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

Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 731 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#341

Post by lispm »

natch wrote: post #259

A key overlooked aspect of Nuclear is that it is the big government, centralized, big industry, big bureaucracy, anti-freedom, anti-self-determination option. Renewables like solar and wind can be local, scaled down to the needs of a single family property, and kept under the sole control, if desired, of an individual owner. Nuclear is fundamentally not that way. If this article isn't it already, expect to see in the…

That was one of the main reasons here in Germany to quit that type of industry. There were people from the industry which had exposed this.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#342

Post by jobigoud »

john61 wrote: post #277
scarygliders wrote: post #128

Can we just get something straight about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant? Although it was a 1960's design, the reason it failed the way it did was because of one design flaw... Its backup generators were not placed up on the hills above it. Rather, the backup generators were situated below sea level underneath the reactor buildings. DERP. Fukushima Dai-ichi survived the Magnitude 9 earthquake. It did not s…

> My point is that nuclear power is safe, as long as all disaster scenarios are taken into account It is impossible for us to take all disaster scenarios into account. Our knowledge is very limited.

It's not even about knowledge. When you include active human attackers that have nothing to loose or state actors in times of war in the equation it's simply impossible to secure.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#343

Post by [deleted] »

_ink_ wrote: post #321
scarygliders wrote: post #128

Can we just get something straight about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant? Although it was a 1960's design, the reason it failed the way it did was because of one design flaw... Its backup generators were not placed up on the hills above it. Rather, the backup generators were situated below sea level underneath the reactor buildings. DERP. Fukushima Dai-ichi survived the Magnitude 9 earthquake. It did not s…

Can we just get something straight about the waste situation? It's still not solved. As long as that is the case, I think nuclear energy is not an option.

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#344

Post by macspoofing »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #327
macspoofing wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear, or will be imminently. Solar and wind are plenty cheap. That's not their problem. The problem, as the article stated, is that "they are not available around the clock, rain or shine, and batteries that could power entire cities for days or weeks show no sign of materializing any time soon." So now what do you do?

Passive solar design as a requirement for new construction would help reduce how much energy buildings require. It also makes them more comfortable, not less. Design cities for pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. This will help reduce heat island effect, thereby reducing the need for AC. I slept in a tent for nearly six years. I plugged in at the library during the day. I got by on battery power in the evening…

>You can have a very modern life on a lot less electricity than many people use.

Let me get this straight, The only way to curb emissions is to severely reduce our energy use?

>This is a problem rooted in culture more than technology.

No. This is a problem of people not wanting a subsistence-based lifestyle. Your suggested policies are insane. They are not reasonable, at all. You're talking about replacing all roads and buildings (and cities)? Use non-existent battery technology to power a modern economy?

Internalize the fact that power requirements will keep growing and that expecting people to live in tents is not a reasonable policy.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#345

Post by Gibbon1 »

smueller1234 wrote: post #305
scarygliders wrote: post #128

Can we just get something straight about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant? Although it was a 1960's design, the reason it failed the way it did was because of one design flaw... Its backup generators were not placed up on the hills above it. Rather, the backup generators were situated below sea level underneath the reactor buildings. DERP. Fukushima Dai-ichi survived the Magnitude 9 earthquake. It did not s…

Let me argue that there's at least one more design flaw: backup generators are generally not very reliable. So for any given plant, there's a comparatively high risk that they don't work when you need them. This risk is non trivial even when the generators are well taken care of (both maintenance and regular test runs) but it's very easy to skimp on the tests. My knowledge is from another industry that relies heavily…

Friend of mine has a high school friend that a maintenance engineer. He has contracts to maintain diesel back up generators for hospitals. And sometimes they don't start. It's very disconcerting when that happens.

The other design flaw is diesel or no they require cooling water during shutdown. What bothers me for instance is during the 1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes the Mississippi ran backwards for a while. During other earthquakes you see significant uplift. If the intakes run dry because the local hydrology suddenly changes you're just fucked.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#346

Post by masonic »

dirkt wrote: post #278
scarygliders wrote: post #128

Can we just get something straight about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant? Although it was a 1960's design, the reason it failed the way it did was because of one design flaw... Its backup generators were not placed up on the hills above it. Rather, the backup generators were situated below sea level underneath the reactor buildings. DERP. Fukushima Dai-ichi survived the Magnitude 9 earthquake. It did not s…

> My point is that nuclear power is safe, as long as all disaster scenarios are taken into account I don't know if you are old enough to remember it, but that's exactly what nuclear energy proponents said in the 70s. Since then, actual experience showed that about every 20 years, there has been a big incident with global impact, and it will take decades if not centuries until the affected area is usable again. And th…

Are you unaware that more nuclear waste enters the environment from burning coal than from all nuclear plant incidents combined?

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#347

Post by asaddhamani »

kortilla wrote: post #324
dirkt wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is that nuclear power is safe, as long as all disaster scenarios are taken into account I don't know if you are old enough to remember it, but that's exactly what nuclear energy proponents said in the 70s. Since then, actual experience showed that about every 20 years, there has been a big incident with global impact, and it will take decades if not centuries until the affected area is usable again. And th…

>but that's exactly what nuclear energy proponents said in the 70s. And how many plants failed that were built after the 70s? >The consequences of a disaster are too great Even with the disasters, it kills fewer people than coal even without taking into account the damage from global warming. It’s like refusing to fly because plane crashes stick out in memory and then choosing to drive instead, despite how much more…

Yes, but what about having to evacuate the area for decades / more to come? And the radioactive waste problem?

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#348

Post by asaddhamani »

masonic wrote: post #346
dirkt wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is that nuclear power is safe, as long as all disaster scenarios are taken into account I don't know if you are old enough to remember it, but that's exactly what nuclear energy proponents said in the 70s. Since then, actual experience showed that about every 20 years, there has been a big incident with global impact, and it will take decades if not centuries until the affected area is usable again. And th…

Are you unaware that more nuclear waste enters the environment from burning coal than from all nuclear plant incidents combined?

How is that?

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#349

Post by [deleted] »

morsch wrote: post #314
realusername wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> New build nuclear is not cost competitive with new build wind and solar (even when you account for firming costs), and the cost of wind and solar is still falling at an astonishing rate. The future will tell, as it is now, Germany already spent more on renewable than the total French nuclear industry, even when you add decommissioning and with the bad results we know. Maybe countries should learn on the German mist…

Germany already spent more on renewable than the total French nuclear industry Source? What does that even mean? Where'd you find an honest assessment of the regulatory and construction costs for France's nuclear power plants, much less a sensible estimate for decommissioning plants that are still running? Does it include research and development in either case? Does it include maintenance, personnel, fuel, cleanup,…

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#350

Post by petre »

rocqua wrote: post #317
petre wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A considerable part of the waste can be reprocessed and further burned in fast breeder reactors, creating fuel for the conventional ones. The rest can be vitrified and stored. Why we don't already do this? Fear of nuclear proliferation, breeders are quite expensive, anti nuclear sentiment.

What are the radioactive properties of the end product like? E.g. does this produce waste with longer half lives? Lower initial radiation?

https://youtu.be/rv-mFSoZOkE

Longer half-lives = less radioactivity.

Post reply on HN