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

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#431

Post by malthuswaswrong » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 2:39 AM UTC

drclau wrote: post #229

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #83

That's how you know none of this is real. If mankind was actually on the brink of extinction all options would be on the table. Especially one that offers free unlimited energy. Mankind does not have an energy generation problem. It only has an energy storage problem.

> Mankind does not have an energy generation problem. No, humankind does not have an energy generation problem. The problem is the side effects of the methods used to generate the energy. The existential risk is very real, but because it’s still far in the future, only very few people perceive it as such. Covid is a great example of how incapable humans are to perceive dangers that are far in space and/or time.

[flagged]

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#432

Post by doomleika » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #366

driest wrote: post #73

I am a fan of nuclear energy for various reasons, and it's obvious that the safety and waste problems can be solved with new technology like small modular reactors with inherently safe designs. However, even I realize that nuclear energy is not viable to significantly combat climate change due to the following reasons: * The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve…

Something I’ve never understood about the anti-proliferation arguments of small reactors. Ostensibly the reason why bad actors (“terrorists” etc [0]) don’t have nukes today is because it’s hard to enrich the fuel. Because small reactors with safer designs often have a side effect of creating enriched fuel as intermediary product. (Meaning such designs would make it easier to enrich fuel than building thousands of cen…

The real reason is two fold:

1. Developed countries want to keep the developing country poor, by setting the narrative and keep nuclear: the cheapest/most efficient energy out of competitor's hand so they can stay poor.

2. Nuclear bomb ready country want to shut out every possibility for others to get a hands on them. Most nuclear warhead program started by using nuclear powerplant as disguise.

The environment problem is unsolvable because no one with the power want to solve them

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#433

Post by pelasaco » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 8:27 PM UTC

Oddskar wrote: post #428

pelasaco wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you are right. Was Population control a topic on COP26? Is population control a topic when we talk about CO2 emission?

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#434

Post by iamstupidsimple » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

Oddskar wrote: post #421

iamstupidsimple wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do everything you just listed. But that was by choice, and I know people who won't want to e.g. ever give up eating meat.

We have to accommodate these lifestyles (and build tech to make it more sustainable) - people generally don't want to go 'backwards', even if you or I don't perceive that as a problem.

Ultimately it's irrelevant, because both of our lifestyles are still heavily carbon negative without offsets. We both own a computer or live in a house I assume? That's why I'm sceptical of the "just live more sustainable" movement.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#435

Post by randomswede » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #158

SllX wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where’s my citation I asked for? I’m not saying the parent is necessarily wrong, but given the recency of the industrial revolution and the length of time between which it “began” and when many of the most useful industrial applications for coal were discovered, I can’t take it at face value “centuries” is correct. It might be close to correct, it might be technically correct, but it’s not merely an pedantic point: h…

It is very easy to look up the history of coal use and see that it had metallurgical applications in antiquity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#History

A lot of the coal used in Swedish metal-working (up to relatively late, but I don't actually have dates, here, gut feel is 18050s) was charcoal, rather than mined coal. With quite advanced cooperatives[1] producing the charcoal for the mining/refining cooperatives[1].

[1] Somewhat loose translation of "kolare" and "bergslag", here.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#436

Post by phtrivier » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

aetherspawn wrote: post #120

phtrivier wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the anxiety, and I suppose you've already weighted the pro / cons argument ; however, I'm curious about the psychology - and please don't read that as whataboutism. So, how do you feel about the present problems with our current carbon heavy energy productions ? Are you less anxious about deaths from coal and every catastrophe related to climate change (heat waves, floods, mass exiles, civil wars, etc...…

It's more long term thinking from me: I know that we can reach 100% renewables in 20 or so years, but I'd rather that it's wind/solar/hydro than something like nuclear, that is more volatile in nature and requires continuous maintenance from a capable overseer. For example, what if a negligent person is promoted to maintenance overseer at a power plant that's several cities across? I have no control over that at all.…

Ok, I get the problem with "surrending control." Although, to be fair, we all do it constantly.

What if a bad actors at your local water plant decides to poison your tap water ? Or at the local Coke factory, to poison your local Coke ? What if your next plane pilot is suicidal ? Etc...

As stated in xkcd, that fact that most people are not homicidal psychopath is an often forgotten element of our safety system.

Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

#437

Post by theGeatZhopa » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC

kergonath wrote: post #81

theGeatZhopa wrote: post #62

What about drilling for geothermal energy? And what about thermal fusion which is upcoming? For what do we need fission any longer, except to bridge the time up to availability of fusion? As long there is no good concept for the nuclear waste, that long nuclear shouldn't be praised as solution to anything, except for bridging. There have been news on here, for a newly developed technique to "recycle" and/or to "treat…

> And what about thermal fusion which is upcoming? Fusion is great, and we are making good progress. It could plausibly change everything in a couple of decades. But it is not available today, so we cannot rely on it. That’s the thing when you follow the latest r&d developments: we talk about a technology well before it is useable, so all we can use at a given moment are mature technologies that are old news. Example…

Yes.. it's just, the times changed. ITER has been planned a long time ago (narrator makes a gesture of a looooong beard) Just the findings of warm superconductors in 2018, let the development advance in much more speeedy manner. Atm, approx 40 startups (yes, most of them are new and poshy) have been founded, which already are building demonstrations and most of them are in stealth Modus. Others are already valued with 5 Billions getting a lot of venture. Chinese are just about to get it done - one's even don't hear anything about that here. The British having good progress. But, me personally, I'm placing my odds on MIT having functional Demonstrator by 2025.

I'm looking forward. BITCOIN mining for less than a penny :)