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

311–320 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#311

Post by Kon5ole »

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…

Earth gets hit by 170 000 TW of sunshine every hour. That's more than the yearly global consumption of energy.

If we could capture only 1% of that, we'd have 80 times more than we need, from just the sunshine reaching earth.

This makes the photovoltaic cell and related technologies more interesting than nuclear to me. A way more abundant energy source with none of the downsides of nuclear is clearly within our reach. It's not even unknown technology, we just haven't made the infrastructure to capture it yet.

Nuclear seems to me to be similar to Coal in that we may think it's a good idea now, only to discover later on that it actually killed us due to things we didn't think about. Or didn't want to think about. They are also similar in that we who get the benefits today are leaving the problems with it to future generations.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#312

Post by kube-system »

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?

When nuclear power plants kill people, we call it an accident.

When coal powered plants kill people, we call it normal operation.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#313

Post by brandmeyer »

GCU-Empiricist wrote: post #198
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…

So the power supply used to change the speed of nuclear warships from bare steerageway to 30+kts rather quickly is not responsive to changes in demand? Friend you seem to have some conceptual errors. There is a lot of things you need to do if you take a plant out of operation, and there is a significant amount of decay heat from fission products that does require external power (basically what caused fukashima's fire…

Its not directly a technological problem, its an economic problem. Even the optimistic side of the cost analysis for nuclear power must assume that the reactors are operating at full power as much as possible.

The operating cost is essentially independent of power output.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#314

Post by nimbius »

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 long-term benefit should be what it is held up against.

how about the long term risk? we havent even figured out how to deal with plastics in the ocean and in our bodies let alone responsibly harness the atom. we're talking about a waste product that does not cease to create a danger for hundreds of years at minimum. Reactor 4 at chernobyl is predicted to be "safe" in 20,000 years and before you say thats an exception id like to remind you that ALL high level nuclear waste has a cooldown of tens of thousands of years and it is routinely generated in the pursuit of the electron today.

The Roman empire only lasted 1500 years. these nuclear byproducts last so long that modern scholars cannot unilaterally agree on a simple means of warning the future inhabitants of whatever society exists, let alone passing on any tips or tricks for processing or salvaging these lethal artifacts.

we are talking about a waste product that outlives not only written but spoken language and dozens if not hundreds of civilizations and the stalwart of the atom --the United States-- still couldnt even manage to get Yucca mouuntain together as a disposal ground after two decades.

nuclear isotopes do not have a rate of return. they do not care about profit or equity or economies and will without remoerse kill you all if you forget them.

waste is currently stored in large pools at your local nuclear plant that require constant cooling. once these sites are inoperable they will require the care of generations for millennia before with a clear conscience you can say 'nuclear power was worth it'. that the atom will be taught as a religion is less far fetched a premise to a Fallout game when you realize in 12,000 years the only means of conveying the lethality of our hubris will be as such.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#315

Post by DisjointedHunt »

mdale wrote: post #295

The most pragmatic solution is making high pollutant energy costly. Some small set of polluters are responsible for the majority of the emissions. (1) This is only possible because of being able to chalk the damage up to externalities. We need to set up systems to adding cost to emissions. A substantial PR rebrand modern Nuclear energy (maybe called something else) would be needed if you wanted to get traction on tha…

What you will then get is an unsustainable set of shortcuts that threaten your energy supplies at crucial times.

ie, what's happening in Europe now[1]

Germany went on a spree, dismantling their nuclear plants after being scared by Fukushima. Fossil fuel plants tool their place. Subsidies to unsustainable alternatives and penalties on polluters made it so it was not profitable to increase energy supply on sources such as natural gas and fossil fuels that could ramp quickly in response to demand.

And the price of natural gas in Europe went parabolic.

[1] https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/28/why-europe-s-energy-pric...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#316

Post by Gwypaas »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #300
throwaway894345 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s frustrating that the anti-nuclear folks (perhaps not you specifically, parent) worked to drain western societies of nuclear experience and advancement, and then use that inexperience and associated costs as a reason not to invest in nuclear. Yes, nuclear has a long lead time, but so does economics grid-scale storage for renewables . “Long lead time” isn’t an excuse to forestall investment, it’s a reason to start…

This is true. Also the most efficient and safe reactors are arguably in the bellies of the leading edge Submarines. It's no surprise France is going all in on the Small Modular Reactor tech since they are rumored to possess some of the best in the world already. Likely a question of declassification. The reactor at MIT has students allowed to run parts of the operation after they pass a few strenuous tests. This hypo…

Military reactors tend to use weapons grade fuel. Would not want to spread that across all unstable regions of the world. So quite the different beasts compared to the civilian side.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070209223424/http://www.nti.or...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#317

Post by DangitBobby »

throw0101a wrote: post #259
throwaway898989 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> are you saying that nuclear power related accidents like chernobyl don't happen? The 1975 Banqian Dam failure: 26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure See also: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st... Does that mean hydroelectric dams should be shut down? Over the many decade…

Well, Chernobyl could have been much, much worse, right? We got incredibly lucky [1] that the worst was prevented.

1. https://fantasticfacts.net/252/

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#318

Post by notreallyserio »

koheripbal wrote: post #178
adrianN wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital expense for nuclear is so high that to be economical you need to run the plants at full power as much a possible. So while you can regulate them (slowly, there is quite a bit of thermal inertia in the system), it's much cheaper to regulate the renewables.

China has proven that claim false. They hired western nuclear companies to build 20 nuclear plants in China. The high cost in the west is lawsuits and storage facility closures, and outdated regulations.

How did China choose locations for their plants, and how did they convince folks there it was a good idea? What lessons should we take from them?

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#319

Post by Gwypaas »

vlovich123 wrote: post #216
go_elmo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm not sure I follow this. Nuclear power is significantly less deadly than coal and that's just talking about accidents in power generation. If you include general death by radiation pollution, that difference grows more disparate (coal energy production emits an enormous amount of radiation into the atmosphere as pollution).

Why compare against coal? It's all about to be phased out simply due to the cost of the steam side, which nuclear shares. Compare against wind and pv.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#320

Post by iamstupidsimple »

goodpoint wrote: post #212
mlindner wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power can shed energy as heat with a massive radiator. You don't need to shut it off, you can just "waste it" when there's over supply.

Not exactly what the planet needs.

Heat isn't a greenhouse gas. It's not an issue compared to the CO2 savings.
Post reply on HN