Activists who embrace nuclear power • Hacker News Board

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#151

Post by calaphos » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

ortusdux wrote: post #115

epistasis wrote: post #8

Articles like this miss the main point and instead focus on culture war material. There are plenty of sites that would happily accept more nuclear being built, but all other forms of energy have undercut the cost of nuclear. It's no longer cost competitive, and places like China that adopt a "let's try everything and see what works best" approach have heavily pulled back on nuclear. The issues aren't safety, waste, a…

I've done a fair amount of research into molten salt reactors, and if we can solve the containment issue they should be very cost effective. The molten salts are extremely corrosive, which cuts their lifespan down to ~5 years. Newer designs should reach 10 years and there is extensive research into designing systems that will last 20+ years. They should be much cheaper to build and operate because they have several i…

Given the enourmous costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants already I fail to see how a reactor containment that lasts 10-20 years at best improves the situation.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#152

Post by blacksmith_tb » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

ktaylora wrote: post #95

afterburner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're worried about birds? Better raze all buildings and kill all the cats. Wind turbine bird deaths are negligible. https://www.evwind.es/2020/10/01/the-realities-of-bird-and-b... You know you can set up solar panels on roofs, and in the desert, right?

The direct impact of turbines on wildlife (e.g., from direct strikes) may be negligible. But the secondary effects of carving-up large blocks of intact grasslands in the Great Plains with infrastructure like service roads, wallpapering desert soils with panels, or placing high-capacity transmission lines, are not. This clearly contributes to habitat fragmentation and scientists have not thoroughly studied how recent…

I grew up on the Great Plains, sadly there aren't many "intact" grasslands[1] at this point. Wind turbines are integrated into grain agriculture commonly these days[2], which seems mostly harmless (given that the farm roads and electrical infrastructure are already in place).

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallgrass_prairie#Remnants

2: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/111219-wi...

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#153

Post by runarberg » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

nharada wrote: post #140

I'm sick of every single thread on nuclear turning into a flame war of wind/solar vs nuclear. It really detracts from the real issue of high carbon sources -- why is the conversation never about nuclear vs the natural gas plants that are being built at an astoundingly fast rate? Those two things are even more similar since they are both baseline power sources.

I’m guessing that is because nuclear is often framed as a solution to the climate disaster.

If the discussion was simply: “see how cool of a technology nuclear power is; see how nuclear powers the latest mars rover” I would not guess there would be a lot of backlash. However in this thread you see a lot of: “wind and solar has some problems too”, or “nuclear waste is better then the warming of the planet”.

The problem with pitting nuclear as a solution to the climate disaster is that there are existing technologies that can solve the energy part of it, those technologies are primarily wind and solar. And there is ample reason to be skeptical about how well nuclear could solve it. So naturally when someone states that nuclear is good actually at solving the climate crisis, a natural response would be: “well actually, it isn’t. Wind and solar is”.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#154

Post by iso8859-1 » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #32

krustyburger wrote: post #6

When she first contemplated working at Diablo Canyon, she imagined the rat-infested Springfield Nuclear Power Plant on “The Simpsons,” where green liquid oozes out of tanks. Eventually, like Hoff, she changed her thinking. “What we were doing actually aligned with my environmental values,” she told me. “That was shocking to me.” You can tell from my username what an enormous fan of The Simpsons I am. One of the few t…

Bumbling idiots and greedy management causing a major disaster is what happens in real life. Not sure I'd blame The Simpsons for merely reflecting that.

The Springfield plant is cheap to operate compared to real reactors though. It would cost only $56 M to bring it up to the latest safety code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_(The_Simpsons)#Spr...

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#155

Post by wavefunction » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #10

wavefunction wrote: post #2

I think it behooves the US and any other country serious about both climate change and extra-planetary exploration and colonization to develop a robust terrestrial nuclear power program as well as encouraging a trained cadre of nuclear engineers who can manage nuclear power sources on other planets, satellites and space-craft.

> encouraging a trained cadre of nuclear engineers who can manage nuclear power sources Ignoring the context of the rest of your comment, it should be noted that the US Navy has a near-perfect record in nuclear safety. This is often attributed to them not working for a profit motive. If we're going to use nuclear power on other solar system bodies, and I expect that we will, then most likely that knowledge will come…

I am aware of the US Navy's nuclear engineering program but it's likely not capable of producing enough nuclear engineers for future needs, I expect.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#156

Post by wavefunction » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

phabora wrote: post #7

wavefunction wrote: post #2

I think it behooves the US and any other country serious about both climate change and extra-planetary exploration and colonization to develop a robust terrestrial nuclear power program as well as encouraging a trained cadre of nuclear engineers who can manage nuclear power sources on other planets, satellites and space-craft.

Is the US serious about extra-planetary colonization?

As serious as any other country from what I can tell.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#157

Post by philipkglass » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

rrdharan wrote: post #13

rpiguyshy wrote: post #9

i just dont buy it. hypothetically, there is a nuclear power plant design that is perfectly safe in that it will never melt down. but there is no nuclear power plant that produces no waste. as long as you are producing waste, you are depending on bumbling bureaucrats to properly dispose of that waste and manage the waste often for extremely long periods of time. its just not an ideal situation. the government cant ev…

Isn’t there still a lot of implied waste from the solar panels themselves though, as well as the storage batteries i.e. once they’ve reached their end of life? My understanding is that this cost and the manufacturing cost (rate earth metals etc.) are often overlooked when reasoning about the total footprint of both solar and electric vehicles..

rare earth metals etc.

The rare earth elements are the lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium [1]. None of these elements are needed to manufacture solar panels. The only rare metal used in quantity by solar panels is silver, which is used to make electrically conductive pastes for cell contacts [2].

The question of what resources solar panels require is deliberately muddied by a couple of vested interests.

1) Junior mining companies and their promoters who want to create the impression that vast wealth awaits the next rare earth miner. (It doesn't. Consumption is too limited. The market value of zinc alone eclipses all rare earth element production combined.)

2) People who are playing up the environmental impacts of solar to make the fossil fuel status quo look better by comparison. "Sure, coal is a dirty mining business, but so is rare earth production!"

These people either don't know or don't care that solar doesn't use rare earth elements.

You also have credulous people who just repeat what they heard from members of groups 1 and 2.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element

[2] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/08/28/slimming-down-on-silv...

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#158

Post by Stupulous » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:14 PM UTC

hannob wrote: post #143

vlovich123 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deserts are not ecosystems devoid of all life. Here’s a life long anti-nuclear activist talking about how his direct experience in this space evolved as he started looking into the data more: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_why_i_change...

You know that by now he's a climate denialist? (Technically he would probably deny that, but he's published a lot of "stop these climate alarmists" messaging lately.) (Update: Can't reply to the reply, but here's some actual scientists on Shellenbergers latest output https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-sh... )

Characterizing people who take a nuanced stance as denying science, and then disregarding the things they say is a bad path to take. If he's said things that are untrue, call them out. If he's said true things that you think imply he believes untrue things, you should make an effort to change your model to one that incorporates all truth. This is directed more at your approach than it is in defense of Shellenburger, but I'll happily read rebuttals of his points in replies to this comment if you or others are so inclined.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#159

Post by Robotbeat » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #153

nharada wrote: post #140

I'm sick of every single thread on nuclear turning into a flame war of wind/solar vs nuclear. It really detracts from the real issue of high carbon sources -- why is the conversation never about nuclear vs the natural gas plants that are being built at an astoundingly fast rate? Those two things are even more similar since they are both baseline power sources.

I’m guessing that is because nuclear is often framed as a solution to the climate disaster. If the discussion was simply: “see how cool of a technology nuclear power is; see how nuclear powers the latest mars rover” I would not guess there would be a lot of backlash. However in this thread you see a lot of: “wind and solar has some problems too” , or “nuclear waste is better then the warming of the planet” . The prob…

Huh? Nuclear is an existing solution to climate change, though. More existing than wind and solar. It provides more electricity in the US than wind and solar combined. The problem of climate change would already have been worse without it. So it already is part of the solution.

It doesn’t have to be and isn’t the entire solution. But no activist calling for the end of nuclear electricity is doing any favors to climate action.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#160

Post by epistasis » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

ortusdux wrote: post #115

epistasis wrote: post #8

Articles like this miss the main point and instead focus on culture war material. There are plenty of sites that would happily accept more nuclear being built, but all other forms of energy have undercut the cost of nuclear. It's no longer cost competitive, and places like China that adopt a "let's try everything and see what works best" approach have heavily pulled back on nuclear. The issues aren't safety, waste, a…

I've done a fair amount of research into molten salt reactors, and if we can solve the containment issue they should be very cost effective. The molten salts are extremely corrosive, which cuts their lifespan down to ~5 years. Newer designs should reach 10 years and there is extensive research into designing systems that will last 20+ years. They should be much cheaper to build and operate because they have several i…

This is solving the wrong problem, and therefore will not advance nuclear. Cost is the impediment to nuclear, not any sort of safety concerns.

That molten salt reactor will need to have a negative cost in order to compete with the cost of stored renewable energy.

The future of nuclear energy must either abandon the thermal steam cycle for electricity generation, or generate massive value from the nuclear reaction part apart from generating steam.