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

331–340 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#331

Post by sgc »

sgc wrote: post #201
tarsinge wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just false. Here is an article (in French sorry) showing with real data from the grid how nuclear baseline adapt in real time to renewable production change: https://lenergeek.com/2019/03/07/mix-electrique-nucleaire-tr...

Interesting article. It shows that since nuclear is at least 3x faster to respond than wind power in France at the time of the study, its response time is more than adequate as a major part of the energy mix. However, even in France with their dozens of reactors, it is not fast enough to respond to more than 2/3 of peak demand changes (100MW/min of their peak 150MW/min change in demand). It seems obvious that it's ex…

I made one major error there. Since the article is based on actual performance rather than an intimate knowledge of France's grid capabilities, it is wrong to presume that their historical 100MW/min ramp up was the best they could do, rather than all that was required and basically just an algorithmic artifact. I got that in the comparison to wind, but somehow missed it in comparison to their total fast switch requirements.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#332

Post by evgen »

Gwypaas wrote: post #319
vlovich123 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Will do. Nuclear energy is 10x less deadly than rooftop solar per Twh and 4x less deadly than wind.

Solar kills! Maybe we need to mount a campaign to shut down this deadly and dangerous form of energy generation. I will start working on the posters and clickbait web site, you gather the activists to organize a protest.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#333

Post by JamisonM »

Here is a recent article rather than the linked statement by a lobby group:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/nuclear-power-s-awkward-role-in-...

This provides a lot more information and context about what is actually happening as well as what the "green zone" is (as opposed to the "blue zone")... as well as maybe a bit of unnecessary editorializing too!

(I would add that the HN link name is misleading here, what applications for what that were rejected is not clear and it is misleading to imply that there is no representation for nuclear energy at COP26.)

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#334

Post by throwaway894345 »

nimbius wrote: post #314
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 exc…

This is anti-science fear mongering for a variety of reasons.

Most importantly, we need to consider the risks of NOT investing in nuclear, which are that we continue to burn fossil fuels while we pray for a solution for the renewable storage problem. This is a civilization-ending risk by which the worst nuclear disaster pales in comparison.

> we havent even figured out how to deal with plastics in the ocean and in our bodies let alone responsibly harness the atom.

Plastics are a problem because billions of people throw their trash haphazardly into the environment. As long as we don’t do that with nuclear waste, we’re fine.

Yes, nuclear waste takes a long time to decay, but the risk is inversely correlated with the time it takes to decay. Something with a long half-life by definition emits low rates of radiation. Moreover, nuclear waste is very dense, so we can easily manage a lot of it (and we already have to manage some of it anyway). Lastly, we already have the answer for managing nuclear waste—deep geologic storage.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#335

Post by ericd »

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.

The French do reprocess their fuel, but iirc it was made illegal in the US, so we just bury it all.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#336

Post by tejohnso »

p2t2p wrote: post #174

Basically if you say to me that you care about climate change and then reject nuclear, I stop talking to you and taking you in any kind of seriously. Once you reject nuclear it’s just virtue signalling.

People can reject nuclear without empty virtue signalling.

They may believe that non-nuclear alternatives are perfectly viable. "The sun provides enough energy to power the world's needs 30,000 times over"...and all that.

You might be mistaking disingenuousness with ignorance, or naiveté.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#337

Post by baybal2 »

nimbius wrote: post #314
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 exc…

Long term risk? The fall of Western world?

We seen it first hand in these last 2 years how hard it was for the government to control the lowermost layers of society, even when we talk about a life, and death matter, just because they can't get a hamburger, and toilet paper.

Now, imagine talking about rationing electricity, or fuel for F150s

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#338

Post by DisjointedHunt »

JamisonM wrote: post #333

Here is a recent article rather than the linked statement by a lobby group: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/nuclear-power-s-awkward-role-in-... This provides a lot more information and context about what is actually happening as well as what the "green zone" is (as opposed to the "blue zone")... as well as maybe a bit of unnecessary editorializing too! (I would add that the HN link name is misleading here, what applicati…

The protests by this lobby group are targeted at the greenzone, yes, but the entirety of COP26 ignores Nuclear as a viable option. You may review the stated agendas of the leading participants or the goals they have published.

The global minimum alternative tax is a higher priority this week than anything climate.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#339

Post by celestialcheese »

Kon5ole wrote: post #311
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.…

Solar isn't without its flaws. The solar deployed today will be EOL 25-30 years from now. That's 6M metric tons of waste yearly estimated by 2050 and almost 80m metric tons total [1]. Coupled with the increased demand for materials in PVs and supporting battery infrastructure, more mining and mines have real environmental and social consequences.

That's a lot of lead and other toxic elements that if not properly disposed of will lead to massive ecological consequences. The current strategy of dumping in north africa is not a solution, and we're setting ourselves up with a PV waste problem for future generations.

1 - https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#340

Post by simion314 »

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…

>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.

So now this big countries like US,Russia and the rest still have the bombs, you don't reduce the risk of a nuclear war or a big country accidentally or intentional detonating one by reducing the number of nuclear power plants.

Unfortunately the nuclear weapons already exist and any country with enough budget can create one, I suggest you try to understand that you can't have a group of terrorists dropping a plane in a nuclear plant and have it explode like a bomb, nuclear plants do not explode like an atomic bomb.

Post reply on HN