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

381–390 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#381

Post by bryanlarsen »

tonyarkles wrote: post #350
bryanlarsen wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Canadian prairies have fabulous solar production, even in the winter time. They also have a good amount of wind. And BC has tons of hydro. So build out enough renewables to supply BC when the sun is shining, maybe even enough to pump some water uphill, and then have BC hydro supply the prairies at other times.

So I’m looking at this from the perspective of completely eliminating fossil fuels from my home. Not just electricity, but heating as well. I want solar to win, but here’s the numbers I get from looking at December/January this year (my bills don’t quite line up cleanly on month boundaries): 863 m^3 of natural gas -> ~9100 kWh of heating energy Assuming (generously) that I can get a COP of 3, even though that’s unrea…

Yeah, I'm not sure if rooftop can quite cut it for Saskatchewan like it can for Australia for instance.

I've got one family member in Saskatchewan with rooftop solar looking at numbers similar to you. Another has 40 acres and a honey operation so just has ground mounted solar and often zeroes his electricity bill even during winter months, although he's still using gas for heating. Just got a heat pump water heater, so he's heading in that direction.

Saskatchewan has lots of land, so we we can do it collectively even if we can't do it ourselves just with roof tops.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#382

Post by Krasnol »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #365
Krasnol wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hollande wanted to diversify France because it's not and they had to pay for this stupidity and still do to this day. Fessenheim is the perfect reason for why Hollande wanted to close some of those plants: old, accident ridden, one of those which have to be closed down in summer due to possible overheating of nearby rivers and to top that off: it's in a region which may have earthquakes for which it is not prepared..…

Fessenheim was amongst the top performing nuclear plants, and had no issues being given a 10 year renewal because of how safe it was before it was closed for political reasons. The EELV/Die Grunde kool-aid is not a good thing to drink considering how anti science they are. And as always, the same awful arguments about "don't overheat the rivers", when the limits set by the safety regulations are way under anything th…

> essenheim was amongst the top performing nuclear plants, and had no issues being given a 10 year renewal because of how safe it was

That is false. It was an old and accident ridden plant.

> And as always, the same awful arguments about "don't overheat the rivers", when the limits set by the safety regulations are way under anything

Luckily those limits are set by people who know what they're doing and not the nuclear astroturf online.

> Hollande did not want to diversify our energy production. It was a purely political play to get EELV's support and used Fessenheim as a sacrificial chip.

That's pure propaganda from the opposite political spectrum and is not even worth the discussion anymore at this point.

> Glad to see the German energiewende led to such diversification that you're running half your country on coal right now btw. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

We even had to get some coal plants back from retirement (just like you did) because your rotting nuclear fleet isn't performing and it's cold outside. You're welcome :)

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#383

Post by pydry »

JohnBooty wrote: post #192
pydry wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, between the sheer 5x higher cost of nuclear power and people who hug trees your consided analysis is that the latter held back nuclear power more? It's like an Illuminati conspiracy theory except with people who dont use soap...

Nuclear power is only "5x" higher cost if you utterly ignore the environmental catastrophe of fossil fuels. Global warming will cost countless trillions and displace, sicken, and/or kill billions in the coming centuries.

>Nuclear power is only "5x" higher cost if you utterly ignore the environmental catastrophe of fossil fuels.

Well, from, like 1960 until about 2010 everybody who built a power plant did exactly that.

And, from about 2015 onwards if you didn't ignore it it's still 5x more expensive than solar panels or wind farms.

So, between "expensive" and "people who hug trees and have no power", maybe it's the tree-illuminati people.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#384

Post by wirrbel »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #365
Krasnol wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hollande wanted to diversify France because it's not and they had to pay for this stupidity and still do to this day. Fessenheim is the perfect reason for why Hollande wanted to close some of those plants: old, accident ridden, one of those which have to be closed down in summer due to possible overheating of nearby rivers and to top that off: it's in a region which may have earthquakes for which it is not prepared..…

Fessenheim was amongst the top performing nuclear plants, and had no issues being given a 10 year renewal because of how safe it was before it was closed for political reasons. The EELV/Die Grunde kool-aid is not a good thing to drink considering how anti science they are. And as always, the same awful arguments about "don't overheat the rivers", when the limits set by the safety regulations are way under anything th…

Energiewende was cancelled by the Merkel governments in favour of nuclear until they made a turnaround with regards to nuclear after Fukushima.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#385

Post by Krssst »

shortcake27 wrote: post #362
Krssst wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> Which ones? Norway 98% since 2016. Costa Rica 98% since 2015. Scotland 97% in 2020. Uruguay 98% in 2021. New Zealand pushing close to 90%. > Are we talking 90%, an the entire year, without creative accounting? I don’t know what this means. If a country reports that X amount of energy came from a particular source in a particular year, that means the entire year. And if you believe these countries are lying and doin…

Norway: large hydro resources, low population. Costa Rica: 80% hydro. Scotland: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-56530424 says that renewable met 97% of energy demand, which does not mean that clean electricity was produced when it was needed in Scotland. Considering that this means the country could run at 97% of its production potential with only RE is what I consider "creative accounting". (the article does not lie but interpreting it that way is mistaken). Uruguay: only 31% hydro, that's more interesting. New Zealand: 55% hydro, 13% geothermal.

So except for Uruguay (which does look interesting), most countries mostly use renewable dispatchable sources which are perfect. But not all countries have the hydro potential / population ratio of Norway. We should use hydro as much as we can but we are limited by geography; once everything that can be used is we are stuck with nuclear, wind or solar. Maybe Uruguay could be an example of country that manages somehow with mostly solar/wind; I need to look into it. Thank you.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#386

Post by nilslindemann »

Imagine global upheavals happening, such as a third world war, or a global plague, or a comet impact that resembles an apocalypse. Events that result in a loss of all or part of public control over these wastes.

What happens, then, if at some point in the centuries after, someone opens such a barrel containing the waste? A Goiânia [1], but no one will be there to clean up. Unsuspecting people will spread the radiation across the world.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#387

Post by shawnz »

connorgutman wrote: post #288
shawnz wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's more concerning, a corrupt or incompetent government mishandling one ton of nuclear fuel, or the same corrupt/incompetent government mishandling the one million tons of coal that would be needed to replace it? (which by the way, would have approximately the same amount of radioactive potential due to the natural radioactive contaminants that will get concentrated as you use it)

My entire point was that we should strive for neither. We could half per-capita energy consumption in the US and still consume twice as much as Brazil. If everyone in rich countries stopped being greedy we could easily meet global demands with renewables alone.

I don't see why we need to stop thinking about improving the environmental friendliness of our energy sources in order to start thinking about reducing overall consumption. And I'm not sure you have really justified why reducing our consumption should even be seen as a good thing given the possibility of more environmentally friendly energy sources.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#388

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #306
geysersam wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much wrong with this comment I'm not sure where to begin. 0. Nuclear is not forbidden. 1. Nuclear power is exceedingly common in many countries. 2. Electricity production is not (by far) the only source of carbon emissions. Why have we also not seen any major action to reduce emissions from other sources? Or did the treehuggers also force people to fly, eat meat and drive large cars? 3. > Last best hope.…

> But sure, go ahead and blame environmentalists for the destruction profit driven market capitalism caused. If that soothes your cognitive dissonance This is laughable. I come from a country that’s officially socialist. But even people from there want to come to Texas and drive a big SUV and live in a big house with a pool. Better yet, they want to attain that same standard of living in their own country. If environ…

Point to me where in BD constitution it says that? Are you thinking of India?

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#389

Post by tonyarkles »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #381
tonyarkles wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I’m looking at this from the perspective of completely eliminating fossil fuels from my home. Not just electricity, but heating as well. I want solar to win, but here’s the numbers I get from looking at December/January this year (my bills don’t quite line up cleanly on month boundaries): 863 m^3 of natural gas -> ~9100 kWh of heating energy Assuming (generously) that I can get a COP of 3, even though that’s unrea…

Yeah, I'm not sure if rooftop can quite cut it for Saskatchewan like it can for Australia for instance. I've got one family member in Saskatchewan with rooftop solar looking at numbers similar to you. Another has 40 acres and a honey operation so just has ground mounted solar and often zeroes his electricity bill even during winter months, although he's still using gas for heating. Just got a heat pump water heater,…

Yeah, like, the nice thing about those numbers is that it does work out that solar can very clearly be an effective part of the mix. Out at our family’s farm, there’s a pretty much perfect spot for a long line of solar panels at the south end of the yard that would have no problem zeroing out the electrical bill (is SaskPower still doing net metering? I don’t even know) and probably reducing some of the gas bill as well.

As far as the urban spots go, my electricity+gas numbers there approximately match the size of the entire lot. Extrapolating a bit and assuming that my house is “average”, that works out to needing a solar farm about the size of Regina to power the city in the winter. Maybe half the size when considering all of the street area.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#390

Post by anonymouskimmer »

vidarh wrote: post #379
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And solar increases the need for storage. There are certainly all kinds of indirect effects that might skew those numbers, and so it's very much possible solar does better. That isn't really the point - the point is that nuclear is a whole lot safer than many widespread alternatives. While some would like nuclear to replace solar as well, I think most of those of us who see nuclear as unnecessarily maligned are more…

Sure. I too am annoyed by the shut down of nuclear power plants. Any marginal ultra-long-term safety gain of not generating new waste is more than offset by the already sunk costs of the nuclear power plant. And the bad effects of coal burning.
Post reply on HN