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

Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#21

Post by cinntaile »

daniel-cussen wrote: post #15
dimensionc132 wrote: post #5

Don't tell that to the Germans. They would rather have rolling blackouts than go back to nuclear.

They think they would rather have rolling blackouts than go back to nuclear. Realistically it's the factory leaving town because the electricity economics went from awesome to terrible overnight, that cheap Kay-double-you-aich (kilowatt-hour) left the Old Country and might never come back. Keep in mind these Germans, German Germans in Germany, have been selected by migration to the Americas (and Tanganika, the Caroli…

> Dream sweet dreams of solar panels solving all your problems while you shiver and shake, suck up those blackouts while living on unemployment insurance, and maintain a positive attitude.

When you go off on a rant, you should at least know that they do most of their heating using gas and not electricity.

You should also realize that new nuclear can't help them with the troubles they have right now, it takes 15+ years to plan and build those things. What they can do is keep the current plants online a while longer and there is support for that. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Wide-public-supp...

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#22

Post by kennend3 »

ncmncm wrote: post #6
melling wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong. Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait. Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change. https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate…

After 60 years perhaps the nuke-boosters can admit that nukes were never a good idea. They have always depended on massive public subsidy to appear competitive. Now nukes are radically more expensive than alternatives even neglecting the massive subsidies. Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.

Time will tell... My province (Ontario) use to have one of the largest coal plants in the world (Nanticoke 3964 MW).

It was finally shutdown and now most of our power is "green" 59% from nuclear, 24% from hydroelectricity, 8% from wind, and 1% from solar.

Curious.. if "solar" and "wind" are so great why is Nuclear producing 59% of our energy? Perhaps because our climate isnt great for solar (dark winters)?

No matter the energy source, NIMBY will be there to protest.

when we built wind farms the protesters claimed it "made them sick"?? "Wind turbines making us sick: Protesters"

When we built solar, they protested that too: "Solar project demonstration in Tay Township"

Everyone LOVES the convenience of power, as long as the generation is not near them?

I live within 10KM of a rather large (3,100 MW) nuclear plant, i have no issues with it as it is cleaner vs most sources and delivers reliable power.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#23

Post by loopback_device »

melling wrote: post #3
loopback_device wrote: post #2

And the cape is made out of run dry riverbeds of cooling water. Not to mention that waste handling is still not a solved problem, but sure, let's put all our eggs into a single danger-basket of extinction (again) - what could possibly go wrong?

After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong. Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait. Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change. https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate…

Where does this idea that the anti-nuclear movement advocated for fossil fuels come from?

That's never been the case, as anyone who lived at the time of the early protests can tell you (or anyone who's parents did). Even Wikipedia has a whole section on that topic [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Nuclear-...

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#24

Post by kennend3 »

mnw21cam wrote: post #11
loopback_device wrote: post #2

And the cape is made out of run dry riverbeds of cooling water. Not to mention that waste handling is still not a solved problem, but sure, let's put all our eggs into a single danger-basket of extinction (again) - what could possibly go wrong?

Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear. Regarding the waste, I'd much rather have the very small amount of nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power station kept somewhere nice and safe than the humongous amount of waste that coal and gas produce and spew out into our atmosphere. A coal power station releases more radioactive waste than a nuclear one. Even the renewables pro…

This!

People like the person you responded to seem to think nuclear power plants are producing tons of high level waste per day.

Fact is most of the used fuel for the operating reactors are safely stored ON SITE because there is actually very little "radioactive waste".

If not for NIMBY disposing the waste would be fairly straightforward. were i live (canada) we have the "canadian shield" which contains rocks as old as 4 billion years.

If we stored super-scary-plutonium there it would remain sealed long enough that all the plutonium would safely decay away.

But the NIMBY state - "it isn't stable, it isn't safe, how do you now it will remain stable". Where exactly is all that rock going? why would it suddenly do this when it has remained in place for a few billion years so far?

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#25

Post by ttfkam »

pb060 wrote: post #19

> Those three world-famous accidents killed fewer than 80 people in total. Take away Chernobyl, and it's probably one. That sounds oversimplified and biased, and makes a potentially good article unreliable to my eyes. It doesn’t count people who have died as a result of radiation exposure, doesn’t mention the Chernobyl exclusion zone, the radioactive cloud, all the health issues that it has caused, etc.

Does it mention that ZERO non-Soviet municipal power reactors were built with graphite moderation, willful withholding of critical information from those managing the power plant, and folks ready to run a "safety test" that was reckless on its face to laymen let alone nuclear engineers?

This isn't even like judging all cars based upon the safety of a 1970s Ford Pinto. This is like judging the safety of all modern production electric cars on the safety record of F1 race cars in the 1970s.

Also bear in mind that health tracking in the exclusion zone and surrounding areas was only published after Chernobyl. We have no idea what the baseline was prior to the event in that part of the Soviet Union (and may never know).

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#26

Post by ceph_ »

exabrial wrote: post #13
loopback_device wrote: post #2

And the cape is made out of run dry riverbeds of cooling water. Not to mention that waste handling is still not a solved problem, but sure, let's put all our eggs into a single danger-basket of extinction (again) - what could possibly go wrong?

For FUCKS SAKE: Nuclear waste is a non issue. You dedicate once, EXACTLY ONE, swimming pool to store spent fuel for an entire country. The lie of nuclear waste has been repeated so many time by uneducated fossil fuel lovers we’ve missed hundreds of opportunities to provide clean sustainable power for generations. There are some logistic and construction problems that need optimization, but waste is the least of them.

You are vastly over simplifying this problem. If it was that simple why did yucca mountain fail? It's not. Realistically every nuclear facility is gonna be a waste storage site for thousands of years. That's not being factored into the cost.

Having one nuclear waste dump site per country means transporting nuclear waste to that site by truck or train. Good luck when there's an accident.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#27

Post by jjk166 »

loopback_device wrote: post #23
melling wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong. Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait. Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change. https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate…

Where does this idea that the anti-nuclear movement advocated for fossil fuels come from? That's never been the case, as anyone who lived at the time of the early protests can tell you (or anyone who's parents did). Even Wikipedia has a whole section on that topic [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Nuclear-...

The members of the anti-nuclear movement didn't intend to advocate for fossil fuels, but in practice that's exactly what they did. When the choice is between a nuclear plant and a coal plant, being anti nuclear is being pro coal. That's why many organizations opposing nuclear power received substantial donations from the fossil fuel industry - because they wanted their opponents to fight amongst themselves.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#28

Post by ttfkam »

loopback_device wrote: post #23
melling wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong. Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait. Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change. https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate…

Where does this idea that the anti-nuclear movement advocated for fossil fuels come from? That's never been the case, as anyone who lived at the time of the early protests can tell you (or anyone who's parents did). Even Wikipedia has a whole section on that topic [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Nuclear-...

Everyone wants the lights and heat to stay on. If that isn't coming from nuclear, it has to come from somewhere, and for the first several decades, it couldn't come from solar and wind.

Coal was the inevitable base load power source given a lack of alternatives. If you focus on limiting nuclear with far greater zeal than coal, this is the result.

See: perfect is the enemy of good.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#29

Post by kennend3 »

dimensionc132 wrote: post #5

Don't tell that to the Germans. They would rather have rolling blackouts than go back to nuclear.

One of my kids is a nuclear physicist and finds the German situation funny.

- Shutdown clean running nuclear power because of panic over "Fukushima" - CHECK

- Become dependent on a foreign country with a deep history of issues for your energy needs- CHECK

what could go wrong?

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#30

Post by jamil7 »

dimensionc132 wrote: post #5

Don't tell that to the Germans. They would rather have rolling blackouts than go back to nuclear.

There is a strong anti-nuclear sentiment here but the issues facing Germany are more to do with political incompetence and underinvestment. Nuclear is just one part of the whole mess.
Post reply on HN