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

221–230 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#221

Post by prox »

lostmyoldone wrote: post #207
lokimedes wrote: post #182

As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…

If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet. Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent his…

I wonder what the pathway would be (in a perfect everything-matures-at-a-constant-rate way)

Probably better representative systems that don’t pit countries or peoples against eachother. A way to identify as a human or earthling above all nationalities.

A revolutionary better economic understanding so we don’t have to choose politically and have clear economic growth tied to wellness of people.

Probably connected to the above is a superior education system for everyone who wants to and help to realize mature atomic sciences.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#222

Post by malthuswaswrong »

adrianN wrote: post #153
_3u10 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s very little storage cost as the fuel can be burned til there is nothing radioactive left. Nuclear doesn’t produce radioactive materials it reduces radioactivity. If you mix the spent fuel from a heavy water reactor back into the ore, it’s radioactivity will have been reduced.

While you can burn the fuel until very few long-lived isotopes are left we don't do that currently. Nuclear reactors also turn relatively harmless Uranium into much more active elements. Just mixing the waste back into the rocks you got the Uranium from is not a safe storage method.

We don't do that currently because there hasn't been a new plant built in 50 years and the designs of the old plants were specifically engineered to make materials for nuclear weapons.

If there wasn't a huge stigma against nuclear energy they would be making advancements, but nobody is going to fund advancements while there is no guarantee they will be allowed to apply them.

What would happen to the JavaScript language if every year half of congress gave speeches condemning JavaScript and calling for a prohibition against any new JavaScript code? How many new people would bother learning JavaScript.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#223

Post by q1w2 »

lostmyoldone wrote: post #207
lokimedes wrote: post #182

As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…

If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet. Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent his…

Running a nuclear reactor does not produce nuclear weapons. This is simply fear-mongering fake news.

Also, modern nuclear reactors are dangerous. The GenIII+ specification for all new reactors requires the use of passive shut off. Which means the operator must actively keep the reactor on.

If they were to all turn into zombies, for example, the reactor would simply shut off.

Omega Tau podcast also did an extensive series on nuclear waste storage that I highly recommend every skeptic listen to. Nuclear waste storage is not a problem.

The problem is that naivete people seem to have that renewables can provide 99% uptime baseload, the boomer ignorance that all-things-nuclear-are-bad-because-Greenpeace-told-me-so.

Moreover, China has proven that nuclear Gen III reactors can be built cheaply - they are concurrently building 24 1GW plants.

Steamline ancient western regulations, block the endless lawsuits against plant development, re-open the Nevada storage center, tell boomers to stop stonewalling the only ready climate change solution, and BUILD THE DAMN NUCLEAR PLANTS.

We have a PROVEN solution ready to go that can be deployed in literally 10-15 years. We just need to end the ignorance.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#224

Post by kzrdude »

aetherspawn wrote: post #66

Unpopular opinion in this thread but ... I don't want a world with nuclear. That makes me anxious. It's not if there will be a problem, but when . I'd rather the world spend money on batteries and solar/wind energy, like South Australia. And by focusing on that technology, the market will drive innovation in that class of renewables. That technology is reusable in other applications, like domestic (rooftop), EVs and…

The current world is filled with coal power and it's making a lot of us anxious.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#225

Post by vlovich123 »

throwaway898989 wrote: post #219
vlovich123 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unclear about what your point is. Are you saying that Nuclear power production is somehow linked to nuclear arms production?

are you saying that nuclear power related accidents like chernobyl don't happen?

That seems like a little bit of a non sequitur to the topic in this particular thread chain.

Anyway, yes of course they happen. They happen in every power producing industry. It's hard to find good numbers of course as there's going to be some amount of error, but here's one [1].

The point isn't that in that report nuclear has fewer deaths than wind and solar as I'm sure that will cause an emotional reaction. The point is that it's so low and comparable. Even if it was 10x worse it would be worth the tradeoff of replacing coal.

Nuclear is our only choice for replacing industrial scale use of coal and oil. It's unfortunate that that's the case, but those are the facts on the ground currently and there's no sign of that ever changing. The way Wind and Solar generate energy are wholly incompatible with high temperature industrial uses where coal and natural gas are used let alone the problems of variability (batteries help, but there are limits and batter manufacturing at scale brings its own challenges).

If you're comparing Nuclear to Wind and Solar power generation, you're comparing power sources that don't compete. Nuclear is about replacing the worst problems coal and oil present us and staving off global warming. It's an extremely critical and underdeveloped resource and only gets safer and better with time. It would be erroneous to state any risk in a vacuum - you have to compare it with what's happening today.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#226

Post by malthuswaswrong »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #111
malthuswaswrong wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It could also be real but no where near as serious as they are claiming. Mankind went from the first manned flight to footprints on the moon in 60 years. I'm not losing any sleep about a mathematically insignificant projection that may or may not lead to something 100 years from now. 100 years from now if they want terraforming to strictly regulate the climate it should be well within their capabilities. Agai…

I will be inmoral this once If climate change wasn't a real threat... they would act as you said. If climate change was a real threat to humanity... they would still act in spite of it. Tragedy of the commons. What is a better future? Having done your part, when nobody did, and facing a broken world with a broken economy OR Helped kill the world environment but playing an even field? That has been China's stance all…

I don't disagree with any of that. People should pursue alternate energy sources. However world governments should not be putting their fingers on the scales in favor of green energy. Legislators who also just happen to have financial investments in these same new technologies. Yet another reason to be skeptical. Everyone points their fingers at the oil industry for the studies they fund, but Al Gore was a hair's width away from becoming the world's first green billionaire when he tried to pass a law forcing companies to exchange carbon credits and he was a 40% owner in carbon exchange network that would mediate it.

Green energy is making advancements. Unfortunately for them the fossil fuel industry continues to make advancements as well. Every year they get better at drilling, better at harvesting, better at converting from crude to fuel, better at burning, better at extracting energy from what is burned. At least a dozen different metrics get 2% better year over year which keeps fossil fuels competitive and makes it harder for other sources of energy to replace it.

Which is fine. It's all fine. I just want the best energy available. And the way our civilization has historically measured the "best" is through the free market. Green will win eventually. No need to rush it prematurely. It will happen.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#227

Post by fulafel »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #177
fulafel wrote: post #175

The COP is an event and the green zone is some kind of parlor there where you can apply to present your project. Many commenters seem to think this is about nuclear power projects getting rejected, this is not about that, calm down.

It's not just any event and it's not just any presentation. The proposals here are what entire Nations agree to in order to reduce carbon emissions. Not having Nuclear represented there is dumb. That's the point.

The "Green Zone" at the COP26 conference, what the article is about, is described as: "Youth groups, civil society, academia, artists, business from across the UK and all over the world will be hosting events, exhibitions, cultural performances, workshops and talks." [1]

Nations deliberating on proposals and agreeing about climate actions is a whole other department.

[1] https://ukcop26.org/the-conference/green-zone-programme-of-e...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#228

Post by vlovich123 »

LatteLazy wrote: post #191
lokimedes wrote: post #182

As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…

The first person to build a safe, economic, waste free reactor will be a billionaire. But so far that hasn't happened.

We have so many nuclear power plants running and the amount of waste so comparatively negligible (compared with coal, oil, natural gas) that it's moving the goal posts to require it to hit everything.

Humanity doesn't get better at doing something by doing it less. We need more power plants so that we build experience and costs go down. The market has to be there so that power plant design is invested in to drive down costs, improve efficiencies and reduce risks further.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#229

Post by drclau »

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #83

That's how you know none of this is real. If mankind was actually on the brink of extinction all options would be on the table. Especially one that offers free unlimited energy. Mankind does not have an energy generation problem. It only has an energy storage problem.

> Mankind does not have an energy generation problem.

No, humankind does not have an energy generation problem. The problem is the side effects of the methods used to generate the energy.

The existential risk is very real, but because it’s still far in the future, only very few people perceive it as such.

Covid is a great example of how incapable humans are to perceive dangers that are far in space and/or time.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#230

Post by q1w2 »

go_elmo wrote: post #190
lokimedes wrote: post #182

As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…

While I agree with you regarding the political dimension, the technical, especially regarding safety may not be underestimated regarding cost implications. But the right political setting could imply cheap, mass produced plants, e.g. SMR's. The problem is that were too late, would take several decades to scale up to where we we should be already...

This is not correct. China has built 24 1GW Gen III plants in 15 years.

No other solution can provide that much baseline power in 15 years. None.

Post reply on HN