Live data from Hacker News

To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

nytimes.com

131–140 of 666 posts

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#131
post #2

When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…

Population is a self-correcting system. As people (especially women) get broader education, success, and opportunity, reproductive rates decline. When life is tough, people pop out more children. Reducing consumption is a strange one. We keep making our devices more power efficient, but we pile on more of them. We have more efficient cars, but we seem to be driving them longer and more often. Busy-ness fills whatever…

For me, reduced consumption is about promoting different habits.

In most of western countries, the society is set in a way that happiness is directly tied to consumption. Marketing and the society in general, makes people feel that the only way to fill their lives is by buying things.

In some other countries, people may be able to achieve similar levels of happiness with lower consumption levels; for instance, by doing things instead of buying things.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective. Compared to nuclear? That very few nations recycle or reprocesses? And where all the waste ends up in cooling pools forever? Don't be disingenuous. > There are currently 55 new power reactors under construction and scheduled to be in operation by 2020. China alone has 20 in active construction, with many more planned…

"Compared to nuclear?" Yes. Compared to nuclear. "That very few nations recycle or reprocesses?" Way wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s... I count ten countries on that list. " And where all the waste ends up in cooling pools forever?" No country keeps waste "in cooling pools forever".

There are plants of various ages beacause it was an area of active research in late 1900s, and a handful of industrial scale plants that are operating. But it's not generally happening or growing. For most used fuel there is no plan, or going to be buried underground.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#135
post #56
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>in an era where solar is competitively priced We're not in that era though. Solar is only competitive if you don't account for storage, which is required if it's going to replace any large percentage of generation.

Nuclear waste storage is subsidized and nuclear liability is too (capped near $12billion; plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion).

>plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion

Citation? Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors and it wasn't $1t.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#136
post #128
post #74

I used to think that global warming was a slam dunk. But then I looked at the data... the carbon makeup of the atmosphere hasn't changed much at all, and we have already reached peak oil. If the carbon sinks (oceans etc.) can hold 2x the current amount they absorbed without much trouble then we are in the clear. Perhaps CFCs and Ozone Depleting Substances present a danger but we have largely reduced their use since t…

I don't think I understand what you mean about the composition of the atmosphere not having changed very much.

Well CO2's concentration went from 0.03% to 0.04% . In absolute terms that is very negligible. If we burned all our fossil fuels AND the solubility pumps of the oceans kept working, that means a maximum of 0.06% or so concentration in the atmosphere of CO2. Its effect as a greenhouse gas should be measured relative to THAT, not its rise in relative numbers.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#137
post #112
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desire to have sex is because it's enjoyable, it's enjoyable as a result of evolution.

Yet if you don't want to have sex, you don't have to, despite any evolutionary pressure to do so. So evolution is not a consideration when trying to determine whether you want to have sex.

Evolution certainly is relevant if you explicitly think about your own evolutionary origins and what strategies worked out for your ancestors, when deciding what to do yourself.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We've got these things you know, batteries." Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective. "Nuclear lost. Its never coming back." There are currently 55 new power reactors under construction and scheduled to be in operation by 2020. China alone has 20 in active construction, with many more planned. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and...

> Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective. Compared to nuclear? That very few nations recycle or reprocesses? And where all the waste ends up in cooling pools forever? Don't be disingenuous. > There are currently 55 new power reactors under construction and scheduled to be in operation by 2020. China alone has 20 in active construction, with many more planned…

You quoted this yourself!

"The technical solutions are ready to be implemented when the political will reasserts itself"

There is no technical reason not to move forward, the issues are all ignorant political stances based on FUD much like the stuff you are espousing here.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#139
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste storage is subsidized and nuclear liability is too (capped near $12billion; plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion).

>plausible accident scenarios can go over $1trillion Citation? Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors and it wasn't $1t.

Fukushima is up to $200bn and rising.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#140
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens to batteries that leak and no longer work?

What darkmont and mikeyouse said (Tesla warranties their batteries for 10 years). And fires? https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-saf...

10 years? That's pathetic considering the cost. Tesla's powerwalls still aren't even close to economical.[1]

"Even at Tesla’s low wholesale price, a 500-cycle battery just doesn’t pencil out against the alternatives, especially once the inverter and other system costs are included. "

1. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Tesla-Discontin...

Post reply on HN