Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear energy is clean

collectifission.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 709 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#311

Post by [deleted] »

kova12 wrote: post #84
Flankk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power plants create large amounts of waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years. In the United States, most nuclear waste is stored on site at the plant. This is because there is simply nowhere else to put it. Uranium is a natural material and will eventually run out, much like fossil fuels. In other words, cross nuclear off the list of sustainable energy. Solar energy would be the most obvious sust…

Pretty much each statement in your post is incorrect. Nuclear plants produce tiny amount of waste, which we know what to deal with. Amount of fuel if you count thorium is enough for many millennia. And solar can not possibly replace other forms of energy production, not in a state it's in. I don't know why you are spewing misinformation, but you are clearly not going to solve climate crisis with that attitude

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#312

Post by cycomanic »

MisterMower wrote: post #226
m2fkxy wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need the very fastest ways to reduce carbon generation Why does Germany performs abysmally wrt. electrical production carbon intensity despite having enough wind/solar installed capacity to cover their consumption?

Yeah, it’s nice how he just glosses over the impact of subsidies for wind and solar. We could power the whole grid with wood stoves and steam turbines with big enough subsidies. The fact that a heavily subsidized energy production method outperforms a heavily regulated and unsubsidized one shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.

It glosses over that because nuclear has received much more subsidies than wind and solar combined. This is only direct subsidies, so ignoring the cost for the covering the risk of an accident (no insurance is willing to cover that risk) for Fukushima the government covered the cleanup and evacuation bill.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#313

Post by nl »

jcfrei wrote: post #146
purerandomness wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we communicate to civilisations in the future what we did in that mountain?

Is this a serious concern? That there will be some kind of civilization in 10000 years that: 1) has lost all records of current generations 2) doesn't know about nuclear waste disposal sites and radioactivity 3) is still advanced enough to dig several hundred meters into hard rock 4) for no discernible reason digs up the entire waste disposal site and then what? contaminates their excavation crew?

> Is this a serious concern?

Yes.

See The art of the 10,000-year warning[1] and the full Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory Across Generations report[2].

Other proposed solutions include: the breeding of so-called "radiation cats" or "ray cats". Cats have a long history of cohabitation with humans, and this approach assumes that their domestication will continue indefinitely. These radiation cats would change significantly in color when they came near radioactive emissions and serve as living indicators of danger.[3]

[1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-416/the-art-of-the-10000yea...

[2] https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15088

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#314

Post by Flankk »

otikik wrote: post #54
Flankk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power plants create large amounts of waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years. In the United States, most nuclear waste is stored on site at the plant. This is because there is simply nowhere else to put it. Uranium is a natural material and will eventually run out, much like fossil fuels. In other words, cross nuclear off the list of sustainable energy. Solar energy would be the most obvious sust…

Large amounts of low radioactive waste that is safe to discard in 1 year. The highly radioactive waste that lasts thousands of years is actually quite small.

> The U.S. produces as much as 160,000 cubic feet (4,530 cubic meters) of radioactive material from its nuclear power plants annually. [1]

> The Energy Department has a backlog of nuclear waste clean up responsibilities, with material dating back to World War II. [2]

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-let... [2] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/05/ener...

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#315

Post by Flankk »

RaitoBezarius wrote: post #52
Flankk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power plants create large amounts of waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years. In the United States, most nuclear waste is stored on site at the plant. This is because there is simply nowhere else to put it. Uranium is a natural material and will eventually run out, much like fossil fuels. In other words, cross nuclear off the list of sustainable energy. Solar energy would be the most obvious sust…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#316

Post by cycomanic »

MisterMower wrote: post #229
desindol wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one more reactor goes down nuclear isn’t either in your country. Germany has to run their load balancing gas plants right now to fix your nuclear fever dreams.

And what is the probability of a reactor going down unexpectedly versus a weather event that causes renewable sources to stop producing? I think we learned the answer to that question last winter down in Texas.

France currently runs its nuclear plants at 60% due to maintanance and heat. In the last years the amount of times they had to shut down a nuclear power plant due to to warm cooling water has increased. Given where global warming is going that will happen more and more.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#317

Post by Flankk »

kova12 wrote: post #84
Flankk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power plants create large amounts of waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years. In the United States, most nuclear waste is stored on site at the plant. This is because there is simply nowhere else to put it. Uranium is a natural material and will eventually run out, much like fossil fuels. In other words, cross nuclear off the list of sustainable energy. Solar energy would be the most obvious sust…

Pretty much each statement in your post is incorrect. Nuclear plants produce tiny amount of waste, which we know what to deal with. Amount of fuel if you count thorium is enough for many millennia. And solar can not possibly replace other forms of energy production, not in a state it's in. I don't know why you are spewing misinformation, but you are clearly not going to solve climate crisis with that attitude

No post body was provided.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#318

Post by cycomanic »

ekianjo wrote: post #79
lioeters wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nuclear accidents are almost entirely hypothetical Nothing to see here. > Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima nuclear disaster (2011), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), the Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).

This is the same tiring argument - using plane crashes to say that flying is unsafe, because it makes headlines once a crash happens, while tens of thousands of people die every year on the roads. But hey, diffuse deaths, nobody cares about it. So the anti-nuclear guys keeping point at the same list of 3-4 incidents time and time again, unable to recognize the ridiculousness and weakness of their argument - and the f…

Actually, your comparison between planes and cars is quite adapt. The airline industry likes to use death per km as a measure and you are correct they come out very safe with that measure. However, experts have argued that it is a very flawed metric because of the vary different distances covered by both means and the way risk is distributed (i.e. for flying the risk is almost entirely in the starti g and landing phase, while for a drive it is evenly distributed over the trip). If you use a metric like deaths per hour flying does not look so much more safe that driving actually (essentially the same as driving) [1]

[1] https://observer.com/1998/03/driving-versus-flying-the-debat... couldn't find a more up to date source

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#319

Post by replygirl »

pfdietz wrote: post #244
m2fkxy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What large scale energy storage systems are in operation today, or even ready to be rolled out? I quote myself under another of your comment: > Why does Germany performs abysmally wrt. electrical production carbon intensity despite having enough wind/solar installed capacity to cover their consumption?

Grid connected batteries are being installed all over the place. And now hydrogen storage is being rolled out too. The hydrogen storage project in Delta, Utah could ultimately (when the salt formation there is fully utilized) store enough hydrogen to supply the entire US average grid power demand for 30 hours. BTW, electrolyzers from China are now being sold to the international market for $0.30/W. Their prices are c…

the delta project is primarily a natural gas plant for the next 25 years, btw

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#320

Post by [deleted] »

cycomanic wrote: post #289

This article perfectly exemplifies the arguments in discussions. Lets just concentrate on the waste discussion. The article says heavy metals in solar panels are a problem (I kind of agree, although the way it is described makes it out like we are talking about huge amounts, in reality the lead in solar panels is largely from soldering so very small amounts. Orders of magnitude more are being used for other applicati…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN