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

Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 249 posts

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#31

Post by pif »

konjin wrote: post #2

No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear, no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems. But because it's unfashinable to…

I can't understand the downvotes you got.

You pushed may be a bit on political stereotypes, but other than that you just stated the facts.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#32

Post by wiz21c »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #20
johncolanduoni wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could do just as badly and still have nowhere near as many deaths (including evacuation related deaths) as a single coal plant causes due to pollution.

I'm not a fan of having cancer rates rise either. I've stated this before, and I'll repeat it here: Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are more than enough to power the world. They're cheaper too.

What about the resources needed to build the solar and wind infrastructures ? Metal, extraction of that metal, rare earths,... ?

I'm all for solar and wind and whatever, but at some point there are some maths to do...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#34

Post by RealityVoid »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #20
johncolanduoni wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could do just as badly and still have nowhere near as many deaths (including evacuation related deaths) as a single coal plant causes due to pollution.

I'm not a fan of having cancer rates rise either. I've stated this before, and I'll repeat it here: Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are more than enough to power the world. They're cheaper too.

So, what would rise cancer rates? Coal or nuclear? IMO, the answer is counter-intuitive.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#35

Post by DrBazza »

legulere wrote: post #6

> Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies. This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die. Chernobyl and Fukushima had drama…

> This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die.

The 1952 Great Smog of London [0] caused 4000 deaths due to coal burning over FIVE DAYS. Not quite like for like, but the Chernobyl Exclusion zone is about 1000 sq. miles, which is approximate the same size as (modern) London.

The UN predicts that possibly 4000 people may die from Chernobyl over a 50 YEAR period. [1]

> Chernobyl and Fukushima had dramatic effects on millions of people. Contamination from Chernobyl to this day is a problem in Germany for instance.

I'd like to see references for this.

Fossil fuel mining causes far more deaths than nuclear. Fossil fuel burning causes even more deaths from respitory diseases.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London 1. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-kno...

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#36

Post by edbob »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #5

What do you do in 30 years when another incident like the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster happens? Batteries will be the long term solution to energy baseload needs, not nuclear.

> Batteries will be the long term solution to energy baseload needs, not nuclear.

Viable baseload battery storage is science fiction. Nuclear works now, in this century.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#37

Post by paganel »

roenxi wrote: post #7
legulere wrote: post #6

> Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies. This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die. Chernobyl and Fukushima had drama…

We're comparing two neighbourhoods. One has less deaths and less robberies. It is the one with nuclear power. Chernobyl has done less damage and had less impact on those millions of people than the totally routine burning of coal. I grew up in a coal mining region; I fully expect more people suffer negative health outcomes when coal works as expected than in a Class 7 nuclear catastrophe. We just don't count the heal…

> We just don't count the health impacts properly because it is too hard to prove cause and effect.

This also goes for nuclear.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#38

Post by edbob »

cygx wrote: post #14
konjin wrote: post #2

No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear, no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365. Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems. But because it's unfashinable to…

Renewables are based on the hope that one day we [...] get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek. You're right that we aren't there yet, but Star Trek level technology is hyperbole. Just to give one example, the German gas grid can store several hundreds TWh of energy, and there are lab results that indicate we might be able to improve power-to-gas-to-power efficiencies to make this viable[1]. [1] http…

[1] is really interesting, but it is literally burning natural gas with extra steps. How is it better than normal gas generation?

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#39

Post by realusername »

legulere wrote: post #6

> Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies. This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die. Chernobyl and Fukushima had drama…

> It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies.

No energy source can survive without government subsidies at the moment, one way or another.

Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

#40

Post by [deleted] »

amarant wrote: post #26
piplikoc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there were a lot of deaths from these nuclear disasters, they were horrible, we should have avoided them. But nuclear energy is still much less deadly than fossil fuels. Air pollution-caused diseases are lung cancer and stroke for example. I think nuclear plants have become much safer and there is more international regulation to maintain their safety. I recommend this excellent video on this topic from Kurzgesa…

Not only is nuclear safer than coal, it's safer than solar! (in terms of deaths per Gwh produced) https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN