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

121–130 of 248 posts

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

#121

Post by _ph_ »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #67
thinkcontext wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants Germany decided to shut their nukes before their coal plants

In a panic over a Tsunami - note that Germany doesn't have a coast to speak off and is not prone to tsunamis. It was also used to keep the Greens on side though you do have to ask who benefits and is keeping coal plant open longer really a green solution.

German here - it is not because of panic over a tsunami, but about the complete incompetence shown in the Fukushima disaster. The plant had construction faults, the operations after the disaster failed to prevent a preventeable disaster. Yes, we won't have a tsunami at any our nuclear power plants. But whatever else has been overlooked during their construction, where are the operating companies maybe cutting too many corners to save costs?

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

#122

Post by blackbrokkoli »

bcatanzaro wrote: post #110
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…

Devastating! Chernobyl on the other hand is one of the most beautiful tourist locations to this day!

Really though, it baffles me how people can bring degrading postcard quality into a discussion with stakes of a few billion human lives with a straight face...

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

#123

Post by Ygg2 »

jchook wrote: post #119

A handful of Uranium can power an entire lifetime of electricity usage. Why would we litter the planet with toxic, 20-year solar panels with no solid recycle plan when we can have cheap, clean nuclear energy?

Because, Simpsons.

I admit, it's only half joking. But it seems more and more nuclear + renewables (+ some carbon removal) is the only solution forward.

For those interested why that might be look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5cm7HOAqZY

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

#124

Post by godelski »

mncolinlee wrote: post #96
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.

Both coal and nuclear have potentially killed millions. Just because it can take decades for Chernobyl, Fukushima, and coal air pollution to result in some cancers, that does not mean they aren't primarily responsible for those deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...

> Both coal and nuclear have potentially killed millions.

If you remove nuclear from that sentence it is still true. If you remove coal from that sentence it certainly is not.

You are being EXTREMELY misleading. The page you show lists under 10k for nuclear (even if we take the highest estimates from Chernobyl we are around 100k). 20 times that more Americans die per year from coal ash. PER YEAR! 3x that die from cars, or opioids, or guns PER YEAR!

Lumping nuclear into this statistic is grossly misleading at best and manipulative at worst. Considering the link you provided, and that I believe you have the ability to count, it suggests the latter. So I just have to ask: why?

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

#125

Post by r00fus »

perfunctory wrote: post #70
umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

also modern airplanes with modern software never crash.

It's arguable that the 737Max is the exception that proves the rule.

I still have no idea how the FAA approved the "software fix".

To me the bug is the corruption that allowed it to be deployed in the first place and the lack of punishment.

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

#126

Post by Ygg2 »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #113
Meandering wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the issues with solar power that gets overlooked. The physical 'stuff' needed to build a large solar farm is far more than a base nuclear plant. After a quick search: Solar Panels Lifespan - ~25 years - Good Grid Battery Lifespan - 5-10 years - ehh.. If we switched to 100% solar, with a majority of the equipment probably manufactured in China, there would be an orders of magnitude more physical product…

Simply comparing lifespans is extremely misleading. We need to look at the potential risk associated with waste. Solar panel waste: grind and reuse. Health risk: negligible. Battery waste: empty, disassemble and reuse. Health risk: very moderate. Nuclear waste: highly radioactive for thousands of years. No way to recovery leaks in the environment. Health risk: very high.

Here is a link: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...

    > Battery waste: empty, disassemble and reuse. Health risk: very moderate.
How long are rare metals (used in some battery/electronics) toxic for? Indefinitely.

How long is nuclear waste toxic? 92% for 40 years, 0.2% for thousands of years.

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

#127

Post by boomboomsubban »

bilbo0s wrote: post #12
umvi wrote: post #4

Haven't nuclear waste recycling and safety features gotten really good in the past few decades? I feel like not many people know just how little waste is created with modern recycling and just how safe nuclear is with modern safety features. Seems like we need a positive PR campaign to help convince folks that nuclear is way better than fossil fuels. This could easily be bipartisan.

In fairness, no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants. The problem is the renewables. In Iowa, they are in the process of shuttering their nuclear plants. Now no one in Iowa was out protesting the plants or anything, but here's the issue. Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere. (Seriously, drive through I…

>Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere.

Why are you sure this is the reason? If the price tag is the main concern, the North Dakota oil boom and ongoing pipeline projects are probably the primary cause.

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

#128

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jessaustin wrote: post #31

If other low-carbon sources, namely wind and solar PV, are to fill the shortfall in nuclear, their deployment would have to accelerate to an unprecedented level. In the past 20 years, wind and solar PV capacity has increased by about 580 gigawatts in advanced economies. But over the next 20 years, nearly five times that amount would need to be added. This is misleading enough to make one question every "fact" stated…

> 20 years ago was essentially a zero point for the statistic they cite. It was less than 5 gigawatts, anyway. It grew by over 100 times in that 20 years, and it will be "unprecedented" to grow by 5 times in the next 20?

Do you expect the growth rate of Google over the next 20 years will be the same as it was between 1999 and today?

As things mature you don't get the same level of exponential growth. Meanwhile the subsidies for solar are being reduced etc.

And your chart is installed capacity, not panel production capacity. The growth in panel production capacity is lower than that visual implies.

But let's suppose we could replace nuclear with solar. That doesn't really work because solar can't produce at night and adding the requirement of batteries would make the demand for daytime-only solar generation fall off significantly, but suppose we could do it. That's still not what we need -- we need the expanding solar capacity to replace coal. Every GW of nuclear it would have to replace is one more GW of coal that stays online.

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

#129

Post by bcatanzaro »

blackbrokkoli wrote: post #122
bcatanzaro wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Devastating! Chernobyl on the other hand is one of the most beautiful tourist locations to this day! Really though, it baffles me how people can bring degrading postcard quality into a discussion with stakes of a few billion human lives with a straight face...

People didn't care about the externalities of burning coal until we had scaled the technology.

The externalities of large scale solar PV are not just bad, they're impossible.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_re...

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

#130

Post by [deleted] »

perfunctory wrote: post #80
mbell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, a nuclear waste dome is leaking in to the Pacific That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. This is the type of fear mongering that caused the current situation.

> That has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. Why not?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN