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

41–50 of 76 posts

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

#41

Post by kennend3 »

loopback_device wrote: post #38
kennend3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? How much energy was delivered to the cask when a rocket powered train hit it at 84 mph? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 How much radioactive material was released? Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? if you go back in time the amount of U235 increases. Go ba…

> Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools. Not sure how the minuscule amount of time the rods spend in there during transport is relevant here? > Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? Yes, also not sure h…

> Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools.

It is just a set of changing goalposts isnt it? what is wrong with storage pools? they are safe and secure inside the power plant. Most plants are protected by armed guards. The plant near me has signs on the fence warning that "deadly force is authorized to protect the plant". Is your new issue that the "pools" are dangerous because ...?

> Yes, also not sure how that's relevant here? It's not like we built them... Background radiation is a thing, and life has adapted to it. A nuclear accident that ends up high enough on the International Nuclear Event Scale however is something you're not going to adapt to.

This makes little sense. First, who is taking about "background radiation"? Next, it is extremely relevant. your position is the long-term storage of the radioactive waste is a problem.

So, when earth created its own U235 + Moderator nuclear fission reactor, where is the waste from this? All over the earth? within 10CM of where it was created?

Earths "natural reactor" ran on the same principle as modern reactors.. Enrich U235 + water (US design) or unenriched U235 + "heavy water" (Canadian design).

Enrichment is needed because there is too little U235 left these days. As i said, if you go back in time the amount of U235 increases and it reached the point enrichment is no longer needed.

Both result in the fission of U235 and create radioactive byproducts which need to be stored.

It seems "mother nature" was capable of storing "radioactive waste" all on its own, yet we cant do this because ...?

"fukushima" and "Chernobyl".. Everyone loves these as the textbook case study in reactor design? what about the millions of hours of run time from all the other reactors? Darlington Nuclear won an award for 1,000 days without interruption. Solar going to run 24x7 for 1,000 days? Wind?

if we shutdown all reactors, what will you us to power whatever device you are currently using? Wind? Solar? you cant seriously propose these sources can supply enough power can you?

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

#42

Post by ncmncm »

kennend3 wrote: post #22
ncmncm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It costs more to operate nukes than renewables, even neglecting the staggering capital expenditure nukes cost. As a result, existing nukes will be mothballed as they become unable to sell power at a price that enables them to continue operating. Financing to build new ones is already prohibitive, except under government coercion.

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

#43

Post by dang »

treeman79 wrote: post #10
ncmncm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

We've had to warn you about this kind of thing more than once in the past.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

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

#44

Post by loopback_device »

kennend3 wrote: post #41
loopback_device wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools. Not sure how the minuscule amount of time the rods spend in there during transport is relevant here? > Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? Yes, also not sure h…

> Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools. It is just a set of changing goalposts isnt it? what is wrong with storage pools? they are safe and secure inside the power plant. Most plants are protected by armed guards. The plant near me has signs on the fence warning that "deadly force is authorized to protect the plant". Is your new issue that the "po…

> It is just a set of changing goalposts isnt it?

Was just answering your question – it wasn't me who brought up the transport castors. Quite to the contrary, I initially wrote "[...] concerns with this stuff are not necessarily about the short term storage [...]".

> This makes little sense. First, who is taking about "background radiation"?

There's only few locations known where natural reactors formed, they were only a few centimeters in size, and were active a billion years ago. They've long gone through the main part of their decay cycle. The remainder would be considered elevated background radiation. The reason we know they were or are there is because the products of decay are still where they formed, in the rock. Not scattered around the globe. Probably not safe to cuddle with regardless. Mother nature does not give a fuck, which is why it doesn't matter.

Further, these natural reactors are not known to go critical and obliterate a city. And even if they did, that might have been millions to billions of years ago, I'm sure we weren't there to be worried about it.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are good examples not necessarily because of their reactor design, but for the understanding of risks, their mitigation, and ultimately their catastrophic failure. Also because they're the few examples that exist, thankfully we do not have more of them.

The countless hours of safe operation of nuclear power plants also does not magically offset the danger in their failures, which does not have to be – but can be – extremely catastrophic. The fact that there's an award for running a hideously dangerous machine for 3 years without it becoming more dangerous than ideal does not make it sound any better.

And yes, photovoltaic (solar) runs perfectly fine for even a decade nonstop (see almost every house in Europe with solar on their roof) – in the case of the International Space Station – for 23 years, and counting. Bonus: a panel failure does not mean you get to die.

> Wind? Solar? you cant seriously propose these sources can supply enough power can you?

Uhm, yes, believe it or not, that stuff does work. Obviously not at the moment on a country level, because we've been busy burning coal everywhere instead of investing in energy sources that make sense decades ago, but that's where we need to go.

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

#45

Post by loopback_device »

kennend3 wrote: post #41
loopback_device wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools. Not sure how the minuscule amount of time the rods spend in there during transport is relevant here? > Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? Yes, also not sure h…

> Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools. It is just a set of changing goalposts isnt it? what is wrong with storage pools? they are safe and secure inside the power plant. Most plants are protected by armed guards. The plant near me has signs on the fence warning that "deadly force is authorized to protect the plant". Is your new issue that the "po…

> Most plants are protected by armed guards. The plant near me has signs on the fence warning that "deadly force is authorized to protect the plant". Is your new issue that the "pools" are dangerous because ...?

The pools aren't dangerous by themselves – I was alluding to some nuclear power plants in Ukraine seeing quite heavy fighting [1]. That's the kind of situation where your armed guards are not present to protect it from nosey civilians.

[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/12/europe/ukraine-zaporizhzh...

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

#46

Post by kennend3 »

ncmncm wrote: post #42
kennend3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It costs more to operate nukes than renewables, even neglecting the staggering capital expenditure nukes cost. As a result, existing nukes will be mothballed as they become unable to sell power at a price that enables them to continue operating. Financing to build new ones is already prohibitive, except under government coercion.

Odd.. because this is NOT what took place here (Ontario) where our government pushed us to near-bankruptcy debt by signing long-term contracts to build "green energy". it cost them an election, and many years later the party responsible for those decisions (among others) have yet to gain "party status".

Can you show us any "renewables" that were not government subsidized as well?

https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/2021-commercial-....

Seems "renweables" love the government subsidy bandagon as well?

Speaking of "government coercion" - this is exactly how Ontario got green energy in the first place.

First they mandated it, then they forced people to accept the wind farms despite their numerous protests.

take a read: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-wind-power-opponents-prot...

As i posted above, no matter the power source, you can be 100% confident NIMBY will be there to protest it.

In Ontario, the cost to generate power is :

- Hydroelectric (5cents)

- Wind (8.6 cents)

- Solar (15.7 cents)

- Nuclear (16.5 cents).

Added bonus, nuclear produces power 24x7, when it is raining or cloudy, when we have a heat wave and zero winds.. in the cold dark winter nights...

If renewables are such a good deal, why is there so little of it?

As i posted, Ontario gets 59% of its power from nuclear, 5% from wind and 1% from solar...

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

#47

Post by EricE »

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?

Waste handling? Burn it in newer, modern designs instead of (stupidly) burying it.

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

#48

Post by EricE »

loopback_device wrote: post #31
kennend3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People like me don't think they produce massive amounts of waste. I am well aware how "little" waste material they produce. The issue is not the volume, but that you only need very little of it to completely deny a large area to living organisms like us for a very long time . Also, the on site storage facilities for spent fuel are only temporary holding pools until it goes off to a treatment facility, to then either…

again, the reason that stuff is so dangerous is because it's packed with delicious and useful energy (that can be utilized by plenty of reactor designs that were fleshed out in the 50's!) That we are still talking about burying useful fuel as if we are being rational is the real issue here!

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

#49

Post by EricE »

loopback_device wrote: post #40
rekabis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>waste handling is still not a solved problem Yes, yes it is. 1. There are a number of sites that have the geological stability and impermeability for long term storage. 2. Thorium reactors can take nuclear waste products and re-process them down (along side their standard thorium fuel) into “radioactive waste” that only needs a century or two of minimal safe storage before it’s harmless. 3. Modern _non-breeder_ reac…

> 1. There are a number of sites that have the geological stability and impermeability for long term storage. And yet, not one of them has been developed into a storage facility so far. Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32471115 – having prospective storage sites that look nice and stable is great and all, just not the current reality, and likely also not a near-future reality. > 2. Thorium reactors can…

Better hope China doesn't do more than build a test reactor. Cheap and abundant energy is what built the west. China is poised to severely lap the rest of the world while we continue to point fingers and argue :p

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

#50

Post by EricE »

ttfkam wrote: post #28
loopback_device wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It still can't come from solar or wind. Even if we waved a magic wand and had infinite and free energy storage, scaling solar and wind for sustained base load support is still a pipe dream. We are struggling to recycle the minuscule waste stream for solar and wind right now. Heck for wind turbine blades we aren't even really doing anything meaningful - meanwhile they are stacking up.

Without nuclear we are not getting off of fossil fuels - period.

Post reply on HN