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

271–280 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#271

Post by LatteLazy »

afarrell wrote: post #250
LatteLazy wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are there any with that much engineering knowledge and the credibility to take on a multi year, multi billion dollar long project

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#272

Post by throwaway894345 »

newacct583 wrote: post #234
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…

> 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.

> It... didn't work out

It did work out. The only reason we don’t have more of it is because of anti-nuclear FUD campaigns.

> It's just not there. It's fine. It's safe enough. But it's outrageously expensive relative to other equally advantageous sources,

It’s disingenuous to compare unreliable energy sources with reliable energy sources and claim the two are equally advantageous. We can make renewable energy reliable at significant cost, so we must compare that cost with nuclear. Moreover, the price projections for SMRs handily beat out fossil fuels and reliability-adjusted figures for renewables.

> and all the magic technologies needed to "fix" that are always a decade away.

This is rich considering (1) we know what the “fix” is and it’s not magic (mass produce nuclear reactors i.e., SMRs) and (2) the plan for reliable, economic renewable energy is “pray for an unknown miracle breakthrough in storage” as though that will be discovered and scaled in less than a decade…

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#273

Post by mihaaly »

yodelshady wrote: post #248

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.

Nuclear technology and radiation are not sexy. Formed its image during several long centuries starting its career with mass murder in Japan followed by several high profile accidents and the cold war's arm race, giving birth to the concept of the nuclear apocalypse pictured in popular culture (novels, movies, games). Combined with people being afraid of cancer caused by radiation to their core. It is planted deeply into the human consciousness now. Wind is harmless and clear compared to that.

Try to run a big old truck driver against a cute puppy in a popularity contest, you can be the world champion of PR still you will loose.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#274

Post by toomuchtodo »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #256
toomuchtodo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As he’s said numerous times, solar is fusion at a distance and solar combined with batteries is the future, both of which can be safely recycled and manufactured rapidly at scale. Tesla’s entire business is selling batteries to store clean energy for later use (either in vehicles or stationary storage), and enough sunlight hits the earth every 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. Lithium is abundant in the world’…

I don't disagree that there is abundant solar opportunity at the planet-level, but it's unrealistic to build infrastructure to funnel energy from eligible deserts to the rest of North America. Here where the sky is cloudy as much as it is sunny, and clear even less, and where it snows, solar works but isn't reasonable to replace all power needs at an individual, county or state level. The logistics involved are much…

HVDC transmission, pumped storage where the geography allows for it, and grid interconnectors allow for moving power between geographies. Seasonal deltas are solved for with overbuilding renewables and curtailment when there is oversupply.

If nuclear was easy, it’d be done, but it isn’t because it is the more complex, more expensive technology. The sun is free and requires no human management.

I cannot stress enough (as an armchair energy analyst who tracks renewables and energy storage manufacturing and deployment rates) how fast solar PV, wind, and batteries are being deployed.

Keep track at https://www.electricitymap.org

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#275

Post by cplusplusfellow »

newacct583 wrote: post #245
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> prevent building things by any measure possible

> yawn when we say we can build new things and to wake you up when we have them

These actions aren’t compatible with progress.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#276

Post by LatteLazy »

mabbo wrote: post #209
LatteLazy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first person to build a safe, economic, waste free reactor will be a billionaire. But so far that hasn't happened.

But the bar will always be set higher and higher. Oh, it's safer than all other reactors ever designed? Yeah, but it isn't PERFECT, is it? What if I ? Then it might be dangerous! Oh, it has 1/10th the nuclear waste of all other reactors ever? But it STILL MAKES NUCLEAR WASTE. Oh, it can be built at half the cost of previous reactors for twice the energy? THAT'S STILL WAY TOO MUCH. And to be clear, I think renewables…

The bar hasn't really moved:

* be cheaper than other reliable sources (never met)

* no waste that takes >100y to decay (never met)

* don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably)

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#277

Post by throwaway894345 »

quonn wrote: post #262
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I read exactly the same on HN 10 years ago.

Gotta love anti-nuclear folks. They work to hinder nuclear development and then point to the lack of nuclear progress as “evidence” that nuclear is a pipe dream.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#278

Post by throwaway894345 »

newacct583 wrote: post #245
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ll refer you to my sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29057596):

> Gotta love anti-nuclear folks. They work to hinder nuclear development and then point to the lack of nuclear progress as “evidence” that nuclear is a pipe dream.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#279

Post by chefkoch »

throw0101a wrote: post #266
chefkoch wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> We don't have even one new Gen reactor running Which is the generation is the "new" one? There are a number of Generation III ones running: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor Gen IV reactor used to burn up plutonium: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

You are right, i was thinking of Gen III+ like EPR.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#280

Post by sudosysgen »

sandGorgon wrote: post #89
mytailorisrich wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China can build nuclear power plants and indeed is building a large number of them. But as you mention the demand for energy is vast and they can't 'just' get rid of coal.

China's nuclear power plants come from the US. Westinghouse's bankruptcy set back the targets for many years. Of course, the big problem is also geopolitical concerns here. I would say that India is in a better position here (on geopolitics), however the tech transfer from US even to India has been iffy at best. Here's a bigger problem - India has set a goal to switch to electrical vehicles by 2030. If that happens,…

China's reliance on US tech for nuclear is over. Now they're using French tech domestically manufactured for their current gen reactors, and building next gen reactors with their own tech.
Post reply on HN