81–90 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically many countries are considering underground storage of CO2 to combat climate change.
Is carbon sequestration even remotely realistic though (beyond PoC, and at scale)?
>However, many of the measures needed for energy efficiency are now cheaper than the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants. Yes, blackouts are cheaper than electricity. >The second point is that renewables today have become so cheap that in many cases they are below the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants. Prohibiting new plants by law has a way of doing that, with aging mechanisms that fail catastr…
Texas has demonstrated that you can have blackouts and expensive at the same time if only you cut enough regulations.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/how-and-why...
Note: I do not know if this argument against nuclear energy is valid. I'm submitting it in the hope that HN comments will help evaluate it.
Unfortunately you're more likely to just find confirmation bias here. The HN community (and the tech community in general) is predominantly pro-nuclear. Personally, I think this article raises great points. If we could rewrite history and have built a thriving nuclear power industry 20 years ago, we'd probably be in much better shape now, at least with respect to climate change But that's not what happened. Given the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When one plant’s worth of solar panel waste is improperly discarded, does it ruin potable water supplies, airable land and the health of entire regions? Does that area become a no-man’s land for decades /centuries, even after spending many billions to try and rectify the damage? There is absolutely no comparison to long term storage of nuclear waste and discarded solar panels.
If we’re trying to be honest here, that’s not an appropriate comparison. Properly disposed-of nuclear waste doesn’t necessarily cause these problems either. When you look at the physical footprint disparities (land-clearing) needed for commensurate solar power generation, rendering such land unusable and ecologically disrupted/destroyed, solar doesn’t come out smelling like roses these days either. If you’re lucky it…
Photovoltaics, not the best. Now what about mirrors pointing at concrete towers moving liquid sodium around, like in Spain, or pointed at steel pipes filled with water.
The pro-nuclear crowd have two things in common:
1. They have more faith in humanity than we have shown is warranted 2. They won’t accept that Nuclear has failed to achieve the promised widescale adoption and economic benefits.
We can’t even contain plastic bags.
why is nuclear waste such a big problem? in terms of m^3 the amount is rather small, and I feel like we're not discussing what's gonna happen with old solar panels. Is there a way to recycle them / how good is it? The article doesn't mention it. As for the nuclear storage problem, from my point of view it seems more like the biggest problem is that people don't want it near them even though it's stored hundreds of me…
When one plant’s worth of solar panel waste is improperly discarded, does it ruin potable water supplies, airable land and the health of entire regions? Does that area become a no-man’s land for decades /centuries, even after spending many billions to try and rectify the damage? There is absolutely no comparison to long term storage of nuclear waste and discarded solar panels.
Well, crush 100 acre of solar panels, put them in a landfill near a river, and tell me if cadmium, lead and mercury taste good and have a good effect on the fauna around. I'm not talking about batteries here.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201...
https://goodelectronics.org/chinese-workers-demand-compensat...
Wow, what a simplistic look at nuclear vs renewables. They don't even begin to look into the "hidden" costs of renewable energy. They fail to mention or include the costs of new transmissions lines, bringing new mines onboard, building grid storage, etc. If we forgo nuclear power the only other currently viable carbon free, stable, energy source is hydro power, which has huge environmental costs and immense public re…
Nuclear being too expensive is the main point of this article. That seems upsetting to a lot of nuclear proponents. But I don't see a lot of arguments to counter that core point.
Nuclear the most expensive option in the German market. This is a completely uncontroversial fact. You can verify it in countless publications. You can argue whether it is 3x more expensive (according to the article) or a maybe a bit more when you consider all the hidden cost. IMHO 3X actually a very friendly assessment considering bids for solar and wind are trending very much below the cited cost in the article by about 2-5x. The point is that it is expensive by a quite significant factor.
I don't get your argument about mining. Yes policy making in the US is a problem (hence the Texas situation a few weeks ago). Nuclear does not solve that political mess; it just adds to it. I don't think the US is actually capable at this point of building nuclear cheaply. There are just too many stakeholders drooling over the multi billion $ budgets for that ever to make sense economically. And in any case the glacial decision making ensures it will be too little too late even if they by some miracle stick to budgets, which I would argue is pure fantasy. Too little, too late, for way too much is not what the world needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear friendly countries are struggling with the costs. Multiple examples of problems were given for France, yet the French government likes nuclear power.
Electricity in France is so cheap that EDF has had to raise domestic electricity prices in order to make it possible for other providers to compete
Nuclear power is extraordinarily capital intensive but fairly reasonably priced to run once it's built.
This also creates a strong incentive to run plants beyond their operating lifetime, which France may do. That takes us into exciting new territory safety-wise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Truly viable When you ignore the glaring problems with renewables? Sure... but why pay attention to rare earth minerals needed, massive problems creating massive amounts of PV panels, recycling issues, etc We can't afford to let the burgeoning "savior" of our world continue on it's destructive path because the Religion of Renewables won't admit to the fact that it's Priests are doing bad things with children... To…
> recycling issues You gotta love the whataboutism of the nuclear folks ranting about recycling issues of current renewable energy tech when nuclear leaves behind toxic material that has to be kept in a safe place for a long time surviving changes in government, potential revolutions, terrorist attacks, incompetence, greed, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would have no problem with building one outside our city. And frankly compared the land clearing one would need for solar/thermal or the blight of enormous windmills, I’d prefer it. What you may be really asking is whether people are comfortable with the risk of turning into the next Chernobyl. I feel that risk is quite low, especially for new builds.
:) fair play to you. At least the real estate prices will be good. I won't go for low risk when it comes to nuclear and not let my family grow up next to it. Only no risk would be acceptable to me when it comes to nuclear, quite some tail risk in this case.
I don’t think “no-risk” exists for any power gen tech, fwiw. There are always going to be trade-offs.
Looks like Mycle Schneider, the lead author, is a founding member of WISE-Paris, which is the French branch of the anti-nuclear group WISE, which he directed from 1983 to 2003. [wikipedia]