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

An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

m.dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 247 posts

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#91

Post by ic0n0cl4st »

orwin wrote: post #85
ic0n0cl4st wrote: post #58

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.

> 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? 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/S01604…

If a truck full of solar panels crashes on the highway, that highway doesn’t become a superfund site. It doesn’t cost hundreds of millions to clean up, the local community doesn’t see a massive spike in cancer.

You cannot say the same about nuclear waste.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#92

Post by sofixa »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #86
2trill2spill wrote: post #59

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…

What about the hidden cost of nuclear? The waste storage. The security measures (can't have terrorists walking off with the nuclear waste). The constant need for inspections, audits, etc. And that's before you consider the corruption and the gravy train that is basically associated with funding existing plants using massive amounts of public funding. Nuclear being too expensive is the main point of this article. That…

What do you mean hidden costs of nuclear? All of those you listed are a well defined part in the costs, and considered from the start of a nuclear power plant, with provisions required for decomissioning and storage.

As for Germany, nuclear is their only CO2-free base load power option, so comparing costs to solar that only works when sun shines isn't apt. A good winter storm and tidal, wind and solar are out for hours - what do you do then? Coal? Gas? Or just have nuclear for base to start with? And yes, one day there could be massive grid-scale storage, maybe.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#93

Post by throw0101a »

Hammershaft wrote: post #76
namdnay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In the short term nuclear is undoubtedly expensive, but when the debt from construction is payed off, it becomes an incredibly cheap and reliable source of energy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY

Not disputing, but in the interests of full disclosure, the presenter is (per YT About):

* Professor David Ruzic

* Abel Bliss Professor of Engineering

* Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering

* University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#94

Post by dividedbyzero »

Hammershaft wrote: post #76
namdnay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In the short term nuclear is undoubtedly expensive, but when the debt from construction is payed off, it becomes an incredibly cheap and reliable source of energy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY

As far as I'm aware, dealing with the waste has cost taxpayers in Germany quite a lot over the last couple of decades, and all of the really hot stuff is sitting in glorified warehouses with no end in sight. I have a feeling this may still become a very significant part of the overall costs. Has any other country actually solved that problem?

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#95

Post by Nicksil »

ic0n0cl4st wrote: post #91
orwin wrote: post #85

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? 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/S01604…

If a truck full of solar panels crashes on the highway, that highway doesn’t become a superfund site. It doesn’t cost hundreds of millions to clean up, the local community doesn’t see a massive spike in cancer. You cannot say the same about nuclear waste.

>If a truck full of solar panels crashes on the highway, that highway doesn’t become a superfund site. It doesn’t cost hundreds of millions to clean up, the local community doesn’t see a massive spike in cancer.

>You cannot say the same about nuclear waste.

Sure you can. Look-up transport casks.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#96

Post by lazide »

ic0n0cl4st wrote: post #91
orwin wrote: post #85

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? 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/S01604…

If a truck full of solar panels crashes on the highway, that highway doesn’t become a superfund site. It doesn’t cost hundreds of millions to clean up, the local community doesn’t see a massive spike in cancer. You cannot say the same about nuclear waste.

When has that happened with nuclear waste again?

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#97

Post by grawprog »

2trill2spill wrote: post #63
grawprog wrote: post #40

One thing I never really see brought into the nuclear energy equation that's fairly environmentally bad is uranium mining. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/longstaff1/ >Uranium mining facilities produce tailings that generally are disposed of in near surface impoundments close to the mine. These tailings pose serious environmental and health risks in the form of Randon emission, windblown dust dispersal a…

Uranium mining seems hell of a lot better than Copper/Nickel mining[1]. Not only is the scale of copper and nickel needed for wind and solar vastly greater than the amount of Uranium needed, but Copper/nickel mines have all the same issues with leaching heavy metals and arsenic, just on a larger scale. And wind turbines use a lot of copper[2], so I'm fine with looking into the costs of nuclear energy through uranium…

I guess the amount of copper used in nuclear waste disposal

https://www.copper.org/publications/newsletters/innovations/...

And nuclear plants in general would also need to be factored in.

As well as the nickel used in corrosion proof alloys needed in nuclear facilities.

https://nickelinstitute.org/about-nickel/nickel-alloys-in-oi...

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#98

Post by FooHentai »

lousken wrote: post #42

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…

>why is nuclear waste such a big problem? in terms of m^3 the amount is rather small

The meme is that nuclear waste produced so far amounts to 'a football field worth' or some similar framing. But you could fit the entire earth into a football field if you're prepared to go quite deep. It's a deliberate trick to make it seem like a non-issue, and deflects from the serious challenge that is long-term handling of nuclear waste. Plus, this is the size of the problem if we stop tomorrow, just the amount produced in the 50 years nuclear power has been up and running. So you must multiply not only by the length of time to be stored but also future projections for continued operation. If you try and project that out to a rolling total, assumming you keep the level of waste production at it's current level and no greater, it's an enourmous quantity.

Then there's looking at how well we're progressing with permanent, safe sequestration of existing nuclear waste. Not very well - There have only ever been three sites in the world for permanent waste disposal and only one of them is operating today (WIPP in the USA). The other two in Germany closed many years ago, and are costing billions in ongoing remediation costs as it turns out 'permanent' didn't pan out as well as hoped. Of course, no nations are accepting waste produced by other nations as that would be a political nightmare, and so each country is left to work out a plan on it's own.

The USA has shut down something like 30 plants so far, but of those only about 10 have so far been decommissioned. Of those, about half were truly decommed and most of the rest were put in to the SAFSTOR programme, where they are left to decay for up to 60 years. Theory is they'll be a bit cheaper to decommission after that time, and the funds to decomm them up-front are not available. A handful opted for a third option of entombing the reactor in situ.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#99

Post by pydry »

rich_sasha wrote: post #22

So... it’s a massive problem that there is no storage for nuclear waste (mostly agree) but not even worth mentioning there is no energy storage for renewables? Coming from a cold, dark country with long and cloudy winters and no oceanic coast, it drives me mad when people point at the Med or California and say “look how cheap solar and wind is”.

Where are you from that has no wind or sun?

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#100

Post by sneak »

pydry wrote: post #90
agarttha wrote: post #69

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]

Is it particularly noteworthy that an anti nuclear article was written by an anti nuclear author or am I missing something?

I believe that GP intended to imply ideological bias.
Post reply on HN