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

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

thebellows.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 397 posts

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

#51

Post by joncrane »

bob1029 wrote: post #20

Nuclear providing all of our base electrical generation needs, as well as co-generation applications like cooling & heating, is an obvious engineering slam dunk. I think there are also some incredible synergies that can emerge with electric cars and batteries. Just a little bit of distributed storage (e.g. Tesla car in your garage back-feeding your home periodically) could potentially obviate the need for peak genera…

I remember a Popular Mechanics cover that indicated that soon, Nuclear reactors would be powering houses and even cars. I don't believe there's a practical limitation that means that a ship has to be huge to be nuclear powered. The limiting factor on cargo ship size is the Panama Canal; there's even a name for it, "Panamax."

(Note, there are ships that are larger (Post-Panamax), as well as Suezmax but they are obviously limited in use and less common)

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

#52

Post by wutbrodo »

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…

> First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything.

Am I crazy, or did the Green New Deal have as an explicit goal the decommissioning of all nuclear plants?

EDIT: Ah, apparently that was in the initial released plan, but they changed the language to technically leave the door open for nuclear, without supporting it (and with occasional statements expressing disfavor towards nuclear as a piece of the plan)

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

#53

Post by svrb »

pydry wrote: post #35
radford-neal wrote: post #29

From the article: "No nuclear energy program has ever launched without heavy state intervention — the capital costs are just too high for private entities to take on." I think this misses the real reason. High capital costs are no barrier to private financing as long as the eventual profits will accrue to the investors . But in this highly-regulated industry, investors can't put money into nuclear plants thinking tha…

In the UK Hinkley point C got a strike price of £92.50 per megawatt hour guaranteed for (i think) 35 years. By contrast wind got about £39-£41 for two years. Future years will likely be even lower.

A "guarantee" from the state is worth a lot less than face value as it can simply legislate away that guarantee.

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

#54

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by arcticbull »

jka wrote: post #48
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…

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; tha…

Ah, you know, I actually didn't catch that until after I posted. I used to use an older source that didn't make that distinction ([1]) but I had trouble finding it and dropped in the newer one after a cursory read-through. I appreciate you adding the clarifying analysis! I think the newer one provides a more balanced take.

I will say it seems disingenuous to include the death toll of the tsunami towards nuclear energy -- except of course the one individual who died of radiation exposure; I can't help but suspect the same ~500-ish people would have died had the plant been coal or oil.

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

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

#56

Post by melling »

aplummer wrote: post #37
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…

Define short term; I think by the time a reactor you start today comes online, we are already pretty screwed

hey, we have been asking for 2 decades.

Somewhere in the past year or so a lot of people have started saying “too late”

Maybe you can humor the people who want nuclear while we continue to add solar and wind.

The world needs a lot of electricity.

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

#57

Post by joncrane »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #36
joncrane wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the way to make fusion generate power more efficiently without changing the underlying technology is to make it bigger Actually there was a front page item on here a couple of weeks ago showing that there's a new superconductor that can generate a stronger magnetic field, which will allow new, much smaller fusion reactors. So according to the guy from MIT who gave the talk, ITER is already obsolete technology. Havin…

>So according to the guy from MIT who gave the talk, ITER is already obsolete technology. >It's amazing in theory but we have yet to achieve a fusion reaction that is energy positive and the path to that is still fraught. He also said that fusion has a funding issue, not a science or engineering issue. Also- being able to make them smaller mostly solves the funding issue.

Yes, it removes ONE funding obstacle because as the OP I replied to says cost increased with the 4th power of the size, but that just means you move to the next limiting factor: the neutron blanket, designing to be able to swap out the shielding, etc.

We are still VERY far away from practical fusion. The fact that we know what the current limiting factors are doesn't mean that once we overcome those hurdles that we'll have a practical solution.

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

#58

Post by eloff »

aplummer wrote: post #37
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…

Define short term; I think by the time a reactor you start today comes online, we are already pretty screwed

It's trite, but it's never too late to start. Certainly starting now is better than doing nothing in this case, and nuclear may be a good option. I'm not convinced that old nuclear tech is economically viable anymore compared to batteries + renewables. New nuclear tech may be. We need investment there.

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

#59

Post by GoodJokes »

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.

Nuclear shills are shills. Look deep enough and they have a money in it or just want to be the person no one likes on contrarian day.

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

#60

Post by sebmellen »

Bud wrote: post #47
godelski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. "

If only the author didn't use such an inflammatory title. Why don't we need a Green New Deal (+ Nuclear)?

A "Nuclear New Deal" is a myopic approach to a systems wide catastrophe which includes pollution, waste, emissions, food production, energy production, supply chains, etc. and more.

Post reply on HN