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

371–380 of 731 posts

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

#371

Post by timthorn »

lstodd wrote: post #130
timthorn wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 60 years of nuclear power, only three accidents have raised public alarm I think Windscale would count amongst such accidents, too.

Then you'd have to count all the accidents on every scientific and military reactor, not discounting naval reactors and especially in the early times, up until ~1975. Can I remind you that that's almost 60 years ago and we're not talking about military?

I disagree. In the public mind, Windscale isn't distinguished as a military accident; a power station was on the same site and the accident caused great public concern. It might be 60 years ago but it is still part of the PR legacy that affects nuclear energy in the UK today.

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

#372

Post by sjwright »

dorgo wrote: post #289
option wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up near Chernobyl. My parents still work on CNPP (which was closed in 2000 but still needs personnel). In my opinion nuclear is the only reallistic solution to solve global warming. Per kw produced it is safer than even solar or wind and modern reactors are even safer. I now live in bay area and have high end solar panels. While this is a nice thing, looking at their output - it is just not enough (covers our…

>Per kw produced it is safer than even solar or wind how do you define "safer"?

The definition of "safer" is fewer people killed per kilowatt hour of energy generated. By that very reasonable metric, nuclear power is objectively less deadly than rooftop solar or wind turbines.

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

#374

Post by jfnixon »

raz32dust wrote: post #362
masonic wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the debate is now shifting from nuclear vs. coal to nuclear vs. solar/wind. In that context, this argument doesn't help. Especially recently, people have been really bullish about solar and wind power, and I think that has lead to weakening of the support for nuclear power.

You need to tell China and India that.

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

#375

Post by athrowaway3z »

wiggler00m wrote: post #207

Renewable energy is cheaper than nuclear, or will be imminently. Proponents of nuclear tend to ignore the long-run costs associated with nuclear (eg. waste transport and storage), and the potential for cost blowouts due to acute disasters like Fukushima (estimated cost to taxpayers: USD $100 Billion). The fact tax money is going towards Fukushima highlights another problem with nuclear power: the agency problem. The…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k&t=519s ( 3 min to make his point )

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

#376

Post by BluSyn »

macspoofing wrote: post #366
BluSyn wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy density and cost have almost no correlation. Gasoline is less dense, but I can package a gas generator into a small box for very little cost. Uranium requires a giant reactor the size of a small town and costs billions. $/MWh is the only real metric that matters. Edit: http://solarcellcentral.com/images/avg_cost_of_energy.jpg

>$/MWh is the only real metric that matters. Given this statement and the chart that shows solar and wind already being the cheapest energy sources this must mean we can just switch to solar and wind ... right? Except we know we can't. We know that the variablity of solar and wind makes those impossible replacements for coal and gas. I guess price isn't the only metric that matters.

Touche. I agree, "only metric" is hyperbolic, but it is the main metric that determines future investments.

This is why the most important number is $/MWh for "solar/wind + storage". Storage has to be included in the equation. At current prices that puts "solar/wind + storage" about equal with natural gas, but those prices are dropping rapidly.

Installation times are also very significant factors in reaching emission reduction targets. Waiting 10+ years for nuclear to come online just isn't viable. Solar+storage can be operational at the same scale as a nuclear plant within 2-3 years.

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

#377

Post by jfnixon »

asaddhamani wrote: post #347
kortilla wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

The counter risk is having the entire planet rendered uninhabitable for human life, right? Let's see, some area rendered uninhabitable versus the planet rendered uninhabitable... I'm going with A.

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

#378

Post by sjwright »

capsulecorp wrote: post #173
option wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up near Chernobyl. My parents still work on CNPP (which was closed in 2000 but still needs personnel). In my opinion nuclear is the only reallistic solution to solve global warming. Per kw produced it is safer than even solar or wind and modern reactors are even safer. I now live in bay area and have high end solar panels. While this is a nice thing, looking at their output - it is just not enough (covers our…

Not to be rude but that seems like a silly qualification to be speaking on a matter. I grew up next to a Lockheed factory and my father worked for NASA, but I fail to see how that qualifies me to comment on what a "realistic" solution for interstellar travel would be.

It's a valid qualification to speak on the reasonableness of community fears.

As someone who grew up near a Lockheed factory and a father that worked for NASA, you are qualified to speak about the community impacts of building and operating flying machines.

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

#379

Post by DoreenMichele »

kortilla wrote: post #339
DoreenMichele wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Doesn’t work unless you live in a place that has no weather (e.g. the Bay Area). People in Minneapolis aren’t going to turn off their heater at night when it’s 30 below 0 because the wind stopped and their battery went dead.

No, not true. Design of this sort used to be the norm. There are variations of it in all climates.

Igloos:

On the outside, temperatures may be as low as −45 °C (−49 °F), but on the inside the temperature may range from −7 °C (19 °F) to 16 °C (61 °F) when warmed by body heat alone.

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

I can't readily find a source with details, but traditional desert cities were located on high ground and the streets oriented to catch the winds such that daytime street temperatures were pleasant.

We used to design buildings and cityscapes to work with the local climate. Now, we slap up cardboard boxes, inject insulation and add HVAC systems, counting on technology to keep things comfortable in place of good design. In reality, well designed buildings are more comfortable and probably less likely to suffer from sick building syndrome.

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

#380

Post by jfnixon »

radu_crisan wrote: post #364
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 opinion is that you might underestimate the magnitude of potential nuclear accidents. I think that Germany's decision to decommission over time their nuclear power plants was pretty well studied. Please see: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2018/...

And now Germany is not meeting its decarbonization goals. How is that a win for the environment?
Post reply on HN