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

All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

world-nuclear-news.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#111

Post by catlikesshrimp »

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #104
DisjointedHunt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could both be real and at the same time be true that these people don’t care. They simply want to use to genuine concern around climate to further their own ends.

Agreed. It could also be real but no where near as serious as they are claiming. Mankind went from the first manned flight to footprints on the moon in 60 years. I'm not losing any sleep about a mathematically insignificant projection that may or may not lead to something 100 years from now. 100 years from now if they want terraforming to strictly regulate the climate it should be well within their capabilities. Agai…

I will be inmoral this once

If climate change wasn't a real threat... they would act as you said.

If climate change was a real threat to humanity... they would still act in spite of it. Tragedy of the commons. What is a better future? Having done your part, when nobody did, and facing a broken world with a broken economy OR Helped kill the world environment but playing an even field?

That has been China's stance all along, anyways.

The only reason to move toward "renewables" is to not depend on fossil fuel imports. It is about sovereignity, not about morality.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#112

Post by Goety »

throwawaysea wrote: post #99
glogla wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This is a huge win for coal lobby. This might be the turning point that kills humanity.

> This might be the turning point that kills humanity. What makes you say that? To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction.

As you accurately describe the threat is mass conflict and disorder. Why do you willingly support that or changing the narrative?

Global instability is likely to lead to more conflict and war without any guarantees of end. A vast population reduction of vulnerable people for a lot of people IS extinction.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#113

Post by catlikesshrimp »

kergonath wrote: post #81
theGeatZhopa wrote: post #62

What about drilling for geothermal energy? And what about thermal fusion which is upcoming? For what do we need fission any longer, except to bridge the time up to availability of fusion? As long there is no good concept for the nuclear waste, that long nuclear shouldn't be praised as solution to anything, except for bridging. There have been news on here, for a newly developed technique to "recycle" and/or to "treat…

> And what about thermal fusion which is upcoming? Fusion is great, and we are making good progress. It could plausibly change everything in a couple of decades. But it is not available today, so we cannot rely on it. That’s the thing when you follow the latest r&d developments: we talk about a technology well before it is useable, so all we can use at a given moment are mature technologies that are old news. Example…

For me, until something is commercially available, it is not available. Development is unpredictable, research is even a wild card.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#114

Post by m0zg »

pickledolives wrote: post #38
whatever1 wrote: post #5

Neither the technology nor the fuel for nuclear plants are abundant or renewable. For example, can Iran build its own reactors? No. Can Somalia run its hypothetical reactors? No. Can Syria import enriched uranium? No. Can we have reactors without them blowing up every 50 years? No. Do we have a solution for containing nuclear waste without leaks and without ruining the local communities? No. Enough with this joke of…

Don‘t forget all the CO2 emitted a) at mining and enriching uranium and b) in storing nuclear waste for 100000 years and c) in tearing down highly radioactive retired nuclear power plants. In Germany we started tearing down the GDRs only nuclear power plant in the early 90s and we‘re still not done. 30+ years of daily ops of a highly specialised destruction company operating heavy machinery requiring insulation from…

Yep. And now you'll be spewing slightly radioactive exhaust into the atmosphere after burning Russian gas. Whoop-te-do, very green indeed, congratulations, you "won". You also get to pay twice as much for electricity as the French, because the French aren't as easily fooled. And the gap will widen - the French are building more reactors.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#115

Post by mytailorisrich »

sandGorgon wrote: post #89
mytailorisrich wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China can build nuclear power plants and indeed is building a large number of them. But as you mention the demand for energy is vast and they can't 'just' get rid of coal.

China's nuclear power plants come from the US. Westinghouse's bankruptcy set back the targets for many years. Of course, the big problem is also geopolitical concerns here. I would say that India is in a better position here (on geopolitics), however the tech transfer from US even to India has been iffy at best. Here's a bigger problem - India has set a goal to switch to electrical vehicles by 2030. If that happens,…

Actually the majority of China's nuclear power plants are a local design based on French technology (there's been a long term cooperation with France, which has built a couple of nuclear power plants there, including recently)

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#116

Post by phtrivier »

aetherspawn wrote: post #66

Unpopular opinion in this thread but ... I don't want a world with nuclear. That makes me anxious. It's not if there will be a problem, but when . I'd rather the world spend money on batteries and solar/wind energy, like South Australia. And by focusing on that technology, the market will drive innovation in that class of renewables. That technology is reusable in other applications, like domestic (rooftop), EVs and…

I understand the anxiety, and I suppose you've already weighted the pro / cons argument ; however, I'm curious about the psychology - and please don't read that as whataboutism.

So, how do you feel about the present problems with our current carbon heavy energy productions ? Are you less anxious about deaths from coal and every catastrophe related to climate change (heat waves, floods, mass exiles, civil wars, etc...) because they feel further in the future than the possibility of an accident at a power plant next close to home ?

I get that those can be blown out of proportion too ; and I get that using death/kWh is rather inhumane as a metric ; and I get that living in a country that had ~70% of it's electricity coming from very-much-non-exploding plants colors my thinking.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#117

Post by nbraem »

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #97
arrrg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but you don’t want to do that. Nuclear is monstrously expensive already. For it to have any chance of being economically viable at all you have to run it all the time. It doesn’t make sense as an on-demand power source.

Nuclear is totally economically viable. It's not viable in the current regulatorily climate. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will return profits for 80 years is an easy financial decision. Investing $1 billion in a nuclear plant that will be shut down by moonbats every 4 years when the next batch of princess unicorns is voted into office is not economically viable.

That is, if you leave the storage cost of the nuclear waste for the next 100.000 years out of your business model.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#118

Post by catlikesshrimp »

m0zg wrote: post #34

Of course. Think of it in terms of cui bono. You're on the precipice of convincing a bunch of folks they should shut down their economies and give you trillions of dollars to send to your donors as you please. Then a guy comes along and says that your shit won't work (which will be amply demonstrated in Europe this coming winter) and offers something that actually does work. It's like that meme - the guy will fly str…

What is with "The winter is coming" vibe?

Your comment is too vague for me to understand.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#119

Post by tomjen3 »

pickledolives wrote: post #38
whatever1 wrote: post #5

Neither the technology nor the fuel for nuclear plants are abundant or renewable. For example, can Iran build its own reactors? No. Can Somalia run its hypothetical reactors? No. Can Syria import enriched uranium? No. Can we have reactors without them blowing up every 50 years? No. Do we have a solution for containing nuclear waste without leaks and without ruining the local communities? No. Enough with this joke of…

Don‘t forget all the CO2 emitted a) at mining and enriching uranium and b) in storing nuclear waste for 100000 years and c) in tearing down highly radioactive retired nuclear power plants. In Germany we started tearing down the GDRs only nuclear power plant in the early 90s and we‘re still not done. 30+ years of daily ops of a highly specialised destruction company operating heavy machinery requiring insulation from…

I absolutely agree with you that we should not let communists build nuclear powerplants, just as we should not let them build anything else.

As for the storage - Sahara, Gobi, Arizona - plenty of useless land where we can put a few football stadions full of nuclear waste.

Your plan to solve global warming is either based on and around nuclear power, or you do not have a plan to solve global warming.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#120

Post by aetherspawn »

phtrivier wrote: post #116
aetherspawn wrote: post #66

Unpopular opinion in this thread but ... I don't want a world with nuclear. That makes me anxious. It's not if there will be a problem, but when . I'd rather the world spend money on batteries and solar/wind energy, like South Australia. And by focusing on that technology, the market will drive innovation in that class of renewables. That technology is reusable in other applications, like domestic (rooftop), EVs and…

I understand the anxiety, and I suppose you've already weighted the pro / cons argument ; however, I'm curious about the psychology - and please don't read that as whataboutism. So, how do you feel about the present problems with our current carbon heavy energy productions ? Are you less anxious about deaths from coal and every catastrophe related to climate change (heat waves, floods, mass exiles, civil wars, etc...…

It's more long term thinking from me: I know that we can reach 100% renewables in 20 or so years, but I'd rather that it's wind/solar/hydro than something like nuclear, that is more volatile in nature and requires continuous maintenance from a capable overseer.

For example, what if a negligent person is promoted to maintenance overseer at a power plant that's several cities across? I have no control over that at all. I'm literally in the passenger seat with nuclear. I have to trust that a handful of people in charge of that plant are exceptional at their job, otherwise we all have a really bad day, and there are no safeguards or precautions that any of us can put in place that will protect us from a meltdown. That's a source of anxiety for me.

Worst case solar power disaster, the lights go out or something like that and I don't personally get seriously hurt.

Post reply on HN