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

251–260 of 598 posts

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#251

Post by drran »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #184
BillyTheKing wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's worth noting that, even taking second-order effects into account, the total number of deaths from nuclear accidents is actually quite low compared to other methods of generating electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM Nuclear seems more dangerous for the same reason planes seem more dangerous than cars—when something goes wrong, it's a big news event.

Data is cherry-picked. For example, if 60 000 people die because of Chornobyl radiation to 2005 (estimation from video) doesn't mean that they will stop dying after 2005. How many people will die after 2005? Video gives no answer.

Also, the video indirectly suggests that we can replace flood protection with nuclear energy. :-/ Dams are built mainly to protect population from floods, so they SAVE millions of lives every year, while also generating electrical energy, which is used to upkeep dams.

Banqiao incident is pictured like Chornobyl`, but, in reality, a bunch of people lives was SAVED by lower dam. The flood broke 62 dams. Just imagine what may happen when 10 nuclear reactors and/or nuclear waste sites will be flooded instead.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#252

Post by boh »

macspoofing wrote: post #246

We're going to have to build up our Nuclear infrastructure eventually because outside of fossil fuels, geothermal and hydro (both of which need particular geography so they can never be the final answer) there is nothing else. Unfortunately the cultural push is for wind and solar, so it looks like we're going to have to give wind and solar the 'old college try' and lose precious decades before we realize we need nucl…

There's very little doubt that investments in wind and solar are beneficial. It may not get to the point that it takes the place of everything else but it is definitely a good ancillary source. As in the solar panels on your house might not be enough to subvert traditional power sources, but it will take some of the stress off the grid. It may not be helpful to the current situation in Texas, but it definitely helps a place like Texas in the summer.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#253

Post by philipkglass »

slymon99 wrote: post #232

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). Howev…

From your link: "The most promising concept is a High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Nuclear Reactor heating helium to a temperature sufficient to steam reform hydrocarbons into reducing gases for the direct reduction of iron ores."

That still consumes fossil hydrocarbons.

Hydrogen can substitute for hydrocarbons in the production of direct reduced iron from iron ore.

"Assessment of hydrogen direct reduction for fossil-free steelmaking"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261...

Hydrogen can of course be produced cleanly from nuclear power. But it's questionable if nuclear-derived hydrogen will be cheaper than other clean hydrogen sources.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#254

Post by subaquamille »

BurningFrog wrote: post #231
BillyTheKing wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And radiations in Fukushima will last for the next 1000 years. Do we have the same understanding of "zero error tolerance" ?

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#255

Post by Daho0n »

undefined1 wrote: post #122
airhead969 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh so now some nuclear industry regulations are "bad." Then who knows better than NRC engineers and scientists, legitimately aiming to ensure the industry doesn't die from mass-casualty events, public harm, or unworkable costs? Maybe before throwing shade on something you know nothing about, it's often best to not prove that you're speaking from your tail end. ; ) EDIT: You made a bunch of edits. No, you in particula…

in a time when institutions and experts are failing all around us, I appreciate your optimism. but it's too much like a blind faith and devotion to priests for my tastes. and maybe they are right about every regulation, that's a possibility! but clearly something has gone wrong when we could have had a clean grid powered via nuclear energy by now. so I think it would be wise to question everything in the chain.

>in a time when institutions and experts are failing all around us

I'm sorry but that is not happening IMO. What is happening is non-experts decide what to do without listening to institutions and experts. We are seeing the result of what you seem to be advocating. We should listen more to the experts and institutions and look at other places that have less of these kinds of problems, like Scandinavia.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#256

Post by subaquamille »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #184
BillyTheKing wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's worth noting that, even taking second-order effects into account, the total number of deaths from nuclear accidents is actually quite low compared to other methods of generating electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM Nuclear seems more dangerous for the same reason planes seem more dangerous than cars—when something goes wrong, it's a big news event.

The main problem with nuclear is that when something goes wrong, it last for way longuer than any other form of catastrof.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#257

Post by macspoofing »

epistasis wrote: post #8

Articles like this miss the main point and instead focus on culture war material. There are plenty of sites that would happily accept more nuclear being built, but all other forms of energy have undercut the cost of nuclear. It's no longer cost competitive, and places like China that adopt a "let's try everything and see what works best" approach have heavily pulled back on nuclear. The issues aren't safety, waste, a…

>There are plenty of sites that would happily accept more nuclear being built, but all other forms of energy have undercut the cost of nuclear.

Honestly ... it isn't just about cost. Nuclear is expensive but it isn't prohibitively expensive. The big picture is we know that nuclear can power an economy, it does not emit global warming gasses, and also places a tiny footprint on the surrounding ecosystem.

Solar and wind cannot power an economy. But let's pretend they can so as to not get bogged down on this point. Let's also pretend they are non-trivially cheaper than nuclear. Even under those assumptions nuclear still wins in my eyes.

Global warming is only one environmental problem we have to solve and it may not be the most important one either. The other one is regular environmental collapse due to needing to support 7-10 billion people. In this context, solar and wind are atrocious and a total disaster because they have massive land-use requirements (land-use around mining for necessary materials, deployment and maintenance of the collectors, and finally land-fill once out of use). And they will always have those horrendous land-use requirements because solar and wind are diffuse energy sources. Worse, we're going to need to increase solar and wind collector production by several orders of magnitude (and come up with a battery technology that doesn't exist today) to fully support a fossil fuel transition. What cost do you think the environment will bear for that compared to nuclear infrastructure?

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#258

Post by Daho0n »

sofixa wrote: post #196
epistasis wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Cost is the impediment to nuclear, not any sort of safety concerns That's not entirely true, and safety features and regulations are a major part of nuclear's cost. > That molten salt reactor will need to have a negative cost in order to compete with the cost of stored renewable energy Does stored renewable energy come for free? From what i recall, there's still no actual solution to that problem on a big scale.

>safety features and regulations are a major part of nuclear's cost.

Which regulations -that aren't there for safety- are driving up cost of nuclear power? I can't find any. Are you saying we should cut down on safety to make nuclear able to compete?

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#259

Post by Daho0n »

afterburner wrote: post #113
hntrader wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll put aside your rudeness (I assume you think this is a status contest, or maybe you've just misunderstood my intentions) and try to explain again. Solar being cheaper than nuclear makes it a foregone conclusion for daytime electricity supply. However the direct comparison you were making in the first paragraph of your original post between nuclear price and solar price is nonsensical because they're not in direct…

Let me get this straight. You think every time I mention solar, I mean solar without storage? Lol have fun arguing with yourself.

Go back to reddit.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#260

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

armada651 wrote: post #43
afterburner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just buy solar and wind, avoid both.

You're never going to have a powermix that's 100% renewables. There will always be a few power plants to pick up the slack if weather conditions are unfavorable for a long period of time. Should these plants use coal, gas or nuclear?

This is mistaken. I'd suggest looking through Lazard's levelized cost of energy and cost of storage slides. A pure renewables + battery approach is becoming economically viable.

The main problem that remains is organizing the industry to do it when natural gas is dirt cheap due to fracking.

Also, wind + solar is generally a pretty stable mix. We already know how to do continent scale power grids to shift power around local weather. What recently happened in Texas was a result of their conscious decision to go it alone with their own grid, and making insufficient winterization investment in the grid they built.

Post reply on HN