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

Activists who embrace nuclear power

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 598 posts

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#231

Post by BurningFrog »

BillyTheKing wrote: post #178
vlovich123 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is actually intentionally crippled through legislation under over-hyped concerns over dirty bombs accidents (for the right and left politically inclined respectively). Nuclear can be done safe, efficient, cheap and at-scale. All it requires is to allow for the secondary market of spent fuel like was originally started when nuclear first starting to get rolled out. The security concerns can be handled in other…

I used to be of the same opinion, but I gotta say that Fukushima really did have an impact on me (on the long-run, it didn't have an immediate impact). But I have been wondering, if an incredibly advanced nation such as Japan faces very serious issues with their nuclear power-plants, is it really the right choice? Can we really guarantee that nothing goes seriously wrong, ever? Cause that's the standard those plants…

Fukushima happened after the biggest Earthquake in over 1000 years of recorded Japanese history hit at the right spot to produce an enormous flood wave at the reactor.

I'd be careful to draw conclusion from such an outlier.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#232

Post by slymon99 »

The more interesting climate advantage of nuclear power is it can be used directly in manufacturing, for example in creating steel (which represents 8% of GHG emissions). You can't make steel with electricity - the current strategy involves essentially setting a bunch of oil on fire on top of the requisite components (you can tell I'm not actually an industrial engineer, but steel generation is very not green).

However, you could harness the heat from a nuclear plant directly (instead of using it to create steam and drive turbines) to create steel. This has been discussed for decades[1], but modern improvements in nuclear technology could make it a reality

[1]: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:8341064

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#233

Post by AngryData »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #59
Daniel_sk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with radioactive waste is more of a political and emotional problem than a real one. The amount of waste is rather small and it's not like it will irradiate you from a kilometre away :-). It can be stored in safe containers and buried in stable geological sites or even stored temporarily for many years in storage houses and maybe later re-used in types of reactors that will be able to recycle the spent fuel…

The issue for me is not quantity but time. 1000-10,000 (or even much longer) years for decay is an incredible amount of time for the human race. Written language only appeared ~5500 years ago. Let’s say ancient Rome 2,000 years ago made and stored a substance that kills everyone exposed to it, would we expect that substance to still be intact and unblemished right now?

I mean storing waste that is dangerous for that long is the result of politics, not any technological limitation. Recycling and reusing that waste would make most of it dangerous for like 50-100 years, and after that the only danger is living on top of the low radioactive waste for 20 years or eating it, which would kill you even if it wasn't radioactive because it is a heavy metal.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#234

Post by YarickR2 »

throwawayboise wrote: post #200
theodric wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about not having five nines, and just finding a way to live within that envelope?

Yep. Cheaper than all of this is having a few blankets, a camp stove, and a week's worth of rice and beans on hand.

Potable water, flushable toilet, heat insulated pipes.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#236

Post by ktaylora »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #152
ktaylora wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The direct impact of turbines on wildlife (e.g., from direct strikes) may be negligible. But the secondary effects of carving-up large blocks of intact grasslands in the Great Plains with infrastructure like service roads, wallpapering desert soils with panels, or placing high-capacity transmission lines, are not. This clearly contributes to habitat fragmentation and scientists have not thoroughly studied how recent…

I grew up on the Great Plains, sadly there aren't many "intact" grasslands[1] at this point. Wind turbines are integrated into grain agriculture commonly these days[2], which seems mostly harmless (given that the farm roads and electrical infrastructure are already in place). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallgrass_prairie#Remnants 2: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/111219-wi...

Yes. We've lost the tall grass prairie to corn. But there are still vast portions of short and mixed-grass prairie in the southern great plains on land that was never suitable for crop production. The Texas and Oklahoma panhandle region, for instance. The only thing you can grow there is cows. These places are critical migratory habitat for grassland bird populations moving from Canada to the tropics. And even some endemic shorebirds like long-billed curlew. These same landscapes are also where most of the new wind energy development is landing. And new development is happening very quickly. Too quickly to monitor what it means for wildlife populations that are used to flat, open plains with only cattle to contend with.

If we arent careful, we'll lose the shortgrass prairie to energy development just like we lost the tallgrass prairie to corn.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#237

Post by kilotaras »

epistasis wrote: post #160
ortusdux wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done a fair amount of research into molten salt reactors, and if we can solve the containment issue they should be very cost effective. The molten salts are extremely corrosive, which cuts their lifespan down to ~5 years. Newer designs should reach 10 years and there is extensive research into designing systems that will last 20+ years. They should be much cheaper to build and operate because they have several i…

This is solving the wrong problem, and therefore will not advance nuclear. Cost is the impediment to nuclear, not any sort of safety concerns. That molten salt reactor will need to have a negative cost in order to compete with the cost of stored renewable energy. The future of nuclear energy must either abandon the thermal steam cycle for electricity generation, or generate massive value from the nuclear reaction par…

> with the cost of stored renewable energy.

Which is how much? We don't have a good way to store energy right now.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#238

Post by YarickR2 »

epistasis wrote: post #165
vlovich123 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is actually intentionally crippled through legislation under over-hyped concerns over dirty bombs accidents (for the right and left politically inclined respectively). Nuclear can be done safe, efficient, cheap and at-scale. All it requires is to allow for the secondary market of spent fuel like was originally started when nuclear first starting to get rolled out. The security concerns can be handled in other…

Can you explain this a bit more? I don't see how these things could have helped any of the construction failures that have plagued all nuclear attempts. Operating costs are low for nuclear, it's the construction that is the problem.

I wouldn't be so sure about cobstruction costs either. Reactors are being built elsewhere in the world all the time, and I doubt foreign finance guys are less smart or safety codes are less strict

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#239

Post by Nasrudith »

runsWphotons wrote: post #191
gdubs wrote: post #175

I read Stewart Brand's 'Whole Earth Discipline' about five years ago, and came away pretty convinced by his pro-nuclear arguments. The price situation has definitely changed dramatically in the last few years, with solar dropping remarkably. So some of it may be worth revisiting. But that said, something else has happened in the last five years that has made me a bit ... cautious about being decisive on nuclear. And…

I suppose you could see it the other way. A nuclear plant in everyone's backyard might be incentive to put competent people in charge?

That sounds ready made for a monkey's paw situation with intelligence agency intervention. Sort of like this joke of mine which probably isn't original despite thinking it up myself. "Sure everyone says they want world peace but when you take steps towards it suddently you're 'illegally proliferating nuclear weaponry and launch capability to rogue nations'!".

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#240

Post by AngryData »

dotancohen wrote: post #10
wavefunction wrote: post #2

I think it behooves the US and any other country serious about both climate change and extra-planetary exploration and colonization to develop a robust terrestrial nuclear power program as well as encouraging a trained cadre of nuclear engineers who can manage nuclear power sources on other planets, satellites and space-craft.

> encouraging a trained cadre of nuclear engineers who can manage nuclear power sources Ignoring the context of the rest of your comment, it should be noted that the US Navy has a near-perfect record in nuclear safety. This is often attributed to them not working for a profit motive. If we're going to use nuclear power on other solar system bodies, and I expect that we will, then most likely that knowledge will come…

They also have the benefit of being able to flood and sink reactors in the ocean to prevent meltdowns. Which is why im an advocate for off-shore nuclear power, either floating, or even better, completely underwater. Of course that increases costs, but it would make nuclear almost completely safe even in the worst case scenarios.
Post reply on HN