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

Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#911

Post by whall6 »

munk-a wrote: post #872
jjoonathan wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is able to compete on merit and has been forever, but we chose to create a legal environment in which one or two dedicated NIMBYs could stall a project indefinitely. That's the entire reason why "the economics aren't there." We aren't talking about costs of building a reactor or risk of it melting down, we're talking about the cost and risk of 1001 strategically sequential ground squirrel environmental impact…

It's not really the ahead of time NIMBY complaints but the potential for future liability shifts which existing plants will not be exempt from. A good number of plants constructed in the 60s and 70s hit their EOL (after getting a a bunch of lifetime extensions from governments) and then had their nice glittering warchest of profits eaten away by cleanup expenses (which sometimes exceeded the cash left in those contin…

I wonder if any improvements could be made to mitigate some of these risks considering we’ve had 50-60 years to learn.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#912

Post by varelse »

matkoniecz wrote: post #898
ptkd wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper. > wind power can be zero at some parts of the day There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a mo…

If people believed that global warning is an extinction threat for humanity / code red / critically important... Then waiving almost all regulations on nuclear power and accepting some meltdowns would be reasonable. And also waiving nearly all regulations on solar power, wind power, massive construction of hydropower etc.

That I would guess is exactly the strategy China is adopting.

And the west IMO will reel in horror at even a single meltdown there and back off any plans to adopt nuclear the day that happens, wasting precious time we really don't have.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#913

Post by m4rtink »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #878
h1fra wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree Nuclear is the most probable solution it's not easy to build and fuel is very sparse. France who is leading the way is 100% depend on other countries, I'm not sure it will play well in the coming years > 85% of uranium is produced in six countries: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Namibia, Niger, and Russia. And the second issue is to focus on electricity production, while there is a ton a other things cr…

> 85% of uranium is produced in six countries: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Namibia, Niger, and Russia. So there is a major uranium producer in every corner of the world? That's better than oil and many elements critical in electronic. Like whats your benchmark" it cant be as common as dirt.

This is definitely a non-exhaustive list - for example a lot of initial Soviet Uranium stock was mined in the Czech Republic (then Czechoslovakia) and contributed to it being forced to the Soviet sphere of influence.

Some references: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20224726 https://www.suro.cz/cz/vyzkum/vysledky/strategie-rizeni-napr...

While most of the mines are no longer active I'm sure there are still reserves that could be mined by modern methods (ideally without political prisoners doing the mining this time) and I'm sure there are more places like this.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#914

Post by matkoniecz »

danybittel wrote: post #260
nosianu wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s just so hard to know what actions have what impact on CO2 production Not really. For some reason the actually quite simple problem is needlessly complicated in the discussions. Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried. Any carbon above ground is part of the cycle that includes atmospheric CO2. You need huge effort to change how much of it is in CO2 form at any time while still ha…

I really like your post! It's not rocket science. Too many interest groups are convoluting the issue. But, I think to clearest, easiest way is to just ban "coal, gas, oil". Then let the lack of it "tickle" through the economy. Not by tomorrow, mind you, have it gradually reduce. Where there are problems, help with tax money. We've done it before, with asbestos, lead in gas, ..

> But, I think to clearest, easiest way is to just ban "coal, gas, oil".

Doing this would result in mass deaths. Food transportation would collapse within hours. And mechanized farming would be unfeasible anyway. Death toll would be in billions.

That is nonstarter.

And that is without part "people would freeze to death in unheated homes" applying in many places.

If you mean "reduce dependency on them slowly over years/decades" then it would more reasonable but it is not "just ban".

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#915

Post by outworlder »

voldacar wrote: post #848
ptkd wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper. > wind power can be zero at some parts of the day There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a mo…

>A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized If this were truly "code red" and people really believed that, we would find a way to push the bureaucrats out of the way and build nuclear capacity way sooner than 20 yrs. Humans can do amazing things under dire stress. This is not happening, so I will assume "code red" is hyperbole, something that the IPCC is not entirely known to shun.

> This is not happening, so I will assume "code red" is hyperbole

If you take the current pandemic as an example of what we do when under dire stress, I don't think we should be that confident. Yes, some people can perform astonishing feats, and yet other people can deny there's even a problem even when it's obvious.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#916

Post by GVIrish »

tda wrote: post #829
merpnderp wrote: post #720

If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power. There is zero chance of moving off carbon energy sources without causing catastrophic mayhem, unless we use massive amounts of nuclear. For instance, the last 4 years my state has averaged 37% production of total possible installed wind generation capacity. This is a very windy state which is in the top 2 for installed wind ca…

As pointed out in he comments below, the climate crisis will reduce political stability. And stability is essential to ensure that there will be a strong enough society left to properly decommission a nuclear plant when it will be EOL in 50 years. Decommissioning is likely to be vastly more expensive than initial construction, and after that you still need to figure out how to make sure no one will want to touch the…

If you can't sell people on nuclear power, there is no way in hell you're gonna sell people on extreme taxes on oil. And even if you could, the base load problem will still be there.

Maybe if carbon were heavily taxed it would incentivize energy storage solutions but as of right now cost effective solutions are no viable yet.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#917

Post by outworlder »

h1fra wrote: post #821
merpnderp wrote: post #720

If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power. There is zero chance of moving off carbon energy sources without causing catastrophic mayhem, unless we use massive amounts of nuclear. For instance, the last 4 years my state has averaged 37% production of total possible installed wind generation capacity. This is a very windy state which is in the top 2 for installed wind ca…

While I agree Nuclear is the most probable solution it's not easy to build and fuel is very sparse. France who is leading the way is 100% depend on other countries, I'm not sure it will play well in the coming years > 85% of uranium is produced in six countries: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Namibia, Niger, and Russia. And the second issue is to focus on electricity production, while there is a ton a other things cr…

> > 85% of uranium is produced in six countries: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Namibia, Niger, and Russia.

What about thorium? Other elements?

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#918

Post by Angostura »

jjoonathan wrote: post #863
slashdev wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this makes so much sense. But when you look at the costs involved it's far cheaper and less risky to deploy 2x in renewables and a bunch of energy storage plus some gas plants and long distance transmission. New innovations in nuclear maybe have a chance to change this, but renewables are still getting cheaper so even if they succeed they must still beat the moving target. In another world where we had embraced…

Nuclear is able to compete on merit and has been forever, but we chose to create a legal environment in which one or two dedicated NIMBYs could stall a project indefinitely. That's the entire reason why "the economics aren't there." We aren't talking about costs of building a reactor or risk of it melting down, we're talking about the cost and risk of 1001 strategically sequential ground squirrel environmental impact…

> Nuclear is able to compete on merit and has been forever

Hmmm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49823305

"Hinkley Point C nuclear plant to run £2.9bn over budget"

> Last week, prices for new wind power delivered by 2025 were set at prices as low as £40 per megawatt hour. By comparison, power from Hinkley Point C is expected to cost £92.50 per megawatt hour.

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#919

Post by varelse »

bpodgursky wrote: post #749
ptkd wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper. > wind power can be zero at some parts of the day There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a mo…

If it was actually code red, we would waive literally all safety regulations and environmental policy reviews, and break ground on new plants tomorrow. And cost would be no object.

I suspect you mean if the west believed it was actually code red...

Good luck with that...

Re: Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

#920

Post by gefhfff »

merpnderp wrote: post #720

If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power. There is zero chance of moving off carbon energy sources without causing catastrophic mayhem, unless we use massive amounts of nuclear. For instance, the last 4 years my state has averaged 37% production of total possible installed wind generation capacity. This is a very windy state which is in the top 2 for installed wind ca…

There are storage possibilities beyond batteries, e.g. hydrogen/methane
Post reply on HN