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

I changed my mind about nuclear waste

zionlights.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#351

Post by Krssst »

AlanSE wrote: post #81
legitster wrote: post #31

I'm all for fighting the good fight on this, but I'm also a realist: consumer sentiment isn't going to change much. People on the extremes will still fight to the nails on MSG, Flouride in water, GMO, etc. But the median person doesn't really care where their power comes from when they hit a switch so long as it's cheap. If we want any serious progress on Nuclear you need regulators with authority to ignore organized…

I don't know if I agree with the "organized civilian protestation" entirely. While NIMBY did play a role historically, this seems out-of-touch when I consider the mothballed & troubled builds which are currently in South Carolina. I do believe regulators have their foot on the brakes, and there are some really telling stories from people in the actual industry. The level of paperwork and scrutiny are hard to fathom f…

> Solar is modular, proven, and roaring.

Nuclear has been proven in France for decades. I've yet to see a medium-sized country with solar as the backbone of electricity production.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#352

Post by Krssst »

wirrbel wrote: post #117
rayiner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

> Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. You would have thought that France would have supplied the European continent with electricity now that Russia cut its gas supply, but it turns out that France received electricity from…

Covid maintenance postponed + corrosion issues led to this bad timing; otherwise looks like it worked pretty well for decades.

France closed a working-order nuclear plant for political reasons just two years before, so we're not making exactly the brightest decisions here either.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#353

Post by Krssst »

shortcake27 wrote: post #289
goatlover wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it will be possible by 2050 to go full renewable?

By using elementary grade extrapolation. Right now in 2023 there are multiple countries generating over 90% of electricity from renewables.

Which ones? Are we talking 90%, an the entire year, without creative accounting?

Disregarding electric dams because, while wonderful, those depend heavily on the country geography and I assume a lot of countries cannot build enough of them. (but we should build as much as we can of those, just don't expect 50% hydroelectricity everywhere)

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#354

Post by anonymouskimmer »

concordDance wrote: post #300
wcerfgba wrote: post #238

> But radiation hasn’t harmed anywhere near as many people as fossil fuels. The implication with both this statement and the map is that we should be comparing the total number of people who died from radiation, and the total from fossil fuels, and see which is bigger, but there are other ways of evaluating (potential) harms. Nuclear power and other radtech is not equally common around the world, and neither are foss…

In deaths per KWh nuclear is king, with a thousandth of the deaths of gas and ten thousandth of coal. Until recently even solar was worse due to installers sometimes falling off roofs! E.g. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... I really do not understand why almost no one bothers to spend a couple of minutes looking up the actual numbers and analysis that people have been doing for decades..…

However rooftop solar reduces the need for a grid and grid maintenance. Are the deaths due to grid building and maintenance accounted for in these figures? It looks to be based on just production, not production plus distribution.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#355

Post by peteradio »

the_gastropod wrote: post #93
glitchc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her analysis is fundamentally flawed. For a stable energy source, it cannot be solar alone or wind alone. Rather it needs to be solar plus battery and wind plus battery. Let's factor in the costs of producing maintaining and environmentally disposing of those batteries and let's see how the numbers shake out, ceteris paribus of course.

Batteries aren't the only way to store energy. Here's a short list of other ways to store energy: - Pumped hydro: Use electricity now to pump water uphill. When power is needed, water is allowed to flow back downhill, powering a turbine to generate electricity. - Thermal storage: Heat up water or molten salt. This heat can be used directly later (e.g., use hot water for showers) or to power steam turbines to generate…

I love the idea of flywheels as storage. The failure modes would be outrageous, giant discs rolling at high speeds hundreds of miles across the landscape. Or exploding into huge smooth faced fragments and strewn for miles around leaving deep craters. Relatively benign compared to fiery or radioactive explosions, it would be almost funny to get killed by one.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#356

Post by Accujack »

denton-scratch wrote: post #334
Accujack wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Conflation" means (or at least implies) that one thing has been mistaken for the other. Yes, and the word is being used correctly here. >Nuclear reactors have been entwined with nuclear weapons production since the very beginning. No, they have not. While it's possible to get civilian power plants to produce (breed) nuclear materials, they aren't designed for it. Almost all weapons production at places like Savanna…

> Almost all weapons production at places like Savannah River and Hanford was done with purpose specific plants that created plutonium and U-235 by design. That's as may be. But Wikipedia says that the "civilian" Magnox reactors were indeed used to manufacture Plutonium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnox

There aren't any of that design operating any more, and no more will be built, so they're not a proliferation issue. That particular design could be used that way (and was by the UK) which is a major reason no more will be built.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#357

Post by Accujack »

whatshisface wrote: post #298
Accujack wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point - it's not that weapons reactors produce fundamentally leakier waste than civilian reactors, it's that the military has a long history of not disposing of dangerous chemicals the right way. It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too and a lot of bases and the areas around them are contaminated. No, it's a plain statement, not a "tactic". Power plant wast…

> Power plant waste is different from weapons waste, and disposing of power plant waste has never been a real problem. If power plant waste was handled as badly as weapons waste was historically, it would be a problem. That's all I am saying, really.

Yes, but that's irrelevant. If prescription drugs were handled as badly as weapons waste was historically, it would be a problem too.

Same for e.g. plastic waste, food waste, or just about anything else. Military developing weapons tends to make a mess, which is why most countries are trying to change that.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#358

Post by xp84 »

crote wrote: post #319
tcmart14 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, same issue with e-waste. It can be a pain to properly dispose of your broken 10 year old laptop. So many people don't do it. It just does in the trash can with everything else. Make it easy, people do it, minus a few edge case shitheads. But I'd rather 75 out of 100 people do it right and have 25 shit heads than 75 shit heads and 25 people doing it right.

Does your country not have recycling centers? Over here every municipality has a center where you can just hand in any domestic waste unsuitable for the trash can. It's a bit inconvenient because you have to go out of your way, but it is definitely quite doable. And electronics can be handed in at any store which sells electronics, which includes stores like the equivalent of Walmart or Home Depot. You'll be going th…

Recently I tried to figure out where to send a smashed TV. It was a 50”. Typically they barely sell any TVs smaller than that in the US these days. Best Buy won’t take any TVs for recycling if it’s over a certain screen size. Mine is too big. Once a year or something the town does a e-waste drop off. I’ll have to borrow a car big enough to fit this thing. It’s no wonder so many people toss them in a dumpster.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#359

Post by AlanSE »

legitster wrote: post #110
AlanSE wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I agree with the "organized civilian protestation" entirely. While NIMBY did play a role historically, this seems out-of-touch when I consider the mothballed & troubled builds which are currently in South Carolina. I do believe regulators have their foot on the brakes, and there are some really telling stories from people in the actual industry. The level of paperwork and scrutiny are hard to fathom f…

Well, I largely think that NIMBY is still at play. If you are a senator you have nothing to gain with a nuclear reactor in your district. Compare this to Japan that doesn't have ridiculously cheap natural gas, and yet is still doubling down on nuclear despite Fukushima and constant protest. I think renewables are amazing and have a long way still to go, but I look at the current energy mix and it's hard to see a 100%…

If you take the climate science seriously, then you really must accept net-zero by 2050. After that, maybe net-negative.

Assuming you're an educated person, the question we must ask is if natural gas is viable to fill in the gaps from renewables in 2050. Given the net-zero requirement, that means a natural gas plant that puts its CO2 emissions back in the ground. That can make sense with direct carbon-capture and storage, but the problem is high capital costs totally undermine the low capacity factor which is why we use it today.

If we go natural gas CCS vs nuclear in 2050, maybe it's a tossup, but they're BOTH poorly suited for the job, if we're talking about solar at >50%. Daily storage will be solved fairly well by then, and seasonal energy storage will be the challenge. But nuclear is baseload.

There are interesting ideas like running nuclear to heat a vat of salt which is used as a means of energy storage so that it would work in a grid with lots of renewables. But that's peak smoothing over several days. Seasonal thermal storage has been written about but is basically crackpot stuff.

So I've kind of come around to seasonal storage of green hydrogen. The technology is at least focused on the right problem. Duration of storage and energy density arguments favor chemical energy, and low capital costs per nameplate capacity are the primary driver.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#360

Post by tcmart14 »

crote wrote: post #319
tcmart14 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, same issue with e-waste. It can be a pain to properly dispose of your broken 10 year old laptop. So many people don't do it. It just does in the trash can with everything else. Make it easy, people do it, minus a few edge case shitheads. But I'd rather 75 out of 100 people do it right and have 25 shit heads than 75 shit heads and 25 people doing it right.

Does your country not have recycling centers? Over here every municipality has a center where you can just hand in any domestic waste unsuitable for the trash can. It's a bit inconvenient because you have to go out of your way, but it is definitely quite doable. And electronics can be handed in at any store which sells electronics, which includes stores like the equivalent of Walmart or Home Depot. You'll be going th…

Its pretty spotty in the US. Where I specifically am, the city dump has a place and best buy will take small electronics. Someone else mentioned their TV being big, same at my local best buy. If you even have a local best buy or those stores anymore since quiet a few have closed in the medium to smaller towns. I think Best Buy is the only local store I know of that takes at least some e-waste (once again, only if it is on the smaller size like cellphones). But my local municipality does have an e-waste center at the city dump, but there are definitely areas in the US where there isn't, or it just isn't advertised/talked about. Even though we have one in my city, I would say probably most people have no clue it exists. Everyone can tell you when free dump day is to toss lawn garbage or couches or they can tell you when the county yard burn day is in the summer, but they can't tell you where to go to find the e-waste collection that is open most days of the year (in the same area as the regular dump). The city also doesn't really advertise it like they do when free trash day at the dump happens or the county during the county lawn trash burn day.

But I do know in my community, more awareness needs to be raised. Every year I get 3 fliers through out the year for garbage disposal, they really should send out 4. The 3 I get every year are, when we can burn lawn garbage, free dump day and when they do christmas tree pick-up. They should send out a 4th one once a year to just say, "hey these are the locations you can take your e-waste to."

Post reply on HN