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

To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 666 posts

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#261

Post by pizza »

dreistdreist wrote: post #252
omginternets wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And failing at it, see worldwide obesity statistics This is more of a food quality issue than a food quantity issue. The strict hypercaloremic hypothesis is one that really is ready for retirement (and more or less has been retired in research circles).

Why did nobody notify me that the law of thermodynamics changed? It is not physicially possible to gain weight when you have a caloric deficit. Where would it even come from?

The laws of thermodynamics have not changed, but try examining a really-really-really-really-really high dimensional phase without getting tendrils/'tubes' that appear essentially random w.r.t. prior conditions. How would you know the direction of a volume of phase space with fairly significant perturbation across all the variables that can change?

A flippant counter-example: eat only carbohydrates with a 1000 calorie deficit, drink 5 liters of water daily- 0 additional calories. How would you not gain water weight? Doesn't that count also?

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#262

Post by trhway »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #99
toomuchtodo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've got these things you know, batteries. And they don't need to be stored somewhere safe for hundreds of years while they cool off. And they decrease in cost as you make more, which nuclear doesn't. Every time an article about nuclear hits HN or Reddit, everyone chicken littles "Nuclear! Won't someone think of the atom!", while solar is on track to have ~80GW installed this year and next year in the US alone. Its…

"We've got these things you know, batteries." Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective. "Nuclear lost. Its never coming back." There are currently 55 new power reactors under construction and scheduled to be in operation by 2020. China alone has 20 in active construction, with many more planned. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and...

>Batteries are expensive, low-capacity, and absolutely horrendous from an environmental perspective.

not even close. To store energy melt potassium oxide using that energy - low melting temperature allows for low losses. To produce the energy back "burn" that potassium in a very simple metal-air fuel cell (organic electrolyte, carbon electrodes - nothing "horrendous from an environmental perspective"). Storage by melting isn't suitable for a car or a phone battery, yet there is no issues with it when we talking scale of even a small power plant.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#263

Post by dispose13432 »

triplesec wrote: post #6
ams6110 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proposals that are contrary to basic human nature rarely gain much traction.

'Basic human nature'is a phrase that assumes a lot of things. How would you characterise this phrase in more detail, as it pertains to this topic? And how would you justify such claims?

How about eating?

Do you think people in the 1600s had a great quality of life?

It's the 20th century version of "let them eat cake".

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#264

Post by throwaway1892 »

niels_olson wrote: post #3

My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…

Well, compared to solar energy, nuclear power plants produce energy at night and during cloudy weather. And their production is way more regular, you get the same amount during the whole day.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#265

Post by throwaway1892 »

bad_user wrote: post #216
paulddraper wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once a small reactor, or a country hungry enough (China) succeeds with nuclear France has been succeeding for quite some time. The majority of their power comes from nuclear.

Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the borders with Germany.

Well, Germany replaced its nuclear power plants with Wind turbines + coal/gas thermic power plants.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#266

Post by dispose13432 »

petre wrote: post #172
beders wrote: post #152

Just to remind the nuclear fans here: cost of Chernobyl: estimated around 201b euros, cost of lives: between 4000 and several hundred thousands indirectly, the area is a radioactive wasteland for centuries to come, the reactor still needs additional protection. The effects are still measurable all over Europe, resettlement of thousands of people. That is ONE reactor gone wrong. Why anyone would build another one when…

The RMBK reactors at Chernobyl are of an irresponsible design, with no containment, graphite moderator and a highly positive void coefficient. Combined that with human error and zealotry and you have a recipe for disaster. Russian VVER PWRs on the other hand have excellent track record with no accidents whatsoever. Your country has at least two gen IV reactor designs with pasive cooling and negative void coefficient.…

>The RMBK reactors at Chernobyl are of an irresponsible design, with no containment, graphite moderator and a highly positive void coefficient. Combined that with human error and zealotry and you have a recipe for disaster. Russian VVER PWRs on the other hand have excellent track record with no accidents whatsoever. Your country has at least two gen IV reactor designs with pasive cooling and negative void coefficient.

It's much easier not building a reactor than trying to shut it down when it's discovered that they don't keep standards.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#267

Post by admiun »

afterburner wrote: post #187
niels_olson wrote: post #3

My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

I agree. Nuclear fission power seems to be associated with a negative learning curve [1][2]. This means that as the newly installed capacity goes up, price per unit actually increases. As solar is already becoming competitive and is experiencing a positive learning curve (costs going down rapidly as production expands) it would be pretty silly to invest in nuclear at this point.

[1] https://thinkprogress.org/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#268

Post by fulafel »

paulddraper wrote: post #191
afterburner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

Most estimates are inflated. From 2002 to 2008 UCS's estimate for a nuclear plant went from $2 to $8 million, for no real reason. Actual, real-life plants (like from the 60s) have much lower costs than recent estimates have claimed (adjusted for inflation).

This matches observed data, eg. Areva EPR plant cost estimates have (amid major media controversy) risen from ~3 to ~9 billion € as construction has progressed.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#269

Post by musha68k »

jsilence wrote: post #231
Twisell wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except people also forget that renewables' are also highly subsidized. You can't use a double standard here. And cost should anyway be the least of concern as global warming costs will be higher no matter what if we fail to control it.

"renewables' are also highly subsidized" Only this not true any more. Over the last decade Solar has become price competitive sans subsidies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyrbKBZ6SU Even before that the subsidies for solar have been dwarfed by the subsidies that are in place for nuclear power. Recently in Germany the nuclear companies' lobbyists managed to get rif of the problem of end storage of nuclear waste by…

I don't even want to know what nuclear waste disposal projects like "Onkalo" cost us over their corresponding lifetimes...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#270

Post by lispm »

bad_user wrote: post #216
paulddraper wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once a small reactor, or a country hungry enough (China) succeeds with nuclear France has been succeeding for quite some time. The majority of their power comes from nuclear.

Ironic that after Germany shut down some nuclear plants they had, they started importing more energy from France, which has nuclear power plants near the borders with Germany.

Actually Germany is a net exporter of electricity.
Post reply on HN