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

I changed my mind about nuclear waste

zionlights.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#181

Post by somethoughts »

Eisenstein wrote: post #138
somethoughts wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an add on to that - if nuclear energy did start becoming mass produced in the developed world where some modicum of safety/regulation around waste can be assumed, once all of the necessary reactors are built out to supply first world energy needs, at best, those same private developers/contractors will start lobbying efforts in more questionable parts of the world to build these things. Then it be framed as an equ…

I think this is rather a silly thing to be concerned about given the consequences of the world either running out of cheap energy or continuing to dump huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I will roll the dice on your crystal ball being defective rather than the alternative.

My hot take, pretending I was an environmentalist, is that fossil fuel/climate change is the object d'ire for environmentalists only because nuclear ended up not gaining traction. The masses of environmentalists have moved on to a different front of the battlefield for protecting the earth but would return if nuclear gained traction.

It's kind of like now that humans conquered polio and smallpox, the next challenge toward advancing the human race is ridding ourselves of cancer. If polio and smallpox returned, we'd be back to fighting those.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#182

Post by sacrosancty »

glitchc wrote: post #5

Thank you. I believe all environmentalists need to curb their fear and absorb a healthy dose of science. It would limit the outpouring of outrageous, fear-mongering statements to leave some room for serious adult discussions on how to tackle the energy problems we face as a species.

[dead]

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#183

Post by intrasight »

Nuclear is dead - in the US anyway. Nuclear never made sense in the US. We aren't the kind of society that can make rational, scientific, economic decisions. Nuclear REQUIRES success at that. No pro-nuclear arguments are going to change those societal facts on the ground. Nor is their any reason to try - because nuclear is dead.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#184

Post by robbintt »

robbintt wrote: post #126
matthewdgreen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fossil fuel industry is not funding pro-nuclear arguments because they want to see 50% of their business lost to nuclear. They are not worried about losing huge profits to nuclear because from a purely economic perspective nuclear is not cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Hence it doesn’t pose a major threat, absent massive government-subsidized build-outs (which aren’t remotely on the table now.) The fossil fue…

Can you share the details about renewables being cost competitive with oil?

chat.openai.com claims it is true, albeit without specific sources:

Yes, there is a significant amount of data and research that supports the increasing competitiveness of renewable energy compared to oil. Here are a few examples:

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that in 2020, the average global cost of producing electricity from solar photovoltaic (PV) systems was lower than the cost of producing electricity from new fossil fuel plants, including coal and natural gas.

A recent study by the consultancy firm Lazard found that the cost of utility-scale solar and wind energy in the United States has fallen significantly in recent years, and is now cheaper than the cost of power generated from coal and natural gas in most regions of the country.

The US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) reported that the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for wind and solar energy in the United States has fallen by more than 50% over the past decade, and is projected to continue to decline in the future.

According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the cost of solar PV and wind energy has declined by over 80% and 60%, respectively, since 2010. IRENA also found that renewable energy is now the cheapest source of new power generation in many countries, including Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and the United States.

These are just a few examples, but they demonstrate the trend of declining costs for renewable energy and increasing competitiveness with oil and other fossil fuels.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#185

Post by cinntaile »

qclibre22 wrote: post #109
stareatgoats wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GWPF The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a British foundation highly critical of the anthropogenic global warming scientific consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foun...

> anthropogenic global warming scientific consensus Isn't there some serious, vigorous debate on this topic?

Not really. There are a few people that disagree with the consensus (that's the definition after all) and they get outsized media attention.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#186

Post by erpellan »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #54
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #18

The author, who gives every appearance of being funded by the industry, founded an activist group that claims: > Aim for 50% nuclear at least, as per the science. Which suggests a pretty cavalier attitude to "the science". edit: I take it back, she's in cahoots with Shellenberger and GWPF so it's the fossil fuel industry that she's supporting. I thought the timing was mysteriously exact for both her and Shellenberger…

While these are reasons to be suspicious, they do not counter a single point she made in her article. Her logic and her facts were solid. If they're not, I'd love to see a take down of that. But I see no problem with anything she wrote, I remain convinced nuclear is the only rational energy source left, and all this fear mongering about nuclear is causing us to slowly kill ourselves.

It takes a decade to bring a nuclear plant online, at astronomical cost. Instead, why not take that money and start building wind turbines, solar PV and grid-scale batteries? They can start generating (ie. delivering ROI) in a matter of months, be constructed incrementally and are cheaper per KWH.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#187

Post by debacle »

rayiner wrote: post #87
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #18

The author, who gives every appearance of being funded by the industry, founded an activist group that claims: > Aim for 50% nuclear at least, as per the science. Which suggests a pretty cavalier attitude to "the science". edit: I take it back, she's in cahoots with Shellenberger and GWPF so it's the fossil fuel industry that she's supporting. I thought the timing was mysteriously exact for both her and Shellenberger…

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

Fear of nuclear is distrust in the government.

I believe in nuclear as a technology, and I believe in mankind's ability to perform science and engineering tasks.

I don't have a lot of faith in the role of the government in properly and adequately regulating a booming nuclear industry.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#188

Post by robbintt »

robbintt wrote: post #126
matthewdgreen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fossil fuel industry is not funding pro-nuclear arguments because they want to see 50% of their business lost to nuclear. They are not worried about losing huge profits to nuclear because from a purely economic perspective nuclear is not cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Hence it doesn’t pose a major threat, absent massive government-subsidized build-outs (which aren’t remotely on the table now.) The fossil fue…

Can you share the details about renewables being cost competitive with oil?

Perplexity.ai provides explicit sources:

https://www.perplexity.ai/?s=u&uuid=2921714c-3614-41ae-82d1-...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#189

Post by JohnBooty »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #152
rayiner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

> Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. I've always hoped they're secretly funded/friends with the oil lobby, because otherwise that's just pure sadness.

I don't know if they were directly funded by the oil lobby, but I'm not sure that they needed to be either.

At a minimum, it seems that (thanks to ignorance) they lapped up all of the anti-nuclear FUD that was generated by the oil lobby and others.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#190

Post by anonymouskimmer »

erentz wrote: post #34
whatshisface wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilian nuclear waste management has a better track record than military nuclear waste management and civilian chemical waste management. Is that a permanent condition, or a fluke?

We are talking about 32 countries with civilian nuclear power operating for several decades. With oversight by an international body that tracks every bit of nuclear material. Using processes that differ from what was done at Hanford, producing waste different from Hanford. That has been working well, stored well and safely without issue. The military didn't start from that position, it started from "Joe just throw t…

> That has been working well, stored well and safely without issue.

Fukushima Daiichi. In case those two words aren't enough to jog your memory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe...

> "leading to releases of radioactivity and triggering a 30 km (19 mi) evacuation zone surrounding the plant"

> "the Japanese government approved the dumping of radioactive water of this power plant into the Pacific Ocean over the course of 30 years."

I'm hopeful that when/if fusion reactors become prevalent that we will prioritize burning up the fusion waste radioactives. https://cns.utexas.edu/news/fusion-fission-hybrid

But, of course, that's an if: https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run...

Post reply on HN