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

An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

m.dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 247 posts

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#191

Post by rich_sasha »

pydry wrote: post #99
rich_sasha wrote: post #22

So... it’s a massive problem that there is no storage for nuclear waste (mostly agree) but not even worth mentioning there is no energy storage for renewables? Coming from a cold, dark country with long and cloudy winters and no oceanic coast, it drives me mad when people point at the Med or California and say “look how cheap solar and wind is”.

Where are you from that has no wind or sun?

Poland has cloudy winters with short days and no reliable offshore winds (nothing comparable to the trade winds on the North Sea for example). It is mostly a lowland country with no potential for pumped hydro, or for the most part, regular hydro.

I’m not, like many Polish people are, pro coal and climate change denier, just saying we can’t solve global warming on the assumption of Californian weather.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#192

Post by ncmncm »

jpgvm wrote: post #189
ncmncm wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments do not compete. Each adds to the case, and the strength of the argument is the sum of all, less any valid counters. It is very clear that the sum is strongly positive, even with increasing uncertainty in the later points. The case is solid even if one or two sub-arguments turned out to have holes. Huge decommissioning costs are always neglected in any argument promoting nukes. As thoroughly bad as the a…

You could have made the same argument for investing in solar a few decades ago. Spending money on fusion research will unlock humanities next energy supply for when/where solar isn't viable. Fusion power has been hampered by the way it's been approached )massive slow moving projects) but is inevitably going to come to fruition given enough time and money and when it does it will likely displace most other energy sour…

I will go on record here:

There will never be so much as one single, solitary erg of competitive commercial energy production from any Tokamak plant, ever. Every cent spent on Tokamak is stolen from more viable energy research--which might reasonably even include some non-Tokamak, aneutronic fusion, after solar, wind, and geo capacity are fully built out. Thus, each person-day of work on Tokamak takes our species a day farther away from any desirable goal.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#193

Post by berkes »

rich_sasha wrote: post #191
pydry wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you from that has no wind or sun?

Poland has cloudy winters with short days and no reliable offshore winds (nothing comparable to the trade winds on the North Sea for example). It is mostly a lowland country with no potential for pumped hydro, or for the most part, regular hydro. I’m not, like many Polish people are, pro coal and climate change denier, just saying we can’t solve global warming on the assumption of Californian weather.

Would that not make a great argument for more European integration in energy infrastructure?

Where Spanish solar, Danish and Dutch North Sea Wind, Norwegian Hydro, or Swedish Geothermal, power Poland on the days when its own wind and solar is below whats needed?

I'm from the Netherlands, and many fellow countryman and politicians have similar excuses for not going renewables (there is little Sun, no space for windmills). Both of which are easily debunked. But even if true, easily solved with better integration.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#194

Post by aksss »

addicted wrote: post #175
aksss wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s keep in mind that not doing nuclear is subjecting you and your family (and subsequent generations) to the long term issue of ever-increasing CO2 output. While waiting for workable battery tech at 3% avg y/y improvement - which means a looong wait for truly reliable at-scale FF displacement. The promise of renewables is great, but planning for a battery miracle in the short term is no plan at all. IF we appropri…

Do people even read the ariticles they respond to? For interviewee points to the fact that new nuclear is significantly more expensive than solar and wind. In fact, even existing nuclear’s base running costs are higher. And here’s the kicker. Solar/wind + existing battery tech is also cheaper than nuclear. And we don’t even need battery until solar/wind generation has increased by an order of magnitude. So $1 spent o…

I think what you’re missing is that solar+wind can’t do what nuclear can, which is supply reliable power 24/7.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#195

Post by estaseuropano »

jojobas wrote: post #166
dividedbyzero wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm aware, dealing with the waste has cost taxpayers in Germany quite a lot over the last couple of decades, and all of the really hot stuff is sitting in glorified warehouses with no end in sight. I have a feeling this may still become a very significant part of the overall costs. Has any other country actually solved that problem?

These glorified warehouses are cheap. Also cheap are former mines where 50 year old spent fuel can be placed with risks below that of chemical plants.

That is simply wrong. Underground storage is not a panacea. Few mines are suitable and even those require expensive preparation and maintenance for coming decades or even centuries, with many hard to predict risks (think earthquake, flood).

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#196

Post by pezezin »

vcdimension wrote: post #131
aksss wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have no problem with building one outside our city. And frankly compared the land clearing one would need for solar/thermal or the blight of enormous windmills, I’d prefer it. What you may be really asking is whether people are comfortable with the risk of turning into the next Chernobyl. I feel that risk is quite low, especially for new builds.

I cannot understand how anyone would prefer an enormous grey concrete building with a large exclusion zone and large cooling towers blocking the skyline, to otherwise untouched natural or agricultural landscape dotted with wind turbines. Wind turbines allow you to enjoy more of the countryside because they take up very little space (you can walk around them). Furthermore, they seem to be quieter: https://youtu.be/zKg…

I grew up 70 km away from a nuclear power plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaraz_Nuclear_Power_Plant

I have driven passed it many, many times. I can tell you that the visual impact is minimal, and the area around it is "untouched natural or agricultural landscape". Blocking the skyline? How tall do you think the cooling towers are? Wind farms have a much larger visual impact.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#197

Post by berkes »

worik wrote: post #24
rich_sasha wrote: post #22

So... it’s a massive problem that there is no storage for nuclear waste (mostly agree) but not even worth mentioning there is no energy storage for renewables? Coming from a cold, dark country with long and cloudy winters and no oceanic coast, it drives me mad when people point at the Med or California and say “look how cheap solar and wind is”.

Yes there is. Two sorts of grid storage batteries: Elon Must has made Lithium batteries work on grid scale. Flow batteries or fuel cells, are probably more economic. And then there is pumped hydro

We should also not forget the giant decentralised batterypack on wheels that is being rolled out.

EVs have a big capacity. Not industrial sized and with clear limitations (at 08:00 it needs to be charged in order to bring you to work), but all together, having every car in future being a storage, makes for a huge buffer.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#198

Post by pezezin »

toshk wrote: post #67
readflaggedcomm wrote: post #6

>However, many of the measures needed for energy efficiency are now cheaper than the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants. Yes, blackouts are cheaper than electricity. >The second point is that renewables today have become so cheap that in many cases they are below the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants. Prohibiting new plants by law has a way of doing that, with aging mechanisms that fail catastr…

To everyone being a proponent of this modern new nuclear plants you dream about I ask: would you want to live in a village where they would build a new nuclear plant next to it?

I grew up 70 km away from a nuclear power plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaraz_Nuclear_Power_Plant), and I spent the last two years living 3 km away from a nuclear reprocessing plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Nuclear_Fuel_Limited), and I never gave a damn about it. So the answer is yes.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#199

Post by bigfudge »

aksss wrote: post #70
toshk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To everyone being a proponent of this modern new nuclear plants you dream about I ask: would you want to live in a village where they would build a new nuclear plant next to it?

I would have no problem with building one outside our city. And frankly compared the land clearing one would need for solar/thermal or the blight of enormous windmills, I’d prefer it. What you may be really asking is whether people are comfortable with the risk of turning into the next Chernobyl. I feel that risk is quite low, especially for new builds.

Aesthetically, I'd offer a counterpoint that incredibly high aspect ratio white carbon wings are quite beautiful, relative to monolithic concrete blocks. They are also approachable in the landscape (I love mountain biking beneath them).

I agree with your point that nimbyism shouldn't be a relevant factor in new build decisions though. The real issue is not whether you would want to live next to a new nuclear reactor, but whether you would want to live next to one in the process of being decommissioned at minimum cost contracts (or pay for the same, which is not being factored in to operating expenses). Or, live next to one of the wholly inadequate storage facilities for the hottest waste which we still have little idea what to do with.

Re: An argument that nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse

#200

Post by bigfudge »

aksss wrote: post #194
addicted wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people even read the ariticles they respond to? For interviewee points to the fact that new nuclear is significantly more expensive than solar and wind. In fact, even existing nuclear’s base running costs are higher. And here’s the kicker. Solar/wind + existing battery tech is also cheaper than nuclear. And we don’t even need battery until solar/wind generation has increased by an order of magnitude. So $1 spent o…

I think what you’re missing is that solar+wind can’t do what nuclear can, which is supply reliable power 24/7.

Solar+wind+storage could though.

Plus, what never gets factored into this, is a sane discussion about industrial uses. Switching off industrial users in extreme events (light winds/cloudy for multiple weeks) has a cost, but that could also be factored in to the costs of relative power strategies. We already have these kind of contracts — perhaps we should be more aggressive in pursuing that?

Post reply on HN