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

311–320 of 568 posts

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

#311

Post by Swenrekcah »

haweemwho wrote: post #259
Brusco_RF wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why we look at the actual amount of carbon released, not just a binary yes/no. I mean even if you had a magic power source that did not emit one single molecule of C02, a FUD spreader like you could use that exact same argument the first time a worker sparks a cigarette. So tell me, how much C02 does mining uranium emit as compared to a coal station on a kg/Watt basis? six orders of magnitude less? seven?

> a FUD spreader like you Eh, what? That's not a very nice thing to say. > So tell me No, I don't need to. I refuted a claim. You can move the goal posts, but I won't participate in that game. Obviously a coal plant emits more CO2 than a nuclear fission plant. But the criticized sentence contained the words "carbon free". Which is just not true. I don't see how pointing that out is FUD.

I think if the original poster had mentioned in a balanced way and as kind of a footnote that, sure nuclear isn’t 100% carbon free but has some emissions, then people wouldn’t have reacted so harshly.

As it stands, the poster said that this (a bit exaggerated) claim somehow negates anything else there and that’s just wrong.

For practical purposes, nuclear power is as green as it gets so attacking it in this way is rather cheeky.

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

#312

Post by nazgulnarsil »

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…

Uranium extraction can be electrified. You're the one spreading an obviously mistaken view.

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

#313

Post by k8wk1 »

illiarian wrote: post #212
uecker wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is exiting both nuclear and coal. In the time from 2010 to 2022 where 14/17 of nuclear plants were shut down generation from coal was reduced from 263 TWh per year to 181 TWh. Renewables increased from 105 TWh to 254 TWh. I also would have preferred to leave the nuclear plants running longer and exit coal faster, but in the overall scheme of things it does not matter too much. Nuclear is basically irrelevant.…

Too bad numbers don't work when it's a quiet night, and you have to burn gas, caol, and biomass to make up for those nuclear reactors you've shut down: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396

Also, the reason this is only possible at all is that Germany uses the rest of Europe as a giant battery to manage the non-dispatchability of renewables. The import-export balance often changes by as much as one third of Germany consumption in 12 hours [1].

The electricity prices are also becoming zero[2] in Germany during parts of the day, which is a great outcome only on the surface. As this progresses, the consequence will be that renewable electricity producers aren't getting paid during their prime generating hours. This means even more subsidies will be required going forward to bring additional production. It will become more apparent once the reserve of easily dispatchable electricity sources is fully tapped to balance renewables across Europe. We will see very high prices during mornings and evenings and whenever it's cold and dark. The fossil fuel plants that are turned on during these periods will need to earn enough to address the additional wear due to quick power cycling and to keep being maintained for the rest of the time when they are unused.

[1] - https://www.smard.de/page/en/marktdaten/78?marketDataAttribu...

[2] - https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/Dayahead/Area-...

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

#314

Post by jvanderbot »

quantum_mcts wrote: post #307
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.

One tanker could supply the worlds uranium needs. Zero required to transport sun and wind. Beats the thousands used for oil and gas.

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

#315

Post by andrewstuart »

andruby wrote: post #168
andrewstuart wrote: post #151

Renewable energy is the answer, on a scale large enough to solve the energy requirements. The other part of the equation completely ignored by everyone is energy saving . There's really no systematic effort at all to reduce the amount of energy society consumes.

Of course there is. Incandescent lights have been banned for years in most European countries to speed up the adoption of led-lighting. Street lights are being replaces by leds. Tax cuts and subsidies are given for energy efficient housing.

I knew someone would say "but light globes!". Yes of course all appliances are now energy rated etc.

In some countries inefficient lightglobes are banned.

But I'm not talking about that - I'm talking about systematic change in behaviour of homes and business to try to use less energy, perhaps encouraged through tax or other incentives.

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

#316

Post by the_mungler »

Gwypaas wrote: post #303
the_mungler wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I'm talking about recycling fuel rods for use in our current nuclear reactors. I'm fuzzy on the details, but a fuel rod becomes unusable way before all the uranium is used up because of a build up of "nuclear poisons" which interfere with fission in the reactor. You can also get some plutonium when recycling, which can also be used in a LWR.

I'm not talking about exotic breeder reactor designs, or molten salt reactors. France has been recycling fuel rods for some time now. The U.S. just prohibits this due to proliferation concerns.

Edit: breeder reactors are usually more about being able to use other less rare elements for fuel, like thorium, or being able to use more common isotopes of uranium. Yes, they often propose using recycled waste to "kick start" the breeding process, but they're not needed to recycle fuel rods.

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

#317

Post by jcampbell1 »

tremon wrote: post #213
7952 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming things on neglect or politics just isn't useful. We need power sources that have some resilience to those things.

Can you give an example of a power source that is resilient to politics? I struggle to imagine what that would even look like.

Solar + battery doesn’t bother anyone. Wind turbines have mild resistance from people who think they are an eyesore or people worried about migratory birds.

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

#318

Post by Kon5ole »

retrac wrote: post #108
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 power supplies about 50 - 60% of electric energy in Ontario, with 18 reactors currently operating, built 1970s - 1990s. Activated water with tritium in it has been released accidentally a number of times, and small amounts of tritium and other gasses are released by any reactor, but no unapproved leaking besides that has ever been made public. There are of course ecological problems with the heat, but all the…

>Still, amortized over more than half a century they've ended up being the second-cheapest source of power in the province

Even after 50 years you have accumulated only a small percentage of the total costs related to the plant. They will most likely cost more money after they have been decommissioned than they did during operation.

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

#319

Post by onethought »

quantum_mcts wrote: post #307
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.

These articles never answer the question: if the suggested cost of nuclear power investment instead went to batteries and renewables, what’s the Gigawatt difference?

We know nuclear is clean. But Solar and batteries are cleaner AND recyclable.

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

#320

Post by haweemwho »

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…

I appreciate that you elaborated your thoughts. That makes for a much nicer discussion!

I'd turn your argument around. We seem to not care about any of the N-1 species. Why treat the remaining one specially? Because we belong to it? I don't find that convincing. Maybe we're focusing too much on individual freedom that suddenly caring about the species as a whole seems is odd. The population around me, as a whole, is giving pretty few f*ks about me. I basically just return that attitude.

Or, to formulate it differently, I'd get on board caring about not just the survival but flourishing of our species, if we'd extend that courtesy to all the other species around us.

Post reply on HN