Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#241

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:48 AM UTC

0xy wrote: post #180

godelski wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand from these groups is why they don't go after nuclear _after_ coal, natural gas, and oil are gone from the grid. There are arguments against nuclear, but they aren't that great when there are still fossil fuel plants operating. Also, a pet peeve of mine is when people say "replacing nuclear with zero-carbon sources" (as per the wiki article). That doesn't exist. There's energy sources that have…

There are no arguments against nuclear that stand up to scrutiny beyond emotional knee-jerk reactions. Nuclear is safe, cheap and most importantly reliable. Renewables are not reliable. Baseload renewables is a pipe dream that has been disproven repeatedly. Hence why jurisdictions that have dived into a heavy renewables energy mix are building gas peaking plants, utilising diesel generators in emergencies or adding b…

Except, it is not cheap at all: lately, in the US, you spend tens of billions of dollars for ten years or more, and get exactly zero watt-hours out, ever. $30B for zero watts of generating capacity is not a good value.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#242

Post by hilbert42 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:50 AM UTC

laurencerowe wrote: post #117

hilbert42 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In the UK at least, it takes decades for planning permission and more decades for design, build, commissioning, and finally entry of a reactor into operational service." In France it's another matter altogether, there are nuclear power stations everywhere and about 70% of the country's energy comes from nuclear. (Years ago, during a conference I was at in Avignon we even had a tour of the nearby UF6 gaseous diffusio…

While it used to be a different matter in France, they last completed a reactor more than 30 years ago and the one currently being built is beset with the same time and cost overruns as those in the U.K. > A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Variou…

Yeah, perhaps the French have eventually 'caught' whatever it is that English speakers caught long ago. :-)

More seriously, I've not been there for some years now so I'm somewhat out of touch, but at one point I was working in the industry (but not employed by any French organization, EDF, etc.), nevertheless I had a reasonable overview of what the French were doing as far as power generation was concerned.

Everyone who I met almost to a person including my nontechnical aunt and uncle who lived in Paris, were pro nuclear power. They saw it as a cheap source of power and also it represented engineering excellence and prowess for France.

I'm guessing, but perhaps the main reason for this collective view stems from de Gaulle's early entry into both military and nuclear power immediately after WWII - from early 1946 onward, thus nuclear power was well established in the the halcyon days of the 1950s before worldwide controversy broke out over the nuclear industry. There's also France's rebuilding phase after WWII, where modernist ideas took hold more strongly there than in many other countries. That attitude probably smoothed the way.

Then there's that French Gaullism (which I admire but it's no fun being on the pointed end of it), which basically says 'we're doing it our way and to hell with the rest of you'. Perhaps that attitude has dissipated somewhat by now (at least as far as the nuclear industry is concerned). Flamanville, though, does seem to be overly uncharacteristic when compared with previous efforts.

Anyway, whatever the French did early on in nuclear power genertaion, it was very successful compared to other countries, as the percentage of nuclear power produced in France is second to none.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#243

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:52 AM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #23

TheDudeMan wrote: post #9

California is prematurely closing its perfectly good nuclear reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Clos...

"Perfectly good" Diablo Canyon was on the fritz throughout 2020 and 2021 and was the proximate cause of August 2020 capacity-related blackouts. It is End of Life. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/6099?fr...

That ramshackle contraption should never have been turned on in the first place. It is being shut down now not because of hippies, who have much less influence than is often claimed, but because it would cost $billions to get it into good enough shape to operate until the next big earthquake.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#244

Post by stavros » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 8:01 AM UTC

shirro wrote: post #199

stjohnswarts wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't afford to wait or not to hedge our bets. Nuclear is a hell of a hedge since we know it works. We know the French model works really well, but for some reason we, the country with the most heavily armed forces in the world, can't "protect" it. BS, moneyed interests and tree huggers are keeping us from fixing the problem until fusion comes along or uber cheap battery density 100x better than what we have curre…

Hedging bets is fine but there is a lot of money and influence using nuclear to muddy the climate debate and reframe the the issue as nuclear power vs greens/environmentalists. People should be aware of how the debate is being manipulated by fossil fuel apologists/lobbyists. The moment people blame things on tree huggers they have fallen into the trap. Tree huggers are not the problem. The problem is carbon emissions…

I know people that do this. No amount of "fossil is the enemy, not solar" can convince them, and they keep posting anti-solar/pro-nuclear propaganda.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#245

Post by renewiltord » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 8:02 AM UTC

Nuclear energy is not tenable given the current political climate. We’re not optimizing on technology alone. We’re optimizing along the manifold that includes people’s opinions since they do have de-facto veto rights here.

I see nuclear power as a solution to climate change as unviable since no one wants one in their vicinity. The plants are unbuildable because of unions and widespread corruption.

Nuke fans are just like big C Communists. If only we all worked together for the good of humanity, we could all live in comfort and there wouldn’t be any hunger and all the little kitty cats will have warm beds and fluffy pillo- no. Well, your comrades in the venture are corrupt fucks. Nuke is unbuildable and pissing away money into an abyss of non power generation is not okay.

China can build nukes, blessed are they. The US cannot.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#246

Post by renewiltord » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 8:09 AM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #76

godelski wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand from these groups is why they don't go after nuclear _after_ coal, natural gas, and oil are gone from the grid. There are arguments against nuclear, but they aren't that great when there are still fossil fuel plants operating. Also, a pet peeve of mine is when people say "replacing nuclear with zero-carbon sources" (as per the wiki article). That doesn't exist. There's energy sources that have…

Russia essentially has Europe right where it wants it with natural gas because Europe is closing all their coal plants. I really don't want that in the USA. I want us to be domestic energy only, nuclear, solar, and wind mix makes the most sense by far until real Fusion comes along if we are really serious about the climate.

North America has achieved full fossil fuel independence via shale. You don’t need all the fossil fuels, you only need enough to be able to cap the price. We have enough.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#247

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 8:15 AM UTC

pirate787 wrote: post #65

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more expensive mostly because the government creates economic incentives for renewables, and disencentivises nuclear. Politicians act this way because public was taught by the militant ecoactivists that nuclear energy is baaaaaaad (better use coal, right), and now vote against politicians that support it.

The Fukushima disaster was a stark lesson that had nothing to do with "militant ecoactivists".

Yes, yes, the standard CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA RADIATION RADIATION DEATH DEATH TO ALL HUMANITY FROM RADIATION!!! argument.

In reality, the fossil fuel disaster is much more severe with far bigger environmental impact.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#248

Post by xupybd » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 8:19 AM UTC

stavros wrote: post #244

shirro wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hedging bets is fine but there is a lot of money and influence using nuclear to muddy the climate debate and reframe the the issue as nuclear power vs greens/environmentalists. People should be aware of how the debate is being manipulated by fossil fuel apologists/lobbyists. The moment people blame things on tree huggers they have fallen into the trap. Tree huggers are not the problem. The problem is carbon emissions…

I know people that do this. No amount of "fossil is the enemy, not solar" can convince them, and they keep posting anti-solar/pro-nuclear propaganda.

Solar has the huge problem of not being available when it's needed. Early in the morning and late in the evening. Until that is solved with some form of storage it can't solve the problem of greenhouse emissions.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#249

Post by xupybd » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 8:22 AM UTC

_oanp wrote: post #239

buitreVirtual wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people freak out much more easily when imagining a Hiroshima or Chernobyl or Fukushima in their home towns than when trying to picture the slow but unrelenting worsening of climate conditions over time caused by fossil burning, even though the former is local and unlikely and the latter is global and certain.

One of the issues I've found is that people genuinely believe nuclear reactors run on the same tech as nuclear weapons, and think that if something goes wrong they will have a mushroom cloud.

I'm very happy for countries like France to have nuclear power but a little scared of less stable countries. While nuclear weapons require enrichment, dirty bombs or unmaintained power reactors are terrifying.

Re: Nuclear power is the best climate-change solution

#250

Post by stavros » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 8:24 AM UTC

xupybd wrote: post #248

stavros wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know people that do this. No amount of "fossil is the enemy, not solar" can convince them, and they keep posting anti-solar/pro-nuclear propaganda.

Solar has the huge problem of not being available when it's needed. Early in the morning and late in the evening. Until that is solved with some form of storage it can't solve the problem of greenhouse emissions.

Ah yes, the "it's useless unless it's perfect" argument.

Nuclear has the huge problem of not being available for another decade (because that's how long it takes to build plants). Until that is solved with some form of pocket reactor it can't solve the problem of greenhouse emissions.