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

You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#101

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

bjourne wrote: post #100
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #50

When Bernie/AOC lead with rhetoric like "climate change requires WWII levels of mobilization", it strikes me odd that they think that level of change is feasible, but that the unprecedented mobilization and centralization of efforts can't be applied to nuclear technology. It's bizarre and makes me think that it's a blatant political agenda much more than sensible application of technology to solve problems in the wor…

What is bizarre about it? Not all options are equally good investments - some are clearly preferable over others. Why insist on new nuclear power when so much evidence shows it is not needed?

One of the main objections to nuclear is that “we can’t properly regulate it.” But the whole argument of Bernie/AOC/progressives centers around massive centralization and mobilization. It just seems to me that the super idealistic, unprecedentedly large plans they’re proposing would imply we could do the same thing with nuclear.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#102

Post by realusername »

bjourne wrote: post #99
jstummbillig wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this actually the prevailing analysis of the status quo? Is the best unsubsidized nuclear power plant we could technically build today actually cost effective or is it not? Can people with insight chime in? I just tried to google an answer and, from a layman's perspective without a horse in the race, there seems to be no single easily available answer. As a side note, it irritates me how often this is the case for…

See https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.... Main finding is that newly built nuclear power is about twice as expensive as wind and 40% more expensive than solar power. Other studies come to similar conclusions. With the cost of solar and wind expected to decrease due to mass production and technology advancements, their advantage grows even larger. The real nail in the coffin are the huge unce…

> See https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation..... Main finding is that newly built nuclear power is about twice as expensive as wind and 40% more expensive than solar power. Other studies come to similar conclusions. With the cost of solar and wind expected to decrease due to mass production and technology advancements, their advantage grows even larger.

I highly doubt they take the unreliability into account in their study. One MW of nuclear is worth much much more than a MW of solar or even worse wind since you can count on it.

I'd mention that there's not a single country in the world which currently succeeds as using solar & wind as their primary electricity generation.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#103

Post by realusername »

bjourne wrote: post #100
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #50

When Bernie/AOC lead with rhetoric like "climate change requires WWII levels of mobilization", it strikes me odd that they think that level of change is feasible, but that the unprecedented mobilization and centralization of efforts can't be applied to nuclear technology. It's bizarre and makes me think that it's a blatant political agenda much more than sensible application of technology to solve problems in the wor…

What is bizarre about it? Not all options are equally good investments - some are clearly preferable over others. Why insist on new nuclear power when so much evidence shows it is not needed?

> Why insist on new nuclear power when so much evidence shows it is not needed?

Which evidence? IPCC reports nuclear as being highly needed.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#104

Post by realusername »

blub wrote: post #43
BurningFrog wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, like most anti nuclear arguments, is a standard that is NEVER applied to other industries.

Which other industry can make an area uninhabitable for many decades?

Any dangerous chemical plant

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#105

Post by realusername »

kjar wrote: post #88

Sorry folks give up the ghost nuclear was dead at least 3 decades ago. Solar and wind are the future. We don’t have a decade to build a new nuclear plant, in that plan we’d need a time machine going backa decade to abate climate change that’s now locked in. I’ll spare you all the risks and externalities, it’s just dumb. Again sorry.

> Solar and wind are the future

There's not a single country in the world which manages to run on solar and wind only or which could in a realistic future.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#106

Post by acidburnNSA »

makomk wrote: post #73
purple_ducks wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to answer to their citizens if things go awry. Plenty of opportunity for cost cutting.

Yeah, it's worth remembering that Russia still operates RBMK nuclear reactors and plans to do so for as long as they can keep them working. The safety levels of their nuclear power program do not exactly match Western standards to put it lightly.

This is kind of crazy to say, but after the obvious flaws were fixed, RBMKs are pretty solid, efficient machines.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#107

Post by Jedd »

The_rationalist wrote: post #90
CaptainMarvel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context: The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw which resulted in Chernobyl. Source: the recent TV show of the same name.

"The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw" The serious flaw was multiple consecutive human errors which could today be prevented by software checklist enforcement.

> "The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw" The serious flaw was multiple consecutive human errors which could today be prevented by software checklist enforcement.

This is incorrect.

The serious design flaw was that the 'stop the reactor reacting' button rapidly accelerated the reaction briefly, but long enough to cause a massive spike.

There were also human errors on the operations side.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#108

Post by Jedd »

The_rationalist wrote: post #89
ajross wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore Nobody ever could! Nuclear power generation, from its infancy, has been outrageously subsidized, both directly (i.e. DoE grants, government funding of waste disposal) and indirectly (industrial-scale refining of fuel as a side effect of the weapons industry). Once those sources dried up it just plain stopped making sense. At the end of the day it needs to stan…

Stop spreading dangerous fake beliefs, if you make such an extraordinary claim that nuclear is less cost effective than "green competitors", source it. This is in complete Contradiction with this scientific analysis: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-a...

Okay. How about we use the same source you -- which does sound like it may not the best site to obtain impartial metrics from, but includes this paragraph:

> These show: advanced nuclear, 9.9 c/kWh ... wind onshore, 5.2 c/kWh; solar PV, 6.7 c/kWh; offshore wind, 14.6 c/kWh; and solar thermal, 18.4 c/kWh.

Two things to note.

1. A better comparative assessment is available here [1], specifically drawing your attention to page 1333.

2. The min/med/max numbers invite questions around the cause of such large disparities, and this leads you to ask what 'advanced nuclear' means in the citation you offered. Many of these very impressive LCOE and gmC/kW figures are for new designs of fission power plants, while we should be factoring in those costs & emissions of current installations that'll be maintained for the next few decades.

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#109

Post by belltaco »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #98
belltaco wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found it good informative reading, compared to biased articles or comments that cover only one side. These articles are written for the masses, not people who have spent dozens of hours studying every nuance and came to an opinion. If such people do comment on the article, I'd rather hope they comment on specifics rather than just say "writer is a snob, article sux".

My specific complaint with the article is that it's wrong and dangerous to consider nuclear through a narrow lens and therefore not a balanced and unbiased view.

The title of the article is "A beginner’s guide to the debate over nuclear power and climate change", and is about the various perspectives of the DNC candidates in a specific 'Climate Change' debate.

Not sure how it's a problem that he's writing about it from a climate change perspective, and even has a disclaimer that it doesn't have all the details about the pro and anti nuclear debate.

>I’m not going to review all that history (it could fill a book); instead, I’ll approach nuclear power purely through the lens of climate change.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#110

Post by googlryas »

all2 wrote: post #94
googlryas wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a house, you are cooling the entire volume of space enclosed so that wherever a human happens to go, they are comfortable. It is still littering, regardless of the scale.

Do you use AC? Or any mode of transportation other than walking? Or any convenience that relies on fossil fuels or grid electricity? Do you use any manufactured products? Eat any food that has been shipped a distance farther than your garden? I assume (perhaps I should not) that by "littering" you are referring to the production of greenhouse gases. If this is so, I'd like to point out that if you are breathing, by y…

Yes, I do all of that. I was only continuing the parent's claim that idling a car for AC is littering. I don't actually believe it is - merely stating in that worldview that airconditioning a house is littering too.
Post reply on HN