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

All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

world-nuclear-news.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#241

Post by go_elmo »

q1w2 wrote: post #230
go_elmo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you regarding the political dimension, the technical, especially regarding safety may not be underestimated regarding cost implications. But the right political setting could imply cheap, mass produced plants, e.g. SMR's. The problem is that were too late, would take several decades to scale up to where we we should be already...

This is not correct. China has built 24 1GW Gen III plants in 15 years. No other solution can provide that much baseline power in 15 years. None.

China can also build anything they want where they want and sell power for state guided prices which is not possible in e.g. europe where people oppose. Also solar is much cheaper already which makes such investments uninteresting for power companies.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#242

Post by throwaway894345 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #225
throwaway898989 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you saying that nuclear power related accidents like chernobyl don't happen?

That seems like a little bit of a non sequitur to the topic in this particular thread chain. Anyway, yes of course they happen. They happen in every power producing industry. It's hard to find good numbers of course as there's going to be some amount of error, but here's one [1]. The point isn't that in that report nuclear has fewer deaths than wind and solar as I'm sure that will cause an emotional reaction. The poi…

To boot, almost every time a nuclear reactor is decommissioned, it is replaced by more fossil fuel plants, not by renewable energy. You can’t be seriously opposed to climate change and nuclear energy at the same time.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#243

Post by VortexDream »

lostmyoldone wrote: post #207
lokimedes wrote: post #182

As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of…

If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet. Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent his…

Either we use it and learn to use it or we wipe out wide swathes of the human population over the next hundred years. I'm sure the millions who die and suffer over the next few decades will be grateful to your absolute principles.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#244

Post by gameswithgo »

arrrg wrote: post #6
chuckee wrote: post #3

It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

With renewables baseline doesn’t make sense. Nuclear doesn’t combine well with renewables, not in a way that would complete the picture. Meaning: you can’t build something that works with only those two building blocks. Even more: baseline is not at all needed with renewables. Renewables need to be combined with power sources that can be turned on and off quickly and on demand. Nuclear emphatically cannot provide tha…

I imagine nuclear + solar + wind + battery setups like Tesla's grid batteries would work just fine, anyone with enough knowledge of nuclear grid power that can chime in?

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#245

Post by newacct583 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #239
newacct583 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> treat it as literally unlocking the next level of human development That was literally the way it was thought about a three quarters of a century ago. It... didn't work out. It's just not there. It's fine. It's safe enough. But it's outrageously expensive relative to other equally advantageous sources, and all the magic technologies needed to "fix" that are always a decade away.

No longer true. New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive. If we can stop thinking in terms of a quarter century ago, we can finally get to that future we used to imagine.

> New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive.

They've been "coming" since the 1960's. Start yelling about building stuff when they've arrived.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#246

Post by pumpkinman »

rglover wrote: post #14

Read between the lines. It's not about the best solution(s), it's about _their_ solution. Nuclear solves the problem they champion, which means, it negates the need for their efforts and existence (economic). Ironically, the rejection of nuclear as a viable option seems to be the result of a psychological existential threat to the supposed "elite" of our world. The mask is off. Protecting the future of humanity isn't…

[flagged]

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#247

Post by johnny53169 »

chefkoch wrote: post #231
q1w2 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running a nuclear reactor does not produce nuclear weapons. This is simply fear-mongering fake news. Also, modern nuclear reactors are dangerous. The GenIII+ specification for all new reactors requires the use of passive shut off. Which means the operator must actively keep the reactor on. If they were to all turn into zombies, for example, the reactor would simply shut off. Omega Tau podcast also did an extensive se…

> We have a PROVEN solution ready to go that can be deployed in literally 10-15 years. We just need to end the ignorance. No we don't. We don't have even one new Gen reactor running and even more important we don't have the people educated to build them in a massive scale. It would take at least ten years to educate the nuclear engineers needed to build dozens or even hundreds of them. And even then they don't have e…

> It would take at least ten years to educate the nuclear engineers needed to build dozens or even hundreds of them. And even then they don't have experience, they are juniors building very complex multi billion dollar installations.

How did they do it in the past then? The first power station opened in 1956 when the technology was secretive and when there was no internet. The real problem looks completely because of red tape and NIMBY

Edit: You are also misinformed, there are Gen III reactors in operation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-1400

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#248

Post by yodelshady »

At some point, you have to wonder: why does the nuclear industry seem to just suck at lobbying?

The wind lobby has professionals who made the case to people who matter. That's not evil, that's your - the industries - job.

At a high level the nuclear industry, sorry to say, honestly doesn't care. It's the Boeing of the energy world, except even more so: wring every last drop out of dead tech, and never invest a cent.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#249

Post by throwaway894345 »

chefkoch wrote: post #231
q1w2 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running a nuclear reactor does not produce nuclear weapons. This is simply fear-mongering fake news. Also, modern nuclear reactors are dangerous. The GenIII+ specification for all new reactors requires the use of passive shut off. Which means the operator must actively keep the reactor on. If they were to all turn into zombies, for example, the reactor would simply shut off. Omega Tau podcast also did an extensive se…

> We have a PROVEN solution ready to go that can be deployed in literally 10-15 years. We just need to end the ignorance. No we don't. We don't have even one new Gen reactor running and even more important we don't have the people educated to build them in a massive scale. It would take at least ten years to educate the nuclear engineers needed to build dozens or even hundreds of them. And even then they don't have e…

It’s frustrating that the anti-nuclear folks (perhaps not you specifically, parent) worked to drain western societies of nuclear experience and advancement, and then use that inexperience and associated costs as a reason not to invest in nuclear.

Yes, nuclear has a long lead time, but so does economics grid-scale storage for renewables. “Long lead time” isn’t an excuse to forestall investment, it’s a reason to start now.

Moreover, nuclear has promising solutions for criticisms of cost, safety, and experience: Small Nuclear Reactors. A relatively small number of nuclear engineers can design blueprints for nuclear facilities which can be mass produced and shipped to site. The cost projections seem very favorable and certainly worth looking into more, but the biggest obstacle is anti-nuclear FUD. I’m not asking the anti-nuclear folks to help, but I do wish they would get out of the way so everyone else can save our planet.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#250

Post by afarrell »

LatteLazy wrote: post #202
theli0nheart wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it never will if people who are afraid of it remain in charge.

Maybe. But until we have that first plant, it's too early to go for mass implimentiion. I wish Musk would take a shot at it. He's the only engineer/financier/crazy-person who I think could make an impact. Government's clearly aren't interested and no one else can get the cash together.

There are other skilled entrepreneurs than Musk.

He’s already got his hands full running two companies. Its hard to be sufficiently attentive when you are doing multiple things at the same time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58807212

Post reply on HN