Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#101

Post by xcskier56 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:54 AM UTC

hedora wrote: post #70

ekianjo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> d be fine with more nuclear power plants, but if wind/solar plus batteries are cheaper Cost is not just a single factor. Energy density is very important too. Solar farms take huge amounts of space to produce very little energy compared to a nuclear plant.

Also, solar apparently pollutes a heck of a lot more than nuclear. It’s still > 100x better than fossil fuels, and I’m still putting some on my roof, but the figures in the article are surprising.

Citation please

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#102

Post by dave333 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:55 AM UTC

Haven't read the paywalled article but the idea that nuclear is clean compared to coal is ridiculous as evidenced by Chernobyl and Fukushima and Three Mile Island and Windscale. Nuclear pollution is about 1 trillion trillion times worse than coal and is sufficiently common - roughly one major nuclear accident per decade to be non-negligible. It's not safe to assume nuclear power is getting safer when terrorism and nations that sponsor terrorists are getting worse.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#103

Post by cinntaile » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:55 AM UTC

mrjangles wrote: post #78

elihu wrote: post #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 corru…

Solar, wind plus batteries (and other intermittent sources) are only cheaper because it is subsidized by the base power stations. Only about 20% of the cost of coal and 5% of nuclear comes from the fuel. Almost all costs are fixed costs. They need to be paid regardless of whether people use the power or not. But in the current system, those who use solar or wind and only use base power occasionally aren't paying thos…

What costs aren't being paid for exactly?

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#104

Post by Godel_unicode » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #76

godelski wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand from these groups is why they don't go after nuclear _after_ coal, natural gas, and oil are gone from the grid. There are arguments against nuclear, but they aren't that great when there are still fossil fuel plants operating. Also, a pet peeve of mine is when people say "replacing nuclear with zero-carbon sources" (as per the wiki article). That doesn't exist. There's energy sources that have…

Russia essentially has Europe right where it wants it with natural gas because Europe is closing all their coal plants. I really don't want that in the USA. I want us to be domestic energy only, nuclear, solar, and wind mix makes the most sense by far until real Fusion comes along if we are really serious about the climate.

There are lots of good arguments for nuclear, but considering that the US is the number one producer of natural gas (by, like, 50%) this isn't one of them.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#105

Post by UncleOxidant » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

arberx wrote: post #55

TheDudeMan wrote: post #9

California is prematurely closing its perfectly good nuclear reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Clos...

It's near two fault lines... "Though it was built less than a mile from the Shoreline fault line, which was not known to exist at the time of construction, and is located less than three miles from the Hosgri fault,"

So it probably wasn't constructed with proximity to a fault in mind. Still, just about everyplace in California is near a fault line.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#106

Post by ironmagma » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:57 AM UTC

lizknope wrote: post #89

Does the US really need more electricity generation? Electricity use is stable or even dropping although 2020 may be an outlier. Electric cars will change this though. At a personal level I use significantly less electricity now compared to 15 years ago. HVAC replacement, insulation upgrades, computer and consumer electronics power reductions, lowered my summer electric bill by 40% https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a…

It’s good to have too much capacity, rather than just the right amount, as Texas learned during last winter.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#107

Post by hilbert42 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:57 AM UTC

lizknope wrote: post #89

Does the US really need more electricity generation? Electricity use is stable or even dropping although 2020 may be an outlier. Electric cars will change this though. At a personal level I use significantly less electricity now compared to 15 years ago. HVAC replacement, insulation upgrades, computer and consumer electronics power reductions, lowered my summer electric bill by 40% https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a…

"I use significantly less electricity now compared to 15 years ago."

You're lucky.

Often the more financially well off one is the easier it is to introduce energy efficiencies. Many poorer people are handicapped by the cost of house repairs, insulation upgrades, window double glazing, etc. Moreover, the condition of their houses are more likely to be in a worse state in respect of necessary maintenance, this further reduces their starting base. The same situation will also apply to their motor vehicles, they'll be the last to convert to electric cars, etc.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#108

Post by ashtonkem » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

lizknope wrote: post #89

Does the US really need more electricity generation? Electricity use is stable or even dropping although 2020 may be an outlier. Electric cars will change this though. At a personal level I use significantly less electricity now compared to 15 years ago. HVAC replacement, insulation upgrades, computer and consumer electronics power reductions, lowered my summer electric bill by 40% https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a…

Yes, huge amounts of it. Aside from electrified transport, there’s also a lot of industrial processes that use natural gas for direct heating. We need a lot of extra electricity generation to cover these cases. Some of these can be shifted when renewables are overproducing, others cannot.

Our grid literally cannot handle the demand that electrifying transit and industry would create.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#109

Post by manicdee » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: post #97

jyounker wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blackouts are because of fire-risk from transmission lines, and this is largely because PGE paid out bonuses instead of paying for needed repairs to the transmission system. This group of corrupt execs are the same people entrusted to make safety and maintenance decisions for Diablo Canyon.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/corporations/pacific-gas-el... "PG&E paid top execs $17 million in bonuses from 2012 to 2017" You really think 17 million would have made a difference? Is that enough money to even bury 1 mile of transmission lines at Californian's exorbitant infrastructure cost?

Why bury when all those lines needed was replacement of worn parts? Burying power cables is expensive and increases maintenance costs an order of magnitude.

Much cheaper to replace hooks that are worn through so the cables don’t fall off the tower and start a fire.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#110

Post by weatherlight » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #49

weatherlight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ 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?

Investing in less CO2 intensive building technologies. (The carbon dioxide emissions from the production of concrete are so high that if concrete were a country, it would be the third-largest emitter of CO2 behind China and the United States.)The central ingredient in concrete is cement, which is made by crushing limestone and clay and adding iron ore or ash. The mixture is heated in a kiln to more than 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit, a process that consumes vast quantities of fossil fuel.

When heated, the calcium carbonate in limestone breaks into calcium oxide and carbon dioxide, which is released into the air. The calcium oxide is ground with limestone and gypsum to make cement.

Half of the CO2 emissions in the production of concrete come from the reaction that breaks up the calcium carbonate and the other half from the fossil fuels required to heat the kilns and transport the materials.

Things we should also consider. Getting rid of cars. Investment in mass International and intranational public transit.

Meat alternatives that require less physical space. reining in massive fishing fleets (half the oxygen and half the carbon captured comes from the ecological systems in the ocean which we ravage) Invest in renewable energy, like tidal, solar, geothermal, etc

Even if we were to go 100% nuclear tomorrow (which just isn't possible, we'd (the entirety of earth) would run out of nuclear fuel in 90 years), that would account for about 1/4 the carbon emissions of the planet per year.

Climate change is more than just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's about how we as a species, integrate with the rest of the species on this planet.