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

41–50 of 666 posts

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

#41

Post by torpfactory »

spodek wrote: post #2

When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…

This. Do we really need more stuff? I think the HN crowd is certainly beyond this sort of simplistic understanding. But what about non-physical things? Do we need more entertainment? We are without a doubt the most entertained people in the history of the world. Do we need better connectedness? (I think we do, but it's not the kind on offer by Facebook). I think writing letters and using snail mail is about the bandwidth limit for humans having deep conversations. Do we need more and better sensual experiences? I love amazing food, but I'm not sure I could build a fulfilling life through my belly.

Maybe the best thing that global warming could do is force us to confront our choices. What is truly important? We probably don't need the consumption we currently maintain to have the really important things.

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

#42

Post by maroonblazer »

One of the best retorts to the anti-nuclear position comes from Richard Rhodes, author of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" on an episode of "Book TV" on C-Span in response to a caller asking/warning about nuclear waste.[0] In this 3 minute clip he lays out a very compelling argument for nuclear power.

Here's the article in Foreign Affairs he references in the clip (registration (free) required).[1]

[0]https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4639510/richard-rhodes-nuclea...

[1] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2000-01-01/need-nucl...

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

#43

Post by waynecochran »

oconnore wrote: post #35
waynecochran wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Population would be declining in us w/o migrants entering the country. So the US is doing its part on population reduction. https://www.census.gov/popclock/

I don't think you read that right. The growth rate is still (net) 1 person every 24 seconds without migrants.

Oops your right. My bad.

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

#44

Post by [deleted] »

antidaily wrote: post #33
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…

The problem is that these old plants are getting replaced with coal and natural gas.

[deleted]

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

#45

Post by aianus »

jat850 wrote: post #40
antidaily wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that these old plants are getting replaced with coal and natural gas.

Are they really replacing with coal, still? Natural gas contribution to energy is on the rise, but coal seems to be on the decline. (I'm not calling you wrong, I just can't find data to back numbers of plants - only coal as an energy production method.)

Germany replaced their nuclear power with new coal. It boggles the mind.

https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyro...

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

#46

Post by white-flame »

spodek wrote: post #2

When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…

Population is a self-correcting system. As people (especially women) get broader education, success, and opportunity, reproductive rates decline. When life is tough, people pop out more children.

Reducing consumption is a strange one. We keep making our devices more power efficient, but we pile on more of them. We have more efficient cars, but we seem to be driving them longer and more often. Busy-ness fills whatever space it's given, and that's a huge driver of consumption.

Of course, the very notion of "start ups" as promoted by sites like this are all about increasing consumption, often with new and frankly superfluous service-based conveniences. Money flows when consumption increases, so it'd have to be a truly cultural shift of simplicity, not a legislative or business shift.

While I do think energy consumption per capita in first world countries is probably decreasing, we haven't yet hit "peak population", and lots of people are moving up in poorer nations to be able to consume more.

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

#47

Post by hueving »

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…

>in an era where solar is competitively priced

We're not in that era though. Solar is only competitive if you don't account for storage, which is required if it's going to replace any large percentage of generation.

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

#48

Post by adventured »

spodek wrote: post #2

When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…

If you want to plug every car into the grid - and get rid of the combustion engines - in the next 20 years, then yes, we need a substantial increase in energy production and grid capacity. Want everyone to use autonomous Uber-type services instead of owning? They might; that's not happening in the next 20 years however.

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

#49

Post by jat850 »

aianus wrote: post #45
jat850 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they really replacing with coal, still? Natural gas contribution to energy is on the rise, but coal seems to be on the decline. (I'm not calling you wrong, I just can't find data to back numbers of plants - only coal as an energy production method.)

Germany replaced their nuclear power with new coal. It boggles the mind. https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyro...

Thank you for the link. That is indeed mind-boggling.

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

#50

Post by hueving »

Retra wrote: post #24
flukus wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desire to breed is pretty hard wired, species die without it. Sex is only fun because it rewards our desire to breed.

Sex is fun irrespective of it causing breeding. They are evolutionarily linked, but the have no moral relationship within the human brain. The desire to have sex and the desire to have children are for most people, completely independent desires. And for what it's worth, humans have no obligations to our evolutionary past. "How we evolved" has no direct bearing on what we want (or 'are meant') to do with our lives. I…

>Sex is fun irrespective of it causing breeding.

I think you're missing the connection. Sex is fun because evolution selects for things that improve reproduction. People that have fun having sex are going to reproduce a lot more than people who don't have fun having sex.

Post reply on HN