An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by mlyle » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 5:01 AM UTC

QuarterReptile wrote: post #153

mike_d wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an exhaustive study of attributable deaths per TWH of power generated, nuclear is safer than wind and solar. Even when you factor in scary words like "radioactive contamination," people falling off roofs installing solar panels is still more dangerous. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

Worth mentioning that Chernobyl is included in this data. If someone has a worse long-tail risk in mind, it would be interesting to hear. The risk from contamination is certainly below coal, which generates far greater quantities of RAM, with constituents being basically consistent with nuclear plant waste.

Hard to estimate long tail risks.

Chernobyl definitely didn't turn out as bad as it could have, but on the other hand hopefully we're in a bit better of a safety stance now across the industry than Chernobyl was in?

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

#182

Post by mlyle » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 5:03 AM UTC

vimy wrote: post #78

rich_sasha wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, hence the “mostly”. For a variety of blocking reasons though, this is an unresolved (if not unresolvable) problem.

I don’t think we even need to store it. Nuclear waste has been sitting in regular storage for over 50 years now, seems to be perfectly safe. We should just keep doing what we’re doing. Why do we even need to bother putting it underground except for some unlikely what if scenarios 1000 years in the future.

1. Expecting current political and economic structures etc to remain for thousands of years is silly, so we do need a more permanent solution to a long-term problem.

2. Keeping lots of nuclear waste in spent fuel pools just increases the risk picture unnecessarily.

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

#183

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 5:04 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #179

Sensational title. > every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options. This is a weak argument. The article makes a good point, which is that renewable costs in some countries are lower than nuclear operating costs. But this alone does not justify the claim that nuclear power makes the climate crisis…

The arguments do not compete. Each adds to the case, and the strength of the argument is the sum of all, less any valid counters.

It is very clear that the sum is strongly positive, even with increasing uncertainty in the later points. The case is solid even if one or two sub-arguments turned out to have holes.

Huge decommissioning costs are always neglected in any argument promoting nukes.

As thoroughly bad as the argument is for building nukes, and even for continuing to operate existing nukes, the value proposition for Tokamak fusion is thousands of times worse. The only plausible explanation for continued work on them is as a jobs program for hot-neutron physicists, to maintain a population available to draw upon for weapons projects. Nothing else could make a lick of sense. Spending on Tokamak is thus deeply irresponsible.

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

#184

Post by mlyle » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 5:07 AM UTC

EdwardDiego wrote: post #150

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”.

...Europe has 38GW of pumped hydro storage. USA has 20ish.

Which is a great start, but that's like 2-3% of peak load in the US.

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

#185

Post by mlyle » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 5:14 AM UTC

FooHentai wrote: post #105

sofixa wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hou…

"Decommissioning options for a retired nuclear plant may be chosen based on availability of decommissioning funds , operation of other reactors at the same site, or availability of waste disposal facilities." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFSTOR Today, about half the EoL reactors in the USA are on the SAFSTOR track instead of the one where they are immediately decommissioned. There is a single waste disposal site av…

Nuclear power plants in the US have been charged massive fees to establish funds for decommissioning. The cost is baked into the energy, even if the political will to spend the funds and store the waste isn't.

https://www.nrc.gov/waste/decommissioning/finan-assur.html

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

#186

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 5:15 AM UTC

KMag wrote: post #159

barneygale wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windmills? Are they making bread?

Yes. The big secret is they're hybrid windmills ;) The grain mills are separated from the wind turbines by electrical lines, unlike their mechanically-linked Dutch grain mill predecessors. Any excess electricity goes into BitFlour, a cryptocurrency that's "milled" instead of "mined". (For those who missed it, the parent is asserting that "windmill" should be reserved for wind-powered mills.)

Charles Babbage called his Analytical Engine's ALU its "mill". I prefer his term.

In the case of wind turbines, it is clear that the generation unit is its mill, so I have no quarrel with calling them windmills.

They may be considered only half-satanic, having only three blades.

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

#187

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 5:23 AM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #93

Hammershaft wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The only truly reliable and inexhaustible output of the nuke industry is falsehood.

They were lying before the first commercial plant was built ("too cheap to meter") and have continued well past the industry's deserved end ("incredibly cheap", above). The article demonstrates that even operating them, neglecting all of construction and decommissioning, costs more than alternatives.

"Incredibly" is a perhaps unintentionally revealing admission.

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

#188

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 5:32 AM UTC

behringer wrote: post #176

robocat wrote: post #35

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.

I don't think you're calculating climate change into the cost. We've got maybe 100 years left before things go nuts with the arctic completely melting.

Much less than 100 years. But continuing to operate nukes--instead of building out renewables with that money, and investing the savings in even more renewables--brings it closer.

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

#189

Post by jpgvm » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 5:43 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #183

betwixthewires wrote: post #179

Sensational title. > every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options. This is a weak argument. The article makes a good point, which is that renewable costs in some countries are lower than nuclear operating costs. But this alone does not justify the claim that nuclear power makes the climate crisis…

The arguments do not compete. Each adds to the case, and the strength of the argument is the sum of all, less any valid counters. It is very clear that the sum is strongly positive, even with increasing uncertainty in the later points. The case is solid even if one or two sub-arguments turned out to have holes. Huge decommissioning costs are always neglected in any argument promoting nukes. As thoroughly bad as the a…

You could have made the same argument for investing in solar a few decades ago.

Spending money on fusion research will unlock humanities next energy supply for when/where solar isn't viable.

Fusion power has been hampered by the way it's been approached )massive slow moving projects) but is inevitably going to come to fruition given enough time and money and when it does it will likely displace most other energy sources.

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

#190

Post by Shared404 » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 6:11 AM UTC

edbob wrote: post #178

pydry wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every power source failed in Texas.

Every power source had some failures, but the only power sources that dropped all the way to 0 were solar and wind. Nuclear operated at 75% of capacity, while fossil generation seems to have been around 60%. Wind recovered slightly and "exceeded projections" by producing in the 15-30% range, but closer to 15% at night when it's coldest.

Doesn't winterize wind turbines

Blames turbines for not working when it freezes.

I'm so freaking tired of hearing this.