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

Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

nationalinterest.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 568 posts

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#81

Post by haweemwho »

> Only nuclear power is carbon-free [...]

You can stop reading right there as this immediately identifies this piece as disingenuous at best, more likely though propaganda.

The whole process is definitely not "carbon-free". Uranium extraction, transport and processing produce emissions. Building the plants and maintaining them does. Eventually demolishing does. Transporting the used fuel as well as building and maintaining storage facilities does.

All those factors are usually brought up in detail for things like solar and wind plants. It's just disingenuous not to count them for nuclear power.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#82

Post by yellowapple »

RandomLensman wrote: post #19

Fusion - yes, fission - no. Edit: the cost evolution of fission already points against it, any nuclear bet should therefore be on fusion, not fission.

Fusion is perpetually 50 years away. We don't have that long to wait when we're already crossing points of no return.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#83

Post by runarberg »

It is generally not cool to call something astroturfing here on HN. But googling the author of this article Todd Royal you can see he is a consultant for a lobby group called E4 Carolinas which is heavily funded by big energy companies who have big investments in the fossil fuel industry. In the past he has written articles with titles such as “Why Climate Panic Is Unfounded Hysteria” where he accuses advocates for renewables of astroturfing, while advocating for the continued use of fossil fuels:

> What the entire climate change, global warming, renewables over fossil fuels and electrify society movement is really about is one thing—money—clean energy is now worth trillions of taxpayer dollars. Government-sponsored science and economic growth at its worst picking clean energy over fossil fuels and internal combustion engine vehicles. These are disastrous energy policies.

> The existential threat narrative of global warming only solved by destroying global economies by switching to intermittent, expensive renewables over reliable fossil fuels is foolish according to Dr. Steve Koonin, a physicist who served as Undersecretary for Energy during President Barack Obama’s first term.

All the while pushing a conspiracy narrative and climate change denial:

> It’s particularly painful because climate doomsday scenarios are all historically wrong. Climate panic is simply unfounded hysteria. The weather and climate are dynamic and ever-changing. Seemingly, it’s a giant ploy to deprive people of their freedom and liberty.

> Blackouts are the future for the United States, European Union, Great Britain, and Australia if they continue on this clean energy transition.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#84

Post by polishdude20 »

illiarian wrote: post #61
eric-burel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look for the Tricastin plant I don't know enough to answer precisely but it has leaked recently and a few years ago. Of course it doesn't leak uranium, but other byproducts, which not a sign of a well managed plant. Some were stopped not just maintenance but the discovery of micro-breaches caused by maintenance decades ago. That's actually a sign of proper management, but a counter-argument to reliability.

- "one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material" - "Look for the Tricastin plant I don't know enough to answer precisely but it has leaked recently and a few years ago. Of course it doesn't leak uranium" So, your original statement was an untruth. Or "alternative facts" > of micro-breaches caused by maintenance decades ago. That's actually a sign of proper management, but a counter-argument to reliability. S…

This thread is a great example of how the meanings of words can be taken differently by different people. "Unreliable" is less of a description and more of a flag. Either it is or isn't. But the original commenter's threshold for unreliable = true is much much lower than most people's as illuminated in this discussion.

It seems like this is a daily occurrence online and in person.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#86

Post by lawn »

rhaway84773 wrote: post #20
illiarian wrote: post #2

Relevant: "Germany's 66.5 GW of installed wind is only producing as much as the 3 reactors that turned off last night used to produce." https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396

On a night when wind output was particularly low. Another way to put this is that variable sources of energy are variable.

And variability is very bad. What are you going to do, stop using electricity because it's not windy?

Nah, the solution is to start burning coal, oil and gas, or leech off your neighbors who hopefully use something cleaner.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#87

Post by brucethemoose2 »

cschwarm wrote: post #25

Question(s) to the nuclear supporters here: 1. Are you talking about global electricity? Or just the West? 2. How much nuclear power do you want? 20%, 50%, 70%, or 100%? Or something else? 3. What nuclear technology? Traditional, Molten Salt, SMRs, or something else? 4. What institutional setting do you image for your nuclear power plants? Private ownership, or nationalized plants like in France? Just curious...

1. Yes!

2. Just some more than we have now.

3. Yes!

4. Yes!

Seriously though, I just want some reactor construction to spin up with non ancient reactor designs, to replace some fossil fuel plants. PBR[1] sounds good to me... but what do I know? There are experts who can decide this.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#88

Post by runarberg »

haweemwho wrote: post #81

> Only nuclear power is carbon-free [...] You can stop reading right there as this immediately identifies this piece as disingenuous at best, more likely though propaganda. The whole process is definitely not "carbon-free". Uranium extraction, transport and processing produce emissions. Building the plants and maintaining them does. Eventually demolishing does. Transporting the used fuel as well as building and maint…

Google the author, who he works for, and some of the stuff he has written in the past, I think describing this a propaganda is actually giving this an easy way out.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#89

Post by haweemwho »

timellis-smith wrote: post #26
rhaway84773 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a night when wind output was particularly low. Another way to put this is that variable sources of energy are variable.

Of course and that needs to be factored into renewable supplies which massively increases their cost. When you have periods of Dunkelflaute you potentially need to have full grid redundancy either through inter-connects, other energy generation sources or battery backup, none of which are cheap.

It's rare to see flaute all over Europe at the same time. You just need some ways to transport energy as well as supplement that with storage and you can compensate most of this.

If this sounds too complicated an engineering challenge then let's not even start to talk about the engineering challenges that would make nuclear safer than it is today. That's a whole different ballpark.

Re: Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

#90

Post by dale_glass »

Lacerda69 wrote: post #28

Cue the atomic fanatics vs the renewable cult discussion. Has been discussed a thousand times on HN recently and it always seems both are just shouting how the other side can not see the obvious superiority of their fav energy source. why cant we have a bit of both? renewable seems very good long term and nuclear is also nice for transition. but I wouldnt want to live next to one of those crappy leaky french reactors…

> why cant we have a bit of both?

Because they're economically incompatible.

Nuclear is very expensive to build, and wants to run 24/7 to offset costs. They also want to run continuously.

The problem is that renewables are cheap, but intermittent.

So take an economically rational marketplace. I can either buy the same amount of power for $1, or for $2, what do you think I'd choose? $1 of course. Power is power, I don't want to pay more than I must.

So any time I can buy renewables for $1, nuclear makes no revenue. This pushes off its payoff into the future. This isn't a good situation to be in. Time goes by, components get older, people get impatient, more renewables keep getting built.

Now you're a bank considering a loan for nuclear you think might be paid off in 20 years. Or if renewables keep growing, maybe in 40. Or if they really take off, maybe never. Risking billions that way doesn't sound enticing, now does it?

If nuclear made money we wouldn't be seeing these blog posts show up over and over. Money solves many problems and greases many palms. If nuclear was profitable, every other problem would be solvable. Not enough safety? Money can buy that. Too close to people? Money can put a plant further away. Legal problems? Money pays for lawyers.

The logical end state of all this seems to be that renewables kill off the profitability of nuclear badly enough that nobody builds it (relatively speaking). Eventually the grid destabilizes and this forces urgent measures to shore things up. The final state I imagine is a very renewable-heavy grid, after a period of chaos in the middle.

Post reply on HN