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

341–350 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#341

Post by throwaway894345 »

denton-scratch wrote: post #328
lostmyoldone wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The issue that concerns me about nuclear power isn't so much weapons (they tend to be well-guarded, and it's hard to make weapons from reactor fuel), but decomissioning. The UK was one of the first countries to build nuclear reactors; no UK reactor has ever been fully decomissioned, and from what I can see we haven't even got a strategy - WP says they're still working out whether decomissioning should occur over a 20…

What sort of world will your grandchildren inherit if we don’t invest in nuclear? What happens if the mystery renewable energy storage and carbon scrubbing technologies never materialize? What happens if the climate scientists are right about the increasing droughts and floods and the knock-on effects to food supplies and so on? By comparison the risk of nuclear is negligible.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#342

Post by cinntaile »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #315
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…

This is a very common myth but fossil fuel plants did not take their place. Wind and solar did though. Both nuclear and fossil fuel plants are a smaller piece of the pie compared to when Fukushima happened and the Energiwende happened. [0]

[0] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...

Looks like the guy above me said the same thing, but at the time of writing it wasn't there yet.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#343

Post by nitrogen »

harles wrote: post #290
LatteLazy wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Having lived near a coal plant and coterie of oil refineries in the past, I will 100% agree that I'd take nuclear over coal in my backyard.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#344

Post by edhelas »

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.…

You're missing a real technical limitation there, it's often call "the night".

But eh, we will create some hydrogen-lithium batteries to store all this energy we need when we have "the night" (that seems to happen quite often).

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#345

Post by sva_ »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #315
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…

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

I like the idea of solar energy, but I also wonder about how safe it is to use. I'm thinking of events such as the 1815 volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora[0] which reportedly caused a "year without summer[1]".

Presumably, something like this would have a major impact on solar cell energy output, and if we'd significantly depended on solar, would have catastrophic consequences for our society. Unless, of course, I overestimate the effect that volcanic ash could have on solar cells.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#346

Post by svara »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #315
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…

> Germany went on a spree, dismantling their nuclear plants after being scared by Fukushima. Fossil fuel plants tool their place.

Not true. Renewables took their place. Nuclear wasn't a huge part of the mix before Fukushima either. The change immediately following 2011 wasn't very large, and much smaller than the power added by renewables. Lots of plots available to see for yourself at [0].

For some reason this story is told wrong in every single discussion on nuclear here on HN.

For the record, I actually agree that the decision to accelerate the shutdown of nuclear power was misguided, since it delayed the shutdown of coal power. It did not, however, lead to an expansion of fossil energy sources.

[0] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#347

Post by intricatedetail »

What's the point of COP26 if biggest polluters don't participate? If smaller countries take green measures, they'll force their bigger companies to move their factories to China or face bankruptcy and it's a certain death for SMEs. Unless there are real sanctions and worldwide ban, this is self defeating.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#348

Post by denton-scratch »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #341
denton-scratch wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue that concerns me about nuclear power isn't so much weapons (they tend to be well-guarded, and it's hard to make weapons from reactor fuel), but decomissioning. The UK was one of the first countries to build nuclear reactors; no UK reactor has ever been fully decomissioned, and from what I can see we haven't even got a strategy - WP says they're still working out whether decomissioning should occur over a 20…

What sort of world will your grandchildren inherit if we don’t invest in nuclear? What happens if the mystery renewable energy storage and carbon scrubbing technologies never materialize? What happens if the climate scientists are right about the increasing droughts and floods and the knock-on effects to food supplies and so on? By comparison the risk of nuclear is negligible.

> if we don’t invest in nuclear?

That depends. The trajectory we're on is one of unrestrained economic growth. In that scenario, demand for power will only increase. Growth has many other harmful effects, including ever-greater quantities of plastic waste, and depletion of natural resources like fish stocks and rainforests.

I have no idea how to tame growth. Most governments put growth near the top of their objectives. But I think it's growth that will blight my grandchildren's lives, not a shortage of electricity.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#350

Post by JoeAltmaier »

newacct583 wrote: post #245
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No longer true. New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive. If we can stop thinking in terms of a quarter century ago, we can finally get to that future we used to imagine.

> New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive. They've been "coming" since the 1960's. Start yelling about building stuff when they've arrived.

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210912-why-china-...

https://thoriumbaby.com/china-sees-thorium-breakthrough-in-g...

https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/updates/

Post reply on HN