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

Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

americanaffairsjournal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 277 posts

Re: Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

#21

Post by throw827474737 »

jmyeet wrote: post #13

I'm familiar with the argument that nuclear power is the answer to greenhouse gas emissions. Still, this article is the next level of pro-nuclear propaganda as it launches into quite the anti-environmentalist screed. For example: > The postwar American environmental movement began as an outgrowth from the eugenaics movement. and > Having fallen out of favor during World War II due to its associations with Nazism, eug…

Yeah it is ridiculous, and this still completely ignores that e.g. France's plants age quicker than they can renew them, that nuclear will never be safe (not talking the ""normal safe"" but what's the threat in Ukraine right now), that Europe just learns that also nuclear is of not much help during heat and drought (lol, nuclear for base power load), and that whatever will need to happen that going nuclear fully is just not feasible, time-left-wise, economical-wise, supply-wise..

Re: Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

#22

Post by mcronce »

jonnybgood wrote: post #14
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #8

> France’s nuclear buildout, beginning in the 1970s, achieved the greatest decarbonization in human history; ... In North America, the mantle belongs to Ontario, whose nuclear plants replaced its coal fleet.1 I am dubious of this claim, but it probably depends on exactly how you define it. But switching from a country to a province immediately sends up red flags.

Canada has 3 out of 4 currently operating nuclear plants in Ontario. France has them scattered throughout the country. I believe that’s why Ontario is specifically mentioned.

Ontario is also twice the size of France and 1/4 the population; they're at least in the same order of magnitude. I'd call it a reasonable comparison.

Re: Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

#23

Post by dctoedt »

Nuclear power is expensive in no small part because of the safeguards needed to try to avert catastrophic accidents. Humans are fallible, and our best intentions can be subverted by inadequate training; fatigue; inattention; laziness; or what we used to call "a loss-of-brain accident." As a result, we can f[oul] up at any stage of design, construction, operation, or maintenance of a nuclear reactor.

(Neither Three Mile Island [0] nor Chernobyl [1] would have been so disastrous had it not been for cascading sequences of human error.)

Expecting nominal performance by people or machinery is ... unwise; as Admiral Rickover famously said, "you get what you INspect, not what you EXpect."

All that adds to costs.

Source: Former Navy nuclear engineering officer, qualified as [chief] engineer aboard the eight-reactor aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.

[0] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-...

[1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs

Re: Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

#24

Post by ch4s3 »

musha68k wrote: post #15
fundatus wrote: post #5

Who Killed Nuclear Energy? The absurd cost to build this technology and the emergence of much more cost-effective and emission-free alternatives. It's as simple as that. It wasn't the tree-huggers or a big conspiracy.

Yes, it’s interesting to watch consensus switch over to pro-nuclear again. I’m not only referring to power generation by the way. In terms of global warming I’m still conflicted myself. It’s a complex topic. Going nuclear probably would be a pragmatic last minute band-aid if it had been applied 20 years ago. Now I’m not so sure anymore. Future plants will also likely meet more wars and other shocks to the system. You…

My thinking boils down to this question. What if storage, smart grids, and conservation don’t pan out? Batteries may reach some practical limits and not end up being feasible for global grid scale storage.

Would we rather live in a world where we grind out building more nuclear capacity, one with rolling blackouts in the OECD, or runaway climate change?

Re: Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

#25

Post by BMc2020 »

fundatus wrote: post #5

Who Killed Nuclear Energy? The absurd cost to build this technology and the emergence of much more cost-effective and emission-free alternatives. It's as simple as that. It wasn't the tree-huggers or a big conspiracy.

Shhh, don't disturb the pro-nuke narrative with 'facts'. Elsewhere in this thread they try to blame regulations. US regulations don't apply in China and Russia, but they can't make it economic either.

Re: Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

#26

Post by fallingknife »

jmyeet wrote: post #13

I'm familiar with the argument that nuclear power is the answer to greenhouse gas emissions. Still, this article is the next level of pro-nuclear propaganda as it launches into quite the anti-environmentalist screed. For example: > The postwar American environmental movement began as an outgrowth from the eugenaics movement. and > Having fallen out of favor during World War II due to its associations with Nazism, eug…

> The pro-nuclear lobby has no argument against Chernobyl

> Likewise, Fukushima, which along with Chernobyl is the only other level seven nuclear incident, is simply written off

So let's not ignore Chernobyl. Let's say hypothetically that we build our entire power grid out of nuclear power plants that use the exact same design as the reactors at Chernobyl. Still better than using fossil fuels. And it's a stupid comparison because nuclear is only needed for base load, not the whole grid, and we have much better designs.

Fukushima, I absolutely do write off for the exact reason you quote "No one was harmed by nor did anyone receive lethal doses of radiation."

> nuclear waste from fuel processing, nuclear waste from fuel, transporting of fuel and waste

Don't care about the waste issue, because current power sources are dumping the waste into the atmosphere continuously. Don't care that it lasts 100K years. Don't care that someone in 10K years could be killed. I don't care because the alternative carbon based power is killing people right now, so nuclear is better than that.

> trusting people in corporations and governments to adequately build and maintain such plants

Don't care because of the aforementioned fact that nuclear meltdowns are much less harmful than global warming, which is the side effect of our current power generation system.

> not a single nuclear power plant in the world hasn't been built without significant government help

Don't care that it's more expensive and needs govt subsidies. Don't care because it's better than using fossil fuels and causing more global warming. Happy to have my taxes go up for this purpose.

But what about solar/wind/storage?

Don't care because doesn't exist (yet). Show me one reasonably sized area where this powers 100% of the grid (areas w/ hydro don't count), and then I'll care. Using existing tech now is the lower risk option. Don't care about predictions that large scale storage will be ready in X years because predicting when new tech will be ready is basically impossible.

Re: Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

#27

Post by locallost »

The article starts by praising the French nuclear program in the 70s. Yet, that same nuclear program is currently going through a complete debacle, failing to provide for its own country's needs, and is partially the reason prices are going into the stratosphere on the whole continent. If you can't factor in the reality of what is actually happening as we speak as a potential risk for your analysis, well...

The French futures market is almost at 2000 Euros per MWh for the next two quarters [1]. You'd think the market is not anticipating those nuclear plants are coming back online any time soon.

Can we not talk about this as a success story please?

[1] https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/power/futures#%7B%22snipp...

Re: Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

#29

Post by tomjakubowski »

jmyeet wrote: post #13

I'm familiar with the argument that nuclear power is the answer to greenhouse gas emissions. Still, this article is the next level of pro-nuclear propaganda as it launches into quite the anti-environmentalist screed. For example: > The postwar American environmental movement began as an outgrowth from the eugenaics movement. and > Having fallen out of favor during World War II due to its associations with Nazism, eug…

I don't have a real opinion on this subject, but wanted to point out that 1,000 square miles is not really as big as it sounds: a square 31.6 miles on each side. About the size of Rhode Island's land area.

Re: Who killed nuclear energy and how to revive it

#30

Post by throw827474737 »

jdasdf wrote: post #17
jmyeet wrote: post #13

I'm familiar with the argument that nuclear power is the answer to greenhouse gas emissions. Still, this article is the next level of pro-nuclear propaganda as it launches into quite the anti-environmentalist screed. For example: > The postwar American environmental movement began as an outgrowth from the eugenaics movement. and > Having fallen out of favor during World War II due to its associations with Nazism, eug…

>The pro-nuclear lobby has no argument against Chernobyl~ We could have a chernobyl every year for the next hundred years, and you would cause less environment damage, and human deaths than we did by operating fossil fuel plants in 2021. There is no argument against chernobyl because chernobil is quite frankly irrelevant beyond an economic cost to cleanup and contain, both of which can be accounted for, and arguably…

Yes, tell that those chernobyl children who still suffer visibly today?

Not every country has that much square meters for landfills or nuclear wastelands, too.

Nuclear won't save us from not realizing we cannot grow forever and resources are finite.

> arguably are already accounted

wtf?

Post reply on HN