All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected • Hacker News Board

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#281

Post by jjoonathan » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #255

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?

Of course it is.

The anti-nuclear crowd is pretending to be the adult in the room, so let's get some accountability in here. Stopping nuclear energy rollout:

* Did not get rid of nuclear weapons and MAD

* Is directly responsible for putting >100 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is what "responsibility" looks like, folks!

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#282

Post by throw0101a » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:23 PM UTC

chefkoch wrote: post #279

throw0101a wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't have even one new Gen reactor running Which is the generation is the "new" one? There are a number of Generation III ones running: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor Gen IV reactor used to burn up plutonium: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

You are right, i was thinking of Gen III+ like EPR.

There are EPR reactors connected to grids:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Other Gen III+ reactors:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novovoronezh_Nuclear_Power_Pla...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Generat...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#283

Post by wazoox » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:27 PM UTC

japanuspus wrote: post #187

Azsy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing a lot of background on how these markets work. And i'm not remotely qualified to explain them. But, very broadly and simplistically speaking. We are not even remotely close to living in a "We have too much power" world. ( Markets will change drastically then.) All the nuclear supply has already been sold and is being constantly used 100% of the time. It never makes sense to turn off the nuclear power p…

Working in the strategy back office of a one of the worlds largest producer of renewable power, I feel I have a reasonable grasp of the problem here. Not sure what background you believe I am missing. The point I was trying to make in my second paragraph is that when hydrolyzers get sufficiently cheap that you can buy enough to cover your peak over-production and let them idle when you are missing power, then you hav…

The question is: given that we MUST be reducing our CO2 output extremely quickly (5% a year, equivalent to an additional COVID19 crisis every year), what are the chances for your magical cheap hydrolyzers to 1° be developed 2° be deployed at scale before large parts of the world dive into climatic chaos?

BTW there is a very efficient way to run hydrolyzers at 95%: run them on nuclear power. Problem solved?

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#284

Post by g8oz » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:27 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #253

jpdus wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! Almost all of the pro-nuclear crowd misses that nuclear is just too expensive. Nobody brought a convincing argument why e.g. China wouldn't push Nuclear way more if nuclear would economically be viable - there are no "activists" over there that would stop them from building thousands of reactors. Additionally, most calculations that result in somewhat competitive prices for nuclear energy dismiss the implied su…

China has 50 nuclear plants running and over a dozen plants under construction right now. Kinda seems like they're ramping up to me.

They are ramping up everything, solar and wind included. It's not clear to me that they regard nuclear as a panacea.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#285

Post by robwwilliams » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

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…

Brilliant comment. And yet we as a barely intelligent emergent species will play with politically dangerous fire/energy.

Let do it more as a basic science challenge and work 10X harder on the fusion chimera that is beginning to look real!

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#286

Post by MR4D » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Just wanted to point out that stone (trebuchets), wood (arrows), bronze (swords), and steel (guns, bombs, tanks, etc) fall into this category too. Silicon is probably there already as well, but hasn’t been used yet.

Mankind has used everything as his disposal to gain the upper hand over another group of humans since well before history began. I don’t ever expect it to stop.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#287

Post by kergonath » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #113

kergonath wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what about thermal fusion which is upcoming? Fusion is great, and we are making good progress. It could plausibly change everything in a couple of decades. But it is not available today, so we cannot rely on it. That’s the thing when you follow the latest r&d developments: we talk about a technology well before it is useable, so all we can use at a given moment are mature technologies that are old news. Example…

For me, until something is commercially available, it is not available. Development is unpredictable, research is even a wild card.

Definitely. It’s most of the time fait to say that it will be available some day, but there always are a lot of kinks to iron out between the scientific idea and the useable implementation.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#288

Post by Goety » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:30 PM UTC

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #87

ianai wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when the incumbent, fossil fuel energy, has been propped up by subsidies and unpaid externalities for centuries.

Please don’t fall for the villianization that the media adopt to push an agenda. Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish. Fossil fuels have one of the highest energy densities and hence have been used for ages. We have much to be thankful for thanks to fossil fuels being around. We are in a position today to bring change and I’m all for that. Losing sight of the benefits of energy simply because some sou…

>Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish.

Energy is needed for basic modern services.

Humans have survived a long time without electricity. It could be simpler to 'go without' or 'find a workaround' for a lot of conveniences if we were serious at combating climate change.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#289

Post by wazoox » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:32 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #165

cycomanic wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that we should look at what baseline is. Ideally all our power sources would adjust instantaneously to demand. In reality that is not possible. Traditionally, power plants which can be run constantly at fixed output (i.e. coal plants, nuclear power plants), have been cheaper to operate, so we used those for "baseline" power and more expensive adjustable plants (e.g. gas turbines) to follow the load. However, the…

> By over provisioning (and net interconnectivity) we can reduce the need for adjustable sources. Essentially if you have enough renewable sources to cover the high demands at low wind/sun you can always turn off the sources when you overshoot and because they are cheap it is economical unfeasible. Overprovisioning by how much? Currently ( at least since a month or so) across Europe there's a meteorological phenomeno…

IIRC correctly we'd need to overprovision by more than 100%, and huge storage too. Is it less expensive then? Also what has the least impact on the environment? On space and material requirements given the required massive overall of the grid (to move power across continents)?

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#290

Post by harles » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #276

mabbo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the bar will always be set higher and higher. Oh, it's safer than all other reactors ever designed? Yeah, but it isn't PERFECT, is it? What if I ? Then it might be dangerous! Oh, it has 1/10th the nuclear waste of all other reactors ever? But it STILL MAKES NUCLEAR WASTE. Oh, it can be built at half the cost of previous reactors for twice the energy? THAT'S STILL WAY TOO MUCH. And to be clear, I think renewables…

The bar hasn't really moved: * be cheaper than other reliable sources (never met) * no waste that takes >100y to decay (never met) * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably)

> * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably)

This is a false dichotomy that’s always bugged me. I’d sure find living near a nuclear plant a lot less disturbing than living near a coal plant. And with nuclear plants, far fewer people would have to live near any power plant.