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

41–50 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#41

Post by arrrg »

legitster wrote: post #18
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…

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.

Sure, but you don’t want to do that. Nuclear is monstrously expensive already. For it to have any chance of being economically viable at all you have to run it all the time. It doesn’t make sense as an on-demand power source.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#42

Post by mlindner »

pickledolives wrote: post #38
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…

Don‘t forget all the CO2 emitted a) at mining and enriching uranium and b) in storing nuclear waste for 100000 years and c) in tearing down highly radioactive retired nuclear power plants. In Germany we started tearing down the GDRs only nuclear power plant in the early 90s and we‘re still not done. 30+ years of daily ops of a highly specialised destruction company operating heavy machinery requiring insulation from…

CO2 is only emitted during mining and refining because the grid itself isn't clean. The same thing is true of solar panels and batteries until the grid is made green. But you can't say "we can't make green tech because it would produce CO2" as it completely ignores the lifetime of things.

> in storing nuclear waste for 100000 years

That's a red herring. You only need to store nuclear waste for around 100 years (or less) before it can be treated as "low level nuclear waste" of which tons of it is generated as byproducts of the medical industry. It doesn't need to be sequestered away, it can be buried safely like all the rest of the low level waste. At that point it's more toxic than it is radioactive so it just needs to be buried in a way that it won't enter the water table.

> In Germany we started tearing down the GDRs only nuclear power plant in the early 90s and we‘re still not done.

Germany is also building tons of highly polluting (and radioactive waste pumped into the air) lignite coal power plants because they shot themselves in the foot by shutting down their very successful nuclear industry. They should look to France for an example on how one should treat nuclear power.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#43

Post by passerby1 »

rglover wrote: post #14

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…

Gains and profits, and power. Not egos.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#44

Post by visarga »

moksly wrote: post #20

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…

> So it’s not that I don’t trust the technology, it’s that I don’t trust us to handle it.

Glossing over the human death toll caused by the other energy sources is not useful. It's not like the other sources are perfectly safe.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#45

Post by passerby1 »

m0zg wrote: post #34

Of course. Think of it in terms of cui bono. You're on the precipice of convincing a bunch of folks they should shut down their economies and give you trillions of dollars to send to your donors as you please. Then a guy comes along and says that your shit won't work (which will be amply demonstrated in Europe this coming winter) and offers something that actually does work. It's like that meme - the guy will fly str…

Winter? What are you talking about, the climate is changing and it's getting warmer! /s

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#47

Post by holomorphically »

moksly wrote: post #20

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…

If you don't think we will have stable governments in 25 years with nuclear technology then we definitely will not have stable governments with non-nuclear tech. Even 2C degrees of warming is going to create a whole bunch of economic and political instability because of mass migrations, food and water shortages, and escalating conflicts. This is the optimistic scenario and assumes everything goes according to plan and some magical negative carbon technologies are deployed alongside green and fossil tech (which is highly unlikely).

Nuclear is the only viable option. Everything else is certain disaster.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#48

Post by mlindner »

whatever1 wrote: post #15
programmarchy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uranium Ore isn't rare either. You can buy that on Amazon.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#49

Post by badmadrad »

6510 wrote: post #37
holomorphically wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this good?

Nuke plants make great targets to bomb.

if we are in a position where civilian targets are getting bombed we have other problems. not mention in said "war" if we are reliant on green energy we will certainly lose to whoever bombed our power plants.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#50

Post by rsj_hn »

beders wrote: post #46

Good. Focus on renewables + storage. Anything else is too costly and too late. (BTW, 10 countries are running on 95%-100% renewables now. Why can't the US?)

Maybe because the U.S. isn't Iceland or Norway?

No country is actually running on solar and wind -- it's too variable.

Norway is running on Hydro, Iceland is running on geothermal.

Post reply on HN