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

301–310 of 568 posts

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

#301

Post by satvikpendem »

jonahx wrote: post #293
haweemwho wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geez, I'm really worried about discussion styles here. Nobody claimed that other species do. That has little to do with the question of why I should care about our's surviving.

Your argument is "Why care about a selfish species that kills other species indiscriminately while pursuing its own ends?" But that is every species. So why care about any of them? Why even care that we are killing off the gorillas or fish? They are equally selfish -- only less powerful. And if your answer is that you don't, then you're just arguing for nihilism. If you do, then again: what do you think is so special…

> And if your answer is that you don't, then you're just arguing for nihilism

Sure, and nihilism is a useful philosophy too.

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

#302

Post by _a_a_a_ »

mech7654 wrote: post #241
Nodraak wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material Please share numbers demonstration health hazards. For ex, bananas are radioactive. Should we outlaw bananas? > rivers are getting too hot to cool down nuclear plants correctly That's wrong. In 2022, the power output had to be reduced by 0.18% (not a typo) ( https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1645696906327388160 ). In addition, Nuclear plants can work even i…

To be fair the french have had some massive problems with their fleet recently. There were issues discovered where (IIRC) a supplier that made pressure vessels used steel that was not of sufficient quality and covered it up for decades, only to be discovered recently- this required major downtime and expense. Other issues have resulted in lots of nuclear plant downtime in france as well recently.

I heard almost exactly the same thing about Japanese reactors, are you sure you're remembering right, that it is definitely the French because it seems a bit of a coincidence

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

#303

Post by Gwypaas »

the_mungler wrote: post #285
croutonwagon wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest issue with these proposals is one that is at the heart of the documentary here and put pretty succinctly: https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/containmen... How can we contain or dispose of some of the deadliest, most long-lasting substances ever produced? How to we ensure it lasts well beyond the possibility of our civilization currently and mark it in such a way that its clear to others its…

The story gets better here when you consider that most "waste" can actually be reused (93% of uranium fuel rods used in LWRs could be recycled). Also consider, more radioactive materials (the parts we can't currently recycle, outside of some exotic hypothetical reactor designs) have shorter half lives, and so aren't a problem for as long. The best containment proposal I've seen is deep geological disposal. Also consi…

In mythical breeder reactors that, which all the built ones have been even less economical than regular PWRs.

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

#304

Post by epistasis »

jbverschoor wrote: post #277

Biggest problem is that people don't understand. It's black magic, with "radiation". While in reality, it's basically just a big steam turbine generator. Unknown things are scary. Turn on the light.

I think this is the least of the problems that nuclear has.

The problem isn't convincing J Random Person off the street, the problem is convincing somebody who has control of billions of dollars that there's any chance the investment will make financial sense.

Until there's a halfway compelling financial argument, until there's a way to reliably build a reactor on a realistic timeline, nuclear is a pipe dream.

Once there is a way that nuclear can be built and makes financial sense, there are tons of locations that would welcome a new large source of employment nearby. For example, nearly all of the current nuclear reactors that are aging out across the US are in cities that don't want to lose the jobs and don't mind having nuclear nearby.

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

#305

Post by acdha »

kyrra wrote: post #231
eric-burel wrote: post #12

As a French not expert in the matter but living near nuclear plants: - one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material - rivers are getting too hot to cool down nuclear plants correctly - nuclear plants are very unreliable, we almost got out of power this winter and next winter will be equally tough (only an abnormally hot winter avoid cuts...) - the government wants to simplify control organism and laws around…

For too much radtion, I recommend reading: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-council-nrc-... ( https://archive.is/LITQT ). I'm not sure how France treats radiation levels, but in the US, the guidelines we have set are non-nonsensical.

> He is now co-founder of fission energy company ThorCon, which is developing liquid fuel fission power plants to generate electricity cheaper than coal, to solve the world climate/energy/poverty crises.

I think nuclear will have an important part of dealing with climate change but he has a massive financial stake in this. I wouldn’t trust that more than I’d trust the Exxon guys who told us climate change was a liberal myth for half a century.

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

#306

Post by throw-4e451c8 »

eric-burel wrote: post #294
throw-4e451c8 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am not against nuclear power" - this is litterally the calling card of a tactical hit, forum-wise. It very obviously means the opposite of what it says. I generally look at how people perceive things like this as an IQ test. At the moment the HN visitors upvoting/downvoting things in this thread have failed my baseline IQ test. How I wish all presumably well-intentioned but badly informed and ill-educated people w…

:( no really I try to stay open-minded and found contradictory answers interesting, if only because they are well documented. My reply is also to the initial article, which is on the contrary way too optimistic. Nuclear energy is not black or white, I think sharing personal experience as someone living near a plant, in a country relying mostly on nuclear energy, is relevant.

Oh no!

"as someone living near a plant"

My first 18 years: I lived 45 km from a nuclear power plant.

It helped me getting interested in physics because of some in hindsight exceptionally well performed guest lectures from a physicist working there, in grades 7-8.

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

#307

Post by quantum_mcts »

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…

> You can stop reading right there as this immediately identifies this piece as disingenuous at best

Or you can keep reading it and see that it literally says "It is a misnomer to say renewables are carbon-free compared to nuclear power." And discusses the very things you stated was disingenuously discounted.

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

#308

Post by acdha »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #107
eric-burel wrote: post #12

As a French not expert in the matter but living near nuclear plants: - one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material - rivers are getting too hot to cool down nuclear plants correctly - nuclear plants are very unreliable, we almost got out of power this winter and next winter will be equally tough (only an abnormally hot winter avoid cuts...) - the government wants to simplify control organism and laws around…

Nuclear fusion will be the answer to baseload energy requirements without the need to worry over meltdown concerns. There will be no need to do city or urban planning around radioactive fallout or leaks because fusion simply doesn't have those problems.

It’d be great but … when does it go online? I’m not going any more and it’s been “real soon now” for my entire life. We no longer have decades to wait, especially when we can cover the vast majority of needs with renewables for less money.

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

#309

Post by evilos »

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…

Almost nothing about civilization is emissions free. In the context of comparing energy sources, it's a totally reasonable statement. It's only when you present it cut-off like you did that it sounds wrong. You're criticizing half of the tagline of the article, of course it won't contain all the nuances.

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

#310

Post by jillesvangurp »

Except in the real world where wind + solar account for the vast majority of GW added. Nuclear just doesn't matter. It's 2023, there's an energy crisis on. Where are the new nuclear plants in Europe? Where are the GW of power saving us from rolling blackouts in Europe? Nuclear is a no show. It didn't happen. Not even a little bit. It didn't matter. Too little (well barely anything at all), too late.

There's this pesky thing called cost that nuclear proponents just refuse to address. They are all scientific about how nuclear works. How great it is. Etc. But when it comes to cost, they suddenly check out, go hand wavy, and generally refuse to talk numbers. You could do this, you could do that. But nobody really likes being put on the spot about what exactly to do for how much.

Not a single dollar sign in this article nor the string "dollar". Or other common currency such as "Euro". There's nothing else to be said about this article. It just completely ignores cost. It's all hand wavy and devoid of facts about cost. Very typical. Must be deeply embarrassing to read such drivel for an actual nuclear physicist with a clue. Guilty by association and it's not a good look. If these are your biggest fans, you are royally screwed.

The whole argument for nuclear evaporates as soon as you bring up cost. Then it's suddenly about such pesky things as $/mwh and delays, budget overruns, etc. And the fact that there are things you can buy and install that have very well known $/mwh cost that work as advertised.

Post reply on HN