Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

wsj.com

41–50 of 354 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#41
post #14

Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm

It is more expensive mostly because the government creates economic incentives for renewables, and disencentivises nuclear. Politicians act this way because public was taught by the militant ecoactivists that nuclear energy is baaaaaaad (better use coal, right), and now vote against politicians that support it.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#42

It is a shame that I see a title like this and my first thoughts are “who is paying for this article to be published” - is it genuinely someone with the right answer or an agenda - I would need to read the article then try to understand the particular points of view, instead I’ll do something else

A fair question to ask - about any opinion piece on any topic whatosever. You think solar/wind proponents are any less likely to be corrupt/intellectually dishonest/self-serving than oil, coal, or nuclear ones? Come on

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#43
post #14

Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm

See, you can't "believe in climate change" and be against the cleanest, most abundant energy source we have: nuclear. It's just not a logically consistent position, a litmus test to determine if one's environmental advocacy is real or merely performative.

That is why China has announced they're building 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years. The US will _inevitably_ have to follow suit to remain competitive.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#44

Realistically if we were going to go big on nuclear we needed to do so 30 years ago. In the UK at least, it takes decades for planning permission and more decades for design, build, commissioning, and finally entry of a reactor into operational service.

Why does it need to take decades to build something we already know how to do, assuming we're actually facing a dire climate catastrophe? Is it the case that we can't technically build nuclear plants in a few years time? Because I very much doubt that.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too late in what sense? The problems time out and solve themselves?

Renewables got cheaper to the point where it's not competitive Counter-argument: Wind and sun are unreliable Counter-counter-argument: Why not build 10x the amount of wind and solar if it's so cheap, and automatically break the circuit when not needed?

You can build even 100x the amount of solar, but the sun will set anyway.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#46
post #14

Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early... We need everything we have atm

Agreed.

Title should read "Was" not "Is".

We're out of time. We should have been building out nuclear for decades.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#48

It's interesting how research into nuclear tech has resulted in one thing that can get us all killed and one thing that can save us all from being killed.

Feynman, in "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out":

> The first way in which science is of value is familiar to everyone. It is that scientific knowledge enables us to do all kinds of things and to make all kinds of things. Of course if we make good things, it is not only to the credit of science; it is also to the credit of the moral choice which led us to good work. Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad — but it does not carry instructions on how to use it. Such power has evident value — even though the power may be negated by what one does.

> I learned a way of expressing this common human problem on a trip to Honolulu. In a Buddhist temple there, the man in charge explained a little bit about the Buddhist religion for tourists, and then ended his talk by telling them he had something to say to them that they would never forget — and I have never forgotten it. It was a proverb of the Buddhist religion: “To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.”

> What, then, is the value of the key to heaven? It is true that if we lack clear instructions that determine which is the gate to heaven and which the gate to hell, the key may be a dangerous object to use, but it obviously has value. How can we enter heaven without it? The instructions, also, would be of no value without the key. So it is evident that, in spite of the fact that science could produce enormous horror in the world, it is of value because it can produce something.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#49
post #6

We can't build reactors fast enough. And electricity is only a part of what generates emissions. It's no where close to a solution. Looking up the world's energy numbers, how much of total energy production and emissions are from electricity, how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant, how many nuclear power plants are built per year etc. will show you this.

^ This. Also, It's the Wall Street Journal, so consider the source, its own by Rupert Murdoch, whose media companies, until very recently were climate change deniers, so from a rather crude sort of climate denialism, they will likely move to supporting technical "climate fixes" spruiked by the fossil fuel industries. This is a more subtle way of sabotaging real climate action.

So building new nuclear power plants, expanding carbon capture technology, and planting more trees are not real climate action?

What exactly is real climate action? Hoping that renewables and batter technology can scale up to completely decarbonize energy use?

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#50
I'd be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper, that's what's going to get built.

Also, renewables don't require a high degree of trust in the human operators to manage risks appropriately. I think that's really the main sticking point with nuclear; reliable reactors can be made, but how do you manage the humans who maintain the plants in a way that's not susceptible to corruption or corner-cutting?

If nuclear can be made to handle more of our energy needs for a reasonable cost, then that's a good thing, and if it can be made cheaper by updating regulations without sacrificing safety, then I think that would be awesome. But I think we should plan for the future under the assumption that most of our energy will come from renewables. That's the lowest-risk plan that doesn't require major regulatory changes or new technology. (Apparently there are also some major lithium iron phosphate patents that are expired or expiring soon, which should open up cheap battery manufacturing to companies outside of China.)

Post reply on HN