energy sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... https://neon.energy/Hirth-Ueckerdt-Edenhofer-2015-Integratio... suggests that wind energy has up to 50% higher "real" cost than typical LCOE measurements because of variability, however, this still put…

Is the higher cost for nuclear related to the high regulation put in place? Are the low costs for solar and wind using subsidies and considering lifetime/replacement/disposal? Don’t know. Actually asking.

Partly. It's also just very expensive to build a nuclear plant.

It's also worth noting that cleanup costs in the case of a nuclear accident are capped by law at $200 million. Any costs above that are shouldered by the taxpayer. Cleanup costs for Fukushima are about ~$500 billion.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#45

Post by OneGuy123 » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

asimpletune wrote: post #19

There was an article posted on HN a while back, “Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs”. Not sure if the information is now dated, but I always think about it when I see articles like these. https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm...

This article makes some good points but forgets this: our knowledge increases constantly.

So today's reactors might not be able to scale well, but the more we build the better we are at it.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#46

Post by arcticbull » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #41

arcticbull wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, one is the kind of waste you can drop a few oil drums of into Yucca Mountain and never have to worry about it again. On the other hand wind requires huge quantities of rare earth metals mined in open-air hellscapes in the far western reaches of China -- devastating the environment [1, 2]. So, why is it all mined in China you might ask, knowing rare earths are distributed all over the world? Specifically becau…

Yucca Mountain waste depot doesn't actually exist. You put it in holding pools indefinitely and wait for the DoE to superfund the site. Nuclear fuel does not have to be mined or go through costly and toxic refinement processes? Reprocessing waste creates even larger amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes. Nuclear is far far far away from being clean. It does allow for potentially better containment and concentration…

Well sure, so long as anti-nuclear campaigners continue to prevent the construction of Yucca Mountain, they can then continue to point to why we can't have nuclear because "where would we put the waste?"

The only reason Yucca Mountain doesn't exist is because of anti-nuclear campaigners. It was funded and shovel-ready until 2010.

Of course nuclear fuel has to be refined and mined, however the ecological impact is relatively minuscule because of the sheer energy density of uranium as compared to the neodymium magnets used in wind generation. Nuclear power plants last 40+ years, while wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 or when damaged.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#47

Post by Bud » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #40

sebmellen wrote: post #10

I agree, but why set up a false dichotomy? Nuclear energy should be part of a "Green New Deal", which shouldn't just be about energy, but pragmatic environmentalism in all fields.

I always say this whenever nuclear conversations come up: > It isn't nuclear vs renewables, it is nuclear + renewables vs renewables. You use the best technology for the local environment and situations. Why take something off the table? Seems like the author is buying into the common false dichotomy because it is more sensational.

Only, not. The author never sets up any dichotomy at all, nor does he suggest the elimination of renewables. He merely suggests that nuclear have a higher priority, for reasons he then goes on to explain:

"That is why any climate plan that doesn’t prioritize nuclear above all other energy sources is destined to exacerbate climate problems rather than solve them. "

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#48

Post by jka » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #27

pvaldes wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally different type of waste.

Indeed, one is the kind of waste you can drop a few oil drums of into Yucca Mountain and never have to worry about it again. On the other hand wind requires huge quantities of rare earth metals mined in open-air hellscapes in the far western reaches of China -- devastating the environment [1, 2]. So, why is it all mined in China you might ask, knowing rare earths are distributed all over the world? Specifically becau…

Thanks for providing references - there's some subtlety in the analysis you link to (on ourworldindata.org) about the human impact of nuclear energy production.

While it does state that nuclear and renewables are both comparatively much safer for humans than other forms of energy generation, it does contain two different harm rates for nuclear.

You're quoting a little selectively by stating that nuclear is safer; that corresponds with the 2016 study. The other study, published in 2007, states that renewables are safer.

Relevant snippet from the explainer section in the footer drop-down in the article:

"The largest differentiator here is the period which the Sovacool et al. (2016) estimates cover. They report normalized death rates over the limited period from 1990 to 2013. This means the 1986 Chernobyl accident was not included. Sovacool et al. (2016) only include deaths from the Fukushima accident, with 573 attributed deaths. It is useful to note here that not all deaths were a direct result of the accident: for Fukushima, there were no direct deaths from the disaster; one confirmed death from radiation exposure; and the rest noted as premature deaths from evacuation and displacement of populations in the surrounding area."

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#49

Post by api » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

tertiary wrote: post #30

First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything. Second, I'm on the fence over whether I support more reactors and not because nuclear==bad. I trust the technology, but my concern is whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear. Buying into a fission reactor means you pay billions up front, but you also…

One thing I seldom see brought up is that different energy sources work best in different places. Solar works great in the Southwest. In the upper Midwest where it snows and is overcast a lot? Maybe not so much. Wind works better there, but wind may not be enough alone and requires even more storage as it usually peaks out of phase with peak demand.

Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

#50

Post by runarberg » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

Green new deal is something we can have now, and something we needed ten years ago. Nuclear (on the scale needed for the climate disaster) takes decades to implement. We simply don’t have the time to omit a real and solution we can start now, for a more expensive dream solution.