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

421–430 of 437 posts

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#421

Post by Oddskar »

iamstupidsimple wrote: post #323
Oddskar wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've somehow missed the vital part: our lifestyle is not sustainable. We shouldn't aim to sustain something that simply cannot continue.

Okay, you first. I'd much rather find a way to maintain people's lifestyles, reduce emissions (and make it even better in the process).

I've already substantially changed my lifestyle to be more sustainable.

I don't own a car, I don't eat meat, I consume very little and try to buy used things instead, I repair all my things as much as possible, I try to steer my investments away from anything close to fossil fuels.

Now you.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#422

Post by Oddskar »

pelasaco wrote: post #403
Oddskar wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've somehow missed the vital part: our lifestyle is not sustainable. We shouldn't aim to sustain something that simply cannot continue.

Our lifestyle is sustainable. It just doesn't scale for 10 billion people. The only problem what we have is the amount of people. We can do something against it, but we won't.

Why can't it be both?

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#423

Post by pelasaco »

Oddskar wrote: post #422
pelasaco wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our lifestyle is sustainable. It just doesn't scale for 10 billion people. The only problem what we have is the amount of people. We can do something against it, but we won't.

Why can't it be both?

what both? Any existing prediction says that the Earth won't support more than 10 billion people. Our life is much more "sustainable" now than before. Yes we still have a lot to do, we will always have, but gosh, we are simply too many. I can't believe in a COPXX if birth control isn't part of the solution.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#424

Post by MagnumOpus »

laurent92 wrote: post #30
legitster wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. One of the benefits of nuclear is that it can be turned on and off quite easily. There are several mechanisms to throttle on and off the reaction.

Is this a new thing? In France, the nuclear plants built between 1960 and 1980 have throttling but it takes more than 20hrs to cool down, making it inefficient to stop at night (hence over-provisioning overnight leading to price shifts to encourage people to run water boilers and washing machines at night).

This is a lie. The French reactors can throttle down from 100% capacity to 30% capacity (i.e. from 1300 MW to 400MW) within 30 minutes.

Other countries can do the same if they build the option into their plant control (many do):

https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power...

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#425

Post by q1w2 »

cesarb wrote: post #324
cnlevy wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storage for 3 months https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/29/sse-says-low-wind-dry-condit...

> Storage for 3 months The parent comment said overprovisioning and storage. With enough overprovisioning, you'd need storage for half a day at most (keep in mind that the parent thread was talking about pure solar with storage, not wind). The question on this sub-thread is: what would be the optimal (minimum cost) balance between overprovisioned solar and storage, and what would be the cost of that solution (the que…

This is not correct. In winter months, solar produces one tenth the power it does in summer - and even that is on average.

One cloudy January, and people would live in the dark for a month.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#426

Post by q1w2 »

kortex wrote: post #233
q1w2 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running a nuclear reactor does not produce nuclear weapons. This is simply fear-mongering fake news. Also, modern nuclear reactors are dangerous. The GenIII+ specification for all new reactors requires the use of passive shut off. Which means the operator must actively keep the reactor on. If they were to all turn into zombies, for example, the reactor would simply shut off. Omega Tau podcast also did an extensive se…

> Also, modern nuclear reactors are dangerous. The GenIII+ specification for all new reactors requires the use of passive shut off. Which means the operator must actively keep the reactor on. This seems confused. Shouldn't this read not dangerous? 100% agree though on the broad point. Newer reactors have way better passive safety, and the way to cheaper, safer nuclear energy is build more new plants and retire the ol…

agh... typo. I forgot the NOT!

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#427

Post by adrianN »

enaaem wrote: post #407
Goety wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Energy is a fundamental need for society to flourish. Energy is needed for basic modern services. Humans have survived a long time without electricity. It could be simpler to 'go without' or 'find a workaround' for a lot of conveniences if we were serious at combating climate change.

Before electricity we would burn wood to not die in winter. We don’t have any forests left to do that.

Luckily nowadays we have clean sources of energy, so there is no need to go back to burning wood.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#428

Post by Oddskar »

pelasaco wrote: post #423
Oddskar wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't it be both?

what both? Any existing prediction says that the Earth won't support more than 10 billion people. Our life is much more "sustainable" now than before. Yes we still have a lot to do, we will always have, but gosh, we are simply too many. I can't believe in a COPXX if birth control isn't part of the solution.

Both population control and a sustainable lifestyle.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#429

Post by vlovich123 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #414
vlovich123 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you realize that natural gas production produces methane instead of CO2. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas.

> I hope you realize that natural gas production produces methane instead of CO2. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas. Natural gas is (primarily) methane, but burning natural gas converts methane into CO2 and water.

My bad. Natural gas still emits 50% of the CO2 that Coal does, so it's still a very significant emitter of CO2 as compared with nuclear. That's ignoring the methane leaks inherent in transporting natural gas.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#430

Post by sudosysgen »

q1w2 wrote: post #425
cesarb wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Storage for 3 months The parent comment said overprovisioning and storage. With enough overprovisioning, you'd need storage for half a day at most (keep in mind that the parent thread was talking about pure solar with storage, not wind). The question on this sub-thread is: what would be the optimal (minimum cost) balance between overprovisioned solar and storage, and what would be the cost of that solution (the que…

This is not correct. In winter months, solar produces one tenth the power it does in summer - and even that is on average . One cloudy January, and people would live in the dark for a month.

It's even worse. If we want a zero emissions future, we would want electric heating...
Post reply on HN