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

491–500 of 666 posts

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

#491

Post by rhino369 »

Altay- wrote: post #294

Per-capita energy usage is already falling across the developed world. And that's just with current trends. We could easily tax electricity far higher in most countries, mandate higher efficiency (the US still uses giant furnaces and hot water heaters) and tax carbon. Why do people on Hacker News seem so drawn to Nuclear? Its insanely expensive, it takes forever for a plant to come online, and worst of all for an ind…

If we taxed carbon that highly we'd end up just building nuclear plants anyway. Solar and wind just can't provide baseline power or on demand power, at least not yet.

Reducation is use needs to be a key part of global warming mitigation, but it isn't going to be the only part. Per capita is falling, but the world is still growing. And per capita usage is skyrocketing in the third world.

And per capita electrical grid usage might increase as electric cars start replacing ICE cars.

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

#492

Post by [deleted] »

r1k wrote: post #417
Iv wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price is not the only factor if we seriously want to fight global warming. 1. What is the energy ROI? (ie how much energy does it cost to build a station) 2. At what speed can we transition out of fossil fuel? Germany tried to phase out of nuclear. What happened? They raised their part of renewable sources a lot, but that still amounted to only about 15-20% of their national needs. They ended up reopening coal plants…

> (No, uranium is not a fossil resource) Could you elaborate?

[deleted]

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

#493

Post by natch »

mirimir wrote: post #441
afterburner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

I'd be OK with nuclear power if they could get adequate insurance on the open market, accepting all risk. It's my understanding that nuclear power plants are not insurable, unless government assumes risk, agrees to handle waste, etc.

Most of us would not be willing put a price on the lives or health of, say, our children. Any price.

I'm not so ok with it, but not just for safety reasons. New designs may be safer but they are still part of a globally destructive system of dirty mining, byproducts that go to weapons, and still non-zero risk of inflicting lifelong and community-wide damage in catastrophic situations.

Also it bugs me that nuclear is perpetuating the interests of large players who would prefer to control all the energy. I'd like to see energy democratized more, meaning instead of having contracts or bills from a power company, you make your own energy at home. That's an ideal, and we will probably end up with a mix, but I'd rather see money put into trying to tip that mix toward the decentralized side of things, which means toward locally installable technology like solar.

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

#494

Post by btian »

mason240 wrote: post #445
Retric wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely rational to reduce property values when there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. If the risk is say 0.3% over the next hundred years paying every homeowner ~20,000$ within 40 miles when the plant is built to offset that risk is completely rational, but would make nuclear Even less viable.

>there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.

You're comparing two different things.

If your house explodes, fix the source and rebuild the house. Maybe it's time for a major remodel anyway.

If there's a nuclear incident, what are you going to do?

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

#495

Post by richmarr »

hubert123 wrote: post #416
mseebach wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the train has indeed left the platform, but the inflection point for solar only happened this year. If the parties to Kyoto had gone home back then and created said regulatory environment for nuclear and gotten on with it, we'd be looking at a 80-90% carbon emissions free electrical grid across the entire western hemisphere today. Climate change would have been more or less solved, and yes, we knew that then,…

I prefer not having fukushima events and I'm happy to wait and use coal in the meantime

You have to think about the trade-offs... even Chernobyl only caused 56 direct deaths and a five-fold increase in the incidence of normal rate of thyroid cancer (a fairly treatable form of cancer) amongst the 18m children exposed.

I say "only" there not to diminish their suffering (it's a terrible thing happening to a huge number of people) but because the consequences of continuing to rely on coal are orders of magnitude worse.

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

#496

Post by natch »

daveheq wrote: post #489
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…

It depends on how the nuclear reactor is managed. Have companies shown they care about the people over profit? Has government proven to not be inept at regulations and inspections and punishments? On top of that, a natural disaster can cause one to melt down. If we move to thorium, it's almost impossible to have a disaster, but it can't be made into a weapon and the profits are low so nobody wants to build the best s…

"best source of feasible big power known to man."

I'd prefer small power. Nuclear is too centralized. It leaves all the control in the hands of government and corporations. It is inherently biased to control by large entities, rather than the individual.

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

#497

Post by coldtea »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #357
coldtea wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something like Chernobyl isn't even plausible with newer reactors That's what they said for Chernobyl too.

Did any Non-Soviet scientists and engineers say this?

No, but Non-Soviet scientists said the same things for other reactors that ended in disasters.

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

#498

Post by lloeki »

coredog64 wrote: post #487
natch wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as we're exploring hypothetical choices, would you prefer to live near a nuclear plant over living in a house with energy provided by solar tiles on the roof?

Yes, because I like to have power at night ;)

Smooth out power delivery with energy storage such as batteries?

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

#499

Post by alphydan »

lmm wrote: post #466
lispm wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> uninhabitable by hydroelectric dams Nobody builds one where I live. But there are several nuclear power plants. But most of them are now history. They are not in some remote areas, but near populated areas with millions of people. > If you're considering solar on its own then you're never going to be able to provide reliable baseline power. Why would I 'consider solar on its own' as baseline power? These arguments…

> Nobody builds one where I live. But there are several nuclear power plants. But most of them are now history. They are not in some remote areas, but near populated areas with millions of people. This is a failure of planning (or possibly of international diplomacy in the case of e.g. Japan). In terms of the engineering constraints, nuclear plants are a lot easier to build far away from people than any of the altern…

You need to revisit your facts. Solar plants with storage are currently in operation [1] [2]. They have been producing 370GWh per year. This is tiny compared to a mid-sized nuclear power plant, but the technology is there and is easy to scale up without hazards.

[1] http://torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/valles.html?swlang=en

[2] http://torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar.html?swlang=en

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

#500

Post by natch »

mcv wrote: post #450
mcjiggerlog wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to know why you think that is what Fukishima taught us? A giant earthquake AND a tsunami hits the plant and not a single person is killed... For me it reinforced the fact that nuclear energy is one of the most tightly regulated industries in the world in terms of safety.

Well before the disaster, there was a report that stated that the backup generators would be flooded by a powerful tsunami, and recommended improvements to fix that. TEPCO chose to ignore that report.

This is one of the dangers of a technology that is inherently centralized. It puts control of safety in the hands of a large, uncaring, faceless entity.

For that reason, decentralized technologies like solar are a better choice for where to spend money on energy.

Post reply on HN