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

All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

world-nuclear-news.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#11

Post by asteroidbelt »

arrrg wrote: post #6
chuckee wrote: post #3

It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…

> Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand.

No they don’t. Wind and solar energy output can be very well predicted for hours and days ahead.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#13

Post by programmarchy »

whatever1 wrote: post #5

Neither the technology nor the fuel for nuclear plants are abundant or renewable. For example, can Iran build its own reactors? No. Can Somalia run its hypothetical reactors? No. Can Syria import enriched uranium? No. Can we have reactors without them blowing up every 50 years? No. Do we have a solution for containing nuclear waste without leaks and without ruining the local communities? No. Enough with this joke of…

Rare earth metals are currently required inputs for wind to produce magnets and solar to produce photovoltaics. It’s not exactly abundant or renewable.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#14

Post by rglover »

Read between the lines. It's not about the best solution(s), it's about _their_ solution. Nuclear solves the problem they champion, which means, it negates the need for their efforts and existence (economic). Ironically, the rejection of nuclear as a viable option seems to be the result of a psychological existential threat to the supposed "elite" of our world.

The mask is off. Protecting the future of humanity isn't the goal; it's protecting their own egos.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#15

Post by whatever1 »

programmarchy wrote: post #13
whatever1 wrote: post #5

Neither the technology nor the fuel for nuclear plants are abundant or renewable. For example, can Iran build its own reactors? No. Can Somalia run its hypothetical reactors? No. Can Syria import enriched uranium? No. Can we have reactors without them blowing up every 50 years? No. Do we have a solution for containing nuclear waste without leaks and without ruining the local communities? No. Enough with this joke of…

Rare earth metals are currently required inputs for wind to produce magnets and solar to produce photovoltaics. It’s not exactly abundant or renewable.

Rare earths are not rare, you can even order online. Try that with enriched uranium.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#16

Post by rglover »

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #2

It would be interesting to know what the "green zone" means to them. They don't bother to link to any edifying documents. But this is a very defensive treatise. A bad look.

It's the name of the event: https://greenzonetickets.ukcop26.org/home

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#17

Post by holomorphically »

asteroidbelt wrote: post #11
arrrg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…

> Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. No they don’t. Wind and solar energy output can be very well predicted for hours and days ahead.

Solar and wind do not have the required energy density and will never be viable without nuclear. The alternative is to keep burning fossil fuels and blow past 3C because we are already locked into 2C+ of warming with no viable path to large scale atmospheric carbon and methane removal.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#18

Post by legitster »

arrrg wrote: post #6
chuckee wrote: post #3

It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…

I don't understand. One of the benefits of nuclear is that it can be turned on and off quite easily. There are several mechanisms to throttle on and off the reaction.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#19

Post by Goety »

Nuclear is not a palatable political solution for a lot of people and it is easily simpler to reject the proliferation of such materials. The current 'theater' from a geopolitical standpoint for nuclear is China and it does not appear to be succeeding well. I don't expect France to succeed given all that has occurred.

Smaller nuclear devices will need constant care and monitoring that it is highly likely people will need to 'grow with' such devices. I dont think the will UN back something without a proof of concept which could delay adoption years.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#20

Post by moksly »

I think this is a more complicated issue than most people seem to think it is.

Very few countries have knowledge in nuclear technology while they have decades of knowledge in other green technologies. So it’s only natural that there is a severe push from European countries to make sure Nuclear doesn’t become a “green” source of energy because our industries are build upon wind and solar, and if we start using Nuclear as a viable alternative then all that industry money will go to China rather than our local production industry. So there is a monetary issue.

There is also a democratic issue. The overwhelming majority of Europeans are against nuclear power and if you consider our current unstable political climate, I think nobody will want the “elite” to start pushing a technology that is genuinely seen as much more dangerous than coal. What I think a lot of Nuclear supports fail to grasp is that it doesn’t matter if Nuclear is safer or better solution if that’s not what people think it is. A good example that Americans might better understand is the covid vaccine and how irrational your country has been in accepting it. That’s how the EU is with Nuclear, and pushing it could quite literally end up toppling governments.

I’m personally not convinced Nuclear is the “right” solution. It may be the only real way to solve the climate crisis, but it’s only safe when you have a stable government that maintains it in a sane manner. I don’t think we can be sure that we are going to have such governments in 25 years. So it’s not that I don’t trust the technology, it’s that I don’t trust us to handle it.

Post reply on HN