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

51–60 of 76 posts

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

#51

Post by EricE »

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.

>It costs more to operate nukes than renewables

Citation needed.

Also most of the prohibitive costs surrounding nuclear are artificial - bureaucratic overhead vs. real costs governed by implementing the technology.

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

#52

Post by EricE »

ceph_ wrote: post #26
exabrial wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yucca mountain failed due to politics.

Whats even more nuts is we should be burning what we erroneously call "waste", not burying it. Why is it dangerous? Because it's packed full of energy! Energy that could be put to use, instead of burying in the ground. It's beyond idiotic.

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

#53

Post by EricE »

cinntaile wrote: post #21
daniel-cussen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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+ year…

What are you going about with new plants? If the just turned back on the plants they stupidly turned off that would make a HUGE dent in their current predicament.

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

#54

Post by EricE »

loopback_device wrote: post #45
kennend3 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 prote…

Many hospitals have enough radioactive isotopes to create some really nasty dirty bombs - yet you never see the same level of discussion around physical security for them; perhaps because most people don't realize just how frequently radioactive isotopes are used for things other than nuclear power? The constant demonization of nuclear power has lead to this pathological loathing that is really shooting us all in the foot.

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

#55

Post by loopback_device »

EricE wrote: post #54
loopback_device wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 prote…

Many hospitals have enough radioactive isotopes to create some really nasty dirty bombs - yet you never see the same level of discussion around physical security for them; perhaps because most people don't realize just how frequently radioactive isotopes are used for things other than nuclear power? The constant demonization of nuclear power has lead to this pathological loathing that is really shooting us all in the…

Hospitals don't usually cause a radioactive disaster if bombed into oblivion – and are also not valid military targets as per Geneva Conventions.

Radioactive isotopes used in medicine have significantly shorter half-lives than the isotopes found in fuel rods. I'm sure you can get something nasty done with them if you wanted to, and there are also enough incidents in that field, but it's not really comparable?

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

#56

Post by mattjenner »

UK Government is discussing billions of £ to help people this winter. One Winter. I say invest in renewable tech + atomic energy and just get on with it.

The problem is that's a multi year plan and governments like the UK right now can't see past September, then 2024, then whatever short term deadline's around the corner. It's pathetic.

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

#57

Post by stefantalpalaru »

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#58

Post by yrgulation »

mattjenner wrote: post #56

UK Government is discussing billions of £ to help people this winter. One Winter. I say invest in renewable tech + atomic energy and just get on with it. The problem is that's a multi year plan and governments like the UK right now can't see past September, then 2024, then whatever short term deadline's around the corner. It's pathetic.

There are also these:

https://www.ft.com/content/11ca7193-f7d8-496f-bb90-d3270b2cf...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-fund-to-accele...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-62038190

But i do agree more can be done.

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

#59

Post by yrgulation »

kennend3 wrote: post #29
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?

The assumption was that russia wont go against germany, because worse case scenario they will just share east europe. Didnt go as planned as the us and uk stepped in and called their bluff.
Post reply on HN