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

Activists who embrace nuclear power

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 598 posts

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#261

Post by codecamper »

So Bill Gates doesn't think we can do this with a majority solar, wind, and storage. He invented the backslash and has a lot of money, so he is getting a lot of attention.

But has a good computer simulation been made? Just collect annual sunlight data from a million points across the US, along with wind, throw in 200M electric vehicles (can use satellite data and image recognition data to guess how often they are parked for V2G), and see how far we can get towards a 100% green grid.

I haven't seen a computer simulation and yet here is Bill saying it's impossible. Is it? Or is this just another "computers will never need more than 640k" moment?

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#262

Post by macspoofing »

Daho0n wrote: post #248
macspoofing wrote: post #246

We're going to have to build up our Nuclear infrastructure eventually because outside of fossil fuels, geothermal and hydro (both of which need particular geography so they can never be the final answer) there is nothing else. Unfortunately the cultural push is for wind and solar, so it looks like we're going to have to give wind and solar the 'old college try' and lose precious decades before we realize we need nucl…

Citation needed.

Citation for which part? That solar and wind have huge land-use requirements compared to nuclear (and even other generation sources)? That we need to increase production of solar and wind collectors by several orders of magnitude to fully replace fossil fuel generated power, and by extension need to increase mineral extraction (rare-earth or otherwise) to build them? That every single collector we build today will need to be land-filled at some point in the future and replaced by another one we have yet to build? That there is no battery technology today that can bridge the intermittency issues of solar and wind in order for that technology to actually power the economy without fossil fuel backup? That global warming is not the only environmental problem we are dealing with?

Those are all statements of fact.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#263

Post by Nasrudith »

mannerheim wrote: post #130
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?

How many eagles are killed by housecats?

Vanishingly few - the housecats are the ones threatened - bald eagles eat them for one. Second two smaller ones seldom dawdle on the ground and are neither easy to ambush nor an easy fight even assuming a type small enough to be a threat.

An eagle would need to be essentially already doomed in the wild or very young in a too obvious and accessible unguarded nest which could be threatened by say a squirrel nest raiding.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#264

Post by macspoofing »

boh wrote: post #252
macspoofing wrote: post #246

We're going to have to build up our Nuclear infrastructure eventually because outside of fossil fuels, geothermal and hydro (both of which need particular geography so they can never be the final answer) there is nothing else. Unfortunately the cultural push is for wind and solar, so it looks like we're going to have to give wind and solar the 'old college try' and lose precious decades before we realize we need nucl…

There's very little doubt that investments in wind and solar are beneficial. It may not get to the point that it takes the place of everything else but it is definitely a good ancillary source. As in the solar panels on your house might not be enough to subvert traditional power sources, but it will take some of the stress off the grid. It may not be helpful to the current situation in Texas, but it definitely helps…

>As in the solar panels on your house might not be enough to subvert traditional power sources, but it will take some of the stress off the grid

Sure, except that's not really a problem we are trying to solve.

That solar and wind have niche application, sure, I agree. There will always be applications and settings where solar and wind make sense. The argument that is made is that solar and wind can replace fossil-fuel generated power. And sometimes the argument is made that solar and wind can replace fossil-fuel generated power AND nuclear power. That's crazy talk but like I said, as a society we already made the choice to give it a try. We'll lose decades on top the decades we already lost, but it is what it is.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#265

Post by dmix »

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…

How much of the cost thing like the $1B cooling solution because Diablo Canyon was an “old” design from the 70s.

I’d imagine future investment doesn’t doesn’t mean building more Diablo style reactors.

A big problem that promoting nuclear usually comes with plenty of arguments in the form of the problems of old reactors (like the Tokyo disaster one being built in the 1950s).

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#266

Post by merb »

sudosysgen wrote: post #227
epistasis wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You plan for the worst case, same as we do now.

Sure, but solar plus wind does not allow the flexibility to plan for the worst case and come out ahead.

you know that after a hurricane it's way harder to restart a nuclear power plant than a wind turbine right? it's incredible hard to power a nuclear plant if your grid is destroyed. basically you can't start a nuclear power plant with no power at all.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#267

Post by Daho0n »

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…

>leaves you thinking that using nuclear power at all is incredibly dangerous and foolish

No one in his right mind can state with a straight face that nuclear power isn't incredibly dangerous. It might not be foolish with the right regulations and safety -that can always be debated- but no one can pretend nuclear power isn't incredibly dangerous if they know anything about it. The whole reason for all the regulation is exactly because it is so incredibly dangerous.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#268

Post by joshspankit »

BurningFrog wrote: post #231
BillyTheKing wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be of the same opinion, but I gotta say that Fukushima really did have an impact on me (on the long-run, it didn't have an immediate impact). But I have been wondering, if an incredibly advanced nation such as Japan faces very serious issues with their nuclear power-plants, is it really the right choice? Can we really guarantee that nothing goes seriously wrong, ever? Cause that's the standard those plants…

Fukushima happened after the biggest Earthquake in over 1000 years of recorded Japanese history hit at the right spot to produce an enormous flood wave at the reactor. I'd be careful to draw conclusion from such an outlier.

Similarly, I’d be careful about discounting it simply because it was an outlier

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#269

Post by Daho0n »

StreamBright wrote: post #66
fulafel wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TMI (plus other 80s US NPP incidents) and Chernobyl had happened in the previous 10 years when Simpsons started. Those plants had real problems and caused badly needed corrections to NPP safety culture and standards. It was a pretty reasonable take for its time.

Exactly. Judging nuclear safety based on Chernobyl is the same as judging fire safety based on a camp fire in a cave during in 15_000 BCE. I understand that is was bad and it could have been much worse, but we are not stopping flying with airplanes because the mishaps of Boeing 737 MAX 8.

Well, let's base it on fukushima then.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#270

Post by brightball »

macspoofing wrote: post #257
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…

>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. Honestly ... it isn't just about cost. Nuclear is expensive but it isn't prohibitively expensive. The big picture is we know that nuclear can power an economy, it does not emit global warming gasses, and also places a tiny footprint on the surrounding ecosystem. Solar and win…

The thing about land use that always got me was that solar can be implemented as a roofing system in parking lots. We have a lot of parking lots out there.

IMO the model used for parking at Lego Land looks like the ideal approach for solar expansion to me.

Post reply on HN