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

Google to back three new nuclear projects

esgtoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 365 posts

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#241

Post by Duwensatzaj »

mmooss wrote: post #157
spookie wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Green Parties are such a farce for the most part. They serve other purposes, not aligned with what you really want or defend ;)

Right-wing parties and the center-left have been highly effective allies in getting people to demonize and ridicule the progressive left. The reason is, I think, that the progressives have rationally better policies - ones that become mainstream decades later, including much of what is mainstream now - so by demonizing the progressives the center and right prevent people from actually considering the policies.

Coercive eugenics used to be a progressive platform.

More recently progressive prosecutors have been tried and the results are pretty clear they lead to increased crime.

Consider perhaps the progressive policies have been considered and rejected for good reasons.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#242

Post by [deleted] »

p1mrx wrote: post #229
lesuorac wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very efficient for distribution though which is expensive (check your utility bill). Don't need to run power lines for hundreds of miles if you have a generator on your roof.

> Don't need to run power lines for hundreds of miles if you have a generator on your roof. To remove the need for power lines, you also need batteries, and enough solar to make it through winter.

[deleted]

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#243

Post by pfdietz »

aziaziazi wrote: post #191
pfdietz wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Even if every wind turbine blade were landfilled it would add only slightly to waste streams already in existence. The US produces hundreds of millions of tons of construction and demolition waste per year.

That's fair. Most demolition waste can be crushed and used as stabilisation for new constructions instead of mined rocks, and that's also often cheaper. However you are right to point out the quantity which is small, for now because we didn't really scale yet.

It will be comparatively small even when scaled out. PV waste too.

My biggest concern with wind is not the blades, it's concrete foundations and perhaps steel. Concrete inherently releases CO2 when produced (from calcining of limestone), even if the energy source is non-fossil. Nuclear also faces this issue, of course. PV doesn't typically use concrete footers these days, instead using steel anchors that go directly into the ground.

There are plans to make lime from silicates, but this is not a mature technology.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#244

Post by nolist_policy »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #226
epistasis wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if nuclear has always been a field where charlatans proliferate, but it's certainly true of the past few decades. The Summer plant in South Carolina was completely fraudulent, sending the power executives to jail for their fraud. Billions spent and nothing to show except a hole in the ground. Vogtle was slightly better in that they powered through to construction completion so that nobody cared about the…

It's likely because the NRC is the most insanely regulatory body of the US government. Ostensibly, this is a good thing, nuclear power, meltdowns, radioactive waste, etc. But really I cannot emphasize enough how strict and overbearing they are. "Oh that 12V backup battery pack needs to be replaced? Better get the same one from the same manufacturer" "They aren't in business anymore but we have this 12V battery the fi…

Do you have a source?

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#246

Post by ToucanLoucan »

epistasis wrote: post #98
perihelions wrote: post #2

Here's a better article: https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/07/google_signs_another_... > "Elementl didn't respond to questions by press time. Its public materials offer little clarity on its actual operations—aside from broad claims about providing "turn-key project development, financing and ownership solutions customized to meet our customers' needs while mitigating risks and maximizing benefit." > "The nuclear d…

I'm not sure if nuclear has always been a field where charlatans proliferate, but it's certainly true of the past few decades. The Summer plant in South Carolina was completely fraudulent, sending the power executives to jail for their fraud. Billions spent and nothing to show except a hole in the ground. Vogtle was slightly better in that they powered through to construction completion so that nobody cared about the…

> I'm not sure if nuclear has always been a field where charlatans proliferate, but it's certainly true of the past few decades.

I think it's less an issue of anything to do with nuclear in particular, and more that we're just living in an absolute golden age of charlatans. It's like the 1980's all over again except instead of fraud being doable because of a lack of information, fraud is doable because everyone for whatever reason you'd like to describe is thoroughly committed to pretending it's the 1980's.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#247

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

belorn wrote: post #228
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love how the goalposts magically shifted to ”green hydrogen deployed today!!” even though many grids still don’t even reach saturation from renewables. Storage or green hydrogen is an enormous waste of money in Poland given their grid composition. That renewable buildout leads to larger fossil emissions being wrong is trivial to verify. The UK as one example of many: - Coal has gone from 150 TWh to zero . - Fossil ga…

Lets then have a ban on all new natural gas power plants until its down to a single percent. That should not be a problem if that is all that is needed. Using UK as an example, the majority of energy is not renewables. Why should they build new natural gas power plants? Natural gas produce more energy than any other source in the UK. They are not going from 98% renewables, 2% natural gas. ( https://www.carbonbrief.or…

You seem to advocate for some holier than thou perfect path rather than the messy reality that is a transition of the entire energy system to a new cheaper source while upholding our modern society.

Let’s look at the area under the curve?

You know, we need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, transportation etc. as well.

Let look at what the UK has done:

- Coal has gone from 150 TWh to zero.

- Fossil gas from 175 TWh to 85 TWh.

- Nuclear from 80 TWh to 40 TWh.

Would you say this reduction in fossil fuel usage is insignificant because they obviously aren’t done yet?

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#248

Post by coryrc »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #230
chickenbig wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $20B for 300MW Estimated 20B CAD for 4 x 300MW power stations.

Is that competitive compared to solar/wind + battery? I doubt it.

How much solar does Ontario get during the heating season?

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#249

Post by YokoZar »

muth02446 wrote: post #65

I view nuclear as a prudent diversification of energy sources: What happens if some supervolcano erupts, and because of the ashes significantly less sunlight reaches the surface of the earth. Presumably, there will also be less wind then.

If your worry is volcanoes, geothermal power can remove energy from them before they explode. On a sufficient scale they could even prevent them.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#250

Post by Workaccount2 »

nolist_policy wrote: post #244
Workaccount2 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely because the NRC is the most insanely regulatory body of the US government. Ostensibly, this is a good thing, nuclear power, meltdowns, radioactive waste, etc. But really I cannot emphasize enough how strict and overbearing they are. "Oh that 12V backup battery pack needs to be replaced? Better get the same one from the same manufacturer" "They aren't in business anymore but we have this 12V battery the fi…

Do you have a source?

I work for a company that provides electronics that end up in nuclear reactors. We don't do batteries, the story is just an example of the kind of headache it is.
Post reply on HN