All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected • Hacker News Board

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#291

Post by chefkoch » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

johnny53169 wrote: post #247

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…

> 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 experience, they are juniors building very complex multi billion dollar installations. How did they do it in the past then? The first power station opened in 1956 when the technology was secretive and when there was no internet. The real problem looks completely because of…

As i said to another commenter, you are right, i was thinking of Gen III+ like EPR.

When we started out building nuclear plants the where much simpler, much smaller designs and a lot of designs didn't work out the way hoped. Nuclear is hard, it's hard on the materials and often you problems appear while building or running it.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#292

Post by Goety » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #169

Goety wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you accurately describe the threat is mass conflict and disorder. Why do you willingly support that or changing the narrative? Global instability is likely to lead to more conflict and war without any guarantees of end. A vast population reduction of vulnerable people for a lot of people IS extinction.

> Why do you willingly support that? I’m sure where you got that impression. But language matters and the worst case outcome isn’t a situation that “kills humanity”. I was asking for clarification in case there was something I was missing in terms of impact that would actually lead to extinction, which by definition means a complete end to all human life.

which is why i included 'or [support] changing the narrative'

i appreciate your language as well.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#293

Post by danlugo92 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:38 PM UTC

option_greek wrote: post #108

aetherspawn wrote: post #66

Unpopular opinion in this thread but ... I don't want a world with nuclear. That makes me anxious. It's not if there will be a problem, but when . I'd rather the world spend money on batteries and solar/wind energy, like South Australia. And by focusing on that technology, the market will drive innovation in that class of renewables. That technology is reusable in other applications, like domestic (rooftop), EVs and…

The world is filled with nuclear energy. We are literally bathing in the results of a continuously running nuclear reaction if you think about it.

If only there were a way to capture all of that energy.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#294

Post by shawnz » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:38 PM UTC

chuckee wrote: post #3

It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

> But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.

Nobody wants to admit they are still considering coal, but everyone wants to take credit for blocking nuclear and building renewables. So at a glance it seems like it's nuclear vs renewables, when it's always been nuclear vs coal.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#295

Post by mdale » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:39 PM UTC

The most pragmatic solution is making high pollutant energy costly. Some small set of polluters are responsible for the majority of the emissions. (1) This is only possible because of being able to chalk the damage up to externalities.

We need to set up systems to adding cost to emissions.

A substantial PR rebrand modern Nuclear energy (maybe called something else) would be needed if you wanted to get traction on that. Long gone are days where people / governments make decisions based on any objective facts and pragmatic cost/ benefit/ risk analysis.

I understand solar is competitive and full tilt on that would be good. It's got better PR right now.

Whatever we do .. install some some smoke scrubbers on dirty energy ASAP.

And probably do your 15 year R&D plan on carbon capture tech (if we had to choose one direction) as we have already done (otherwise) irreversible harm that switching to renewables / Nuclear now won't solve.

1) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-percent-power...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#296

Post by bombcar » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:40 PM UTC

lostmyoldone wrote: post #207

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…

If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet. Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent his…

So we’ll slowly level cities via burning coal instead “in the name of safety”.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#297

Post by repsilat » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:42 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #276

mabbo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

One claim of moving the goalposts comes from https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop:

>> Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. What defines “reasonable”? It is an ever-tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of other modes of power, then they are reasonable.

>> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job.

Basically the safety regulations (some of which are nonsensical -- the whole article is worth a read) preclude cost-effective nuclear. I won't address your point on waste, I think it's covered elsewhere on this page well enough.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#298

Post by vimy » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:42 PM UTC

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’s only expensive because of excessive safety guidelines which are the result of fearmongering.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#299

Post by tonypace » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

kergonath wrote: post #67

yodacola wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole reason why nuclear energy is not because it technically is inferior, but, rather, the NIMBY mentality of nuclear energy at large. Many people see the consequences of mishandled nuclear energy and immediately see this as a eventual reality for all nuclear plants.

We suck at risk assessment. We fret about radiation whilst fossil fuelled power plants have been releasing radionuclides and particles in the open air for about a century.

Coal based irradiation is slow and wide. It does not have the potential to render a concentrated area semi-permanently uninhabitable. There is nothing irrational about watching a relatable peer's life investment crash to a value of zero and deciding you want none of that kind of risk.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#300

Post by DisjointedHunt » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #249

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…

It’s frustrating that the anti-nuclear folks (perhaps not you specifically, parent) worked to drain western societies of nuclear experience and advancement, and then use that inexperience and associated costs as a reason not to invest in nuclear. Yes, nuclear has a long lead time, but so does economics grid-scale storage for renewables . “Long lead time” isn’t an excuse to forestall investment, it’s a reason to start…

This is true.

Also the most efficient and safe reactors are arguably in the bellies of the leading edge Submarines. It's no surprise France is going all in on the Small Modular Reactor tech since they are rumored to possess some of the best in the world already. Likely a question of declassification.

The reactor at MIT has students allowed to run parts of the operation after they pass a few strenuous tests. This hypothetical scenario where the political will is ready to go and the skill gap is what is holding it up is imaginary.