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

Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

iea.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 248 posts

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#101

Post by magduf »

JTbane wrote: post #47

I often hear the argument that "nuclear is bad because there is a chance of a catastrophic loss of life". Well, there has not yet been any large scale nuclear disaster. Cars kill hundreds and we still use them.

>Cars kill hundreds and we still use them.

Cars in the US alone kill 30,000 people every year. It's one of the biggest killers we have, only behind things like heart disease, and it's easily the biggest thing that kills younger, healthy people. Worldwide, the number is somewhere around 250k.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#102

Post by joycian »

mncolinlee wrote: post #89
Cederfjard wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grandparent comment mentioned modern recycling. Perhaps Belgium is operating old types of reactors that aren't amenable to modern ways of dealing with waste? A quick search yielded that all of Belgium's reactors were built in the 70's and 80's.

A lot of news pieces about nuclear are unrealistically rosy. Waste reprocessing isn't really all that new and it doesn't really get rid of waste. It replaces much of the solid waste with even more liquid waste. The problem with having any discussion of nuclear is agreeing upon the facts. It's crazy hard to find an unbiased source. If you asked a random bystander why we haven't built nuclear reactors in recent years,…

Aren't the "environmentalists" the ones that are creating the mood that makes it hard to invest in nuclear?

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#103

Post by ben_w »

tpkj wrote: post #75
isolli wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me of this: https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/866313289306963969/p... tl;dr The International Energy Agency kept predicting, year after year, in the face of all the evidence, that solar production would plateau.

We could be at the point where solar adoption takes off exponentially. On a big picture view: Tony Seba: Clean Disruption - Energy & Transportation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0 On a more micro level view: Solar power solutions coming to places with no grid: https://medium.com/zolaelectric/infinity-smart-grid-deliveri...

It has taken off exponentially. That’s what the growth curve you’re looking at is called. :)

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#104

Post by joycian »

benj111 wrote: post #90
umvi wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A modern thorium/uranium recycling pipeline should only produce small amounts of "final" waste (and only after waste has been iteratively recycled many times). That final waste takes a few hundred years to decay, but if contained, it is harmless to the environment. So, create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste, and create a pipeline. At the end of the pipeline, the containers are empty and ca…

"create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste" 200 years ago the world was a very different place. I'm struggling to think of any building not including houses still used for their original purpose, from that long ago. So while I don't doubt that we could build a structure that lasts 200 years, I doubt we could build some kind of continuously used industrial building without it becoming some kin…

An example of a building:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter%27s_Basilica

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#105

Post by makomk »

jhallenworld wrote: post #65

Solar is growing so fast that it is creating its own waste problem: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23... What happens when we add the necessary batteries (to replace the nuclear base) to this problem?

That article is really misleading. It starts off talking about the need to recycle cadmium-based panels in order not to leech toxic cadmium into the environment, and then claims that recyling isn't economically viable - but if you click through the links, that claim is based on the economics of recycling Si-based panels that don't contain any cadmium. Indeed, the whole reason Si panels aren't economically viable to recycle is because they don't contain these kinds of exotic (and toxic) materials; recycling of the cadmium-containing panels is very much viable and commonplace.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#106

Post by ambicapter »

mooseburger wrote: post #92
ambicapter wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its just as forbidding for the future of nuclear though. If there's one thing you can count on, is that people don't change.

Eh. The Soviet Union really was a uniquely dysfunctional place. The level of reality denial and sucking up to the higher ups that led to Chernobyl is not commonplace.

People weren't very happy with the handling of Three Mile Island either.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#107

Post by NeedMoreTea »

benj111 wrote: post #90
umvi wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A modern thorium/uranium recycling pipeline should only produce small amounts of "final" waste (and only after waste has been iteratively recycled many times). That final waste takes a few hundred years to decay, but if contained, it is harmless to the environment. So, create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste, and create a pipeline. At the end of the pipeline, the containers are empty and ca…

"create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste" 200 years ago the world was a very different place. I'm struggling to think of any building not including houses still used for their original purpose, from that long ago. So while I don't doubt that we could build a structure that lasts 200 years, I doubt we could build some kind of continuously used industrial building without it becoming some kin…

Westminster Hall has been single purpose for a while. Since the late 11th century.

Perhaps that's the answer. If waste is stored in a warehouse next to the seat of government, I doubt there will be short-cuts, neglect and cost savings to the same degree as say putting it on the Cumbrian coast.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/pal...

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#108

Post by benj111 »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #107
benj111 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"create a warehouse large enough to handle 200 years worth of waste" 200 years ago the world was a very different place. I'm struggling to think of any building not including houses still used for their original purpose, from that long ago. So while I don't doubt that we could build a structure that lasts 200 years, I doubt we could build some kind of continuously used industrial building without it becoming some kin…

Westminster Hall has been single purpose for a while. Since the late 11th century. Perhaps that's the answer. If waste is stored in a warehouse next to the seat of government, I doubt there will be short-cuts, neglect and cost savings to the same degree as say putting it on the Cumbrian coast. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/pal...

You know Westminster palace is in dire need of repair and debating in the house of commons had to stop due to water flooding in through the roof recently?

So yes there probably would be 'cost savings'

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#109

Post by NeedMoreTea »

benj111 wrote: post #108
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Westminster Hall has been single purpose for a while. Since the late 11th century. Perhaps that's the answer. If waste is stored in a warehouse next to the seat of government, I doubt there will be short-cuts, neglect and cost savings to the same degree as say putting it on the Cumbrian coast. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/pal...

You know Westminster palace is in dire need of repair and debating in the house of commons had to stop due to water flooding in through the roof recently? So yes there probably would be 'cost savings'

Fair point. :)

Though I thought it was just the palace, ie the Victorian bit put up after the fire (I'm not helping my case here, am I?), that was falling apart.

Re: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals

#110

Post by bcatanzaro »

sprash wrote: post #86

Looking at mid term solutions: Nuclear fission is just not cost effective if you factor in all total cost of a building a secure nuclear power plant and safely dismantling it after its lifetime. Also uranium ore is a limited non renewable resource. Nuclear fusion looks similarly bad but at least deuterium and tritium is rather abundant. Looking at ultra long term solutions: Wind power is nothing else than reducing th…

Nuclear looks bad if you restrict it to 1940's technology. Which we have done. We don't allow ourselves to dream any more when it comes to nuclear. We are still building the same plants we designed for submarines and bombs, and wondering why they aren't great for power. There are safer, cheaper, lower waste alternatives if we'd allow ourselves to try them (Thorium reactors, for example).

Does wind power really reduce the speed of the earth? I'd assume wind energy comes from the sun heating the atmosphere, so wind power is really just solar power in a different form.

Solar makes me really sad. The amount of land it consumes is staggering. Land that can't be used for other living things. I saw the most beautiful farmland in Italy this month smothered under sterile black waves of solar panels.

Post reply on HN