To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by abalone » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 6:57 AM UTC

flexie wrote: post #150

hackuser wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. ... The political capital lost in a reactor accident isn't worth it. The lost of faith in technology, the loss of trust in science That omits what is by far the largest risk and issue, climate change. The cost of climate change dwarfs the risks mentioned above. If solar or other renewable sources can't prevent climate change, t…

Are you sure about that? Wouldn't a 1 or 2 degrees temperature increase be preferable to nuclear meltdowns becoming more frequent because we get much more nuclear power plants?

You may not fully appreciate the truly massive destructive effects of a global increase of 2 degrees.[1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

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

#212

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:01 AM UTC

flexie wrote: post #205

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just how common are nuclear meltdowns over time? It's a flawed risk analysis, further mitigated by newer Gen-IV reactor designs that are going to be coming out of China and India before long. Altogether, there have only been two INES level 7 incidents and one level 6 incident since 1954 [0]. And while unfortunate and expensive, they're incidents that can be cleaned up and recovered from. By contrast, you're stuck…

Easy now. It's not an analysis, it's a question. Here are the costs of just a single nuclear disaster, one considered minor: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/getinvolved/They-... Please bear in mind that this was the most conservative estimate I found when googling. According to the below post, even a relatively nuclear heavy country like the US would need 5 times more nuclear power to cover the electricity…

[deleted]

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

#213

Post by mkandes » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:02 AM UTC

We will probably have no better production-ready, scalable, (minimally) carbon-free option for energy production to combat climate change in our lifetimes.

If you don't believe me and you haven't seen a real scientist explain the scale of the energy problem in a cogent way, you should watch Nathan Lewis:

2005: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKqx2uk-Gs

2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IQhTiN6OI

If he cannot sell you, no one will ... and he's a solar guy.

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

#214

Post by aamederen » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:03 AM UTC

The thing I worry about nuclear power is that, with the latest events in 2015 and 2016, once again we saw that, we are still pretty bad at preventing terrorist attacks and I cannot think about how a terrorist attack to a nuclear plant end up? I am even surprised that no big attack has been made to such a dangerous facility.

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

#215

Post by dang » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:14 AM UTC

swehner wrote: post #147

sanjeetsuhag wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality contribution to the discussion right here. Do you mind elaborating what do you think is the problem with the article ?

Sorry if your sense of entitlement to quality contributions was offended. The article has no substance, makes arbitrary suggestions. What's the "slow" in the title about? The word occurs once on the page, and that is in the title. Let's go through some paragraphs. 1st paragraph: garbage 2nd paragraph: garbage (Not the qualifier to "emissions from the electricity sector") 3rd paragraph: garbage 4th paragraph: garbage…

This comment is uncivil and your previous one was unsubstantive. Posting this way is an abuse of HN, so please don't do that. We're looking for civil and substantive comments, and would appreciate it if you'd read and follow the site rules:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

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

#216

Post by bad_user » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:15 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #186

sounds wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let me get this straight: 1. It's a given that somehow, somewhere, a nuke is going to get away from humanity. I'm honestly optimistic that it'll just be a reactor problem, and that we -- humanity -- learn every time one happens. (Because engineers are a careful lot.) Then the environmental damage will be less than Fukushima. 2. Solar + A Storage Miracle (that much storage would be a certifiable wonder of the world…

> Once a small reactor, or a country hungry enough (China) succeeds with nuclear France has been succeeding for quite some time. The majority of their power comes from nuclear.

Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the borders with Germany.

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

#217

Post by greggman » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:16 AM UTC

niels_olson wrote: post #3

My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…

I feel like I prefer solar (musk style) because there isn't one point of failure. If the power plant fails tons of people lose power.

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

#218

Post by Wissmania » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:16 AM UTC

One advantage of nuclear power relative to other renewable sources is that it that unlike wind/solar, it can provide consistent energy 24/7. Our energy storage solutions are simply not good enough to provide sufficient power in downtimes.

If your concern is safety, then nuclear power seems to be the best choice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

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

#219

Post by Anchor » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:18 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #140

toomuchtodo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Please note that you are referring to the first version of PW. The newer version was unveiled recently, and here's some info on PW 2: https://electrek.co/2016/10/28/tesla-powerwall-2-game-change...

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

#220

Post by philipkglass » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:19 AM UTC

Third generation reactor designs like the AP1000 and EPR were, prior to actual construction, promoted as increasing safety and reducing construction costs/time via standardization and simpler passive safety features, compared to older Generation II/II+ reactors that currently make up most of the world's operating reactors. Now that they're actually under construction these reactor designs too are terribly over-budget and over-schedule, just like the 1980s reactor projects that burned US utilities bad enough to scare them away for a generation.

AFAICT "late and over budget" usually happens with megaprojects of all kinds, and unfortunately commercial power reactors are only available in "mega" sizes. The AP1000 and EPR especially were designed larger than median Gen II units, for economies of scale, but seem to be reaping anti-economies of scale. Small modular reactors with a faster learning curve and more units to learn across might finally tame schedule and cost problems... but it's hard to find investors optimistic and deep-pocketed enough to spend a decade iterating on the concept with real hardware. Most "nuclear startups" are stuck at nothing but simulations and PowerPoint.

Shouldn't government be making these sorts of high-risk, high-reward, long term investments? They should, but unfortunately political opposition to nuclear power is much more concentrated, if not more broad, than support.