Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

hcn.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 231 posts

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#51

Post by tpkj »

intopieces wrote: post #35
tpkj wrote: post #19

Another factor to consider with nuclear is how it perpetuates complete dependence upon the grid, a single point of failure model. Perspective articulated here by Sunnova CEO John Berger. https://youtu.be/6Dx0U2y-YgU?t=2922

Nuclear doesn’t perpetuate complete dependence, because it has never been intended to be the sole provider of energy to its customers. Even the most ardent nuclear cheerleaders pose it as a single component in an energy mix.

"...a single component in an energy mix". And that mix relies on the grid? With nuclear or other centralized power source, yes.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#52

Post by sokoloff »

wbl wrote: post #37
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The missing link is to build up solar capacity to refill your battery. To refill the battery you need to generate 57600MWh each day. Assuming that we get 12 hours of sunlight per day at 50% efficiency, you that comes down to 2 (efficiency factor) * 57600MWh / (12 hours / day) = 9600 MWh solar installation. At $1 / Watt, 9600 MWh solar installation comes down to $9.6 billion. Assuming my math is correct, this seems pr…

The winter vs. summer amount can be far more, and then you have heating costs to provide power for.

And not infrequent spells of winter weather that are a week or more long without ever seeing the sun.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#53

Post by ImprovedSilence »

jws wrote: post #24
nickik wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mostly wrong. > No. Nuclear power creates the most dangerous waste known to mankind and we have no way of mitigating or eliminating it. Nuclear waste is incredibly well controlled, unlike waste from solar, wind or fossil. Most Western countries didn't have contamination from civil nuclear waste at all and specially not in the last 30 years. Civilian Nuclear waste has basically killed nobody. Calling it the 'm…

One hand full of uranium is enough for a whole human live inclusive transportation heating and so on. Now compare this to the literal mountain of solar panels that would have to be produced… 1.1 billion hectares of land are farmed to feed the 7.5 billion people. That works out to 2000 square meters per person. World energy consumption (all sources) runs about 18 terawatts, or 2400 watts per person. That is 58kWhr per…

All land doesn't receive the same quality or quantity of sunlight.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#54

Post by cma »

crdoconnor wrote: post #44
skybrian wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't nuclear power have subsized costs as well? I'm thinking of the Price-Anderson Act.

There's also the nuclear liability cap. Taxpayers cover disaster cleanup costs that exceed some fairly low level ($200 mil I think). It's very expensive but also free insurance, basically.

That's the Price-Anderson "Nuclear Industries Indemnity" Act he was talking about.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#55

Post by ben-schaaf »

beaconstudios wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries can be recycled, nuclear waste is stockpiled with no permanent disposal or recycling plan in sight. Solar and wind, unsubsidized, with storage, are already cheaper than nuclear. Those costs will continue to plummet, especially as EV battery demand ramps (rapidly expanding battery manufacturing capacity). Nuclear lost because it’s too expensive, and has its own externalities to ignore (decommissioning, waste…

this might sound silly (and it probably is), but I don't understand why we don't build a hulking great cannon and shoot our nuclear waste into space.

I know others have addressed the dangers of this, but I had a little fun looking at the logistics. The UK alone produces 2Mt of radioactive waste[0] per year, ~9% is of "intermediate" level. Just sending those 18Mt into LEO would take 129,000 Saturn V launches per year. That's about one launch every 4 minutes. And LEO is not where we want to send anything. Lets assume a Trans-Lunar Injection is enough, bringing that number up to 370,000, almost one launch per minute.

Just the RP-1 & LH2 fuel cost would be around $600,000 per launch[1], so about 222 billion USD per year (The fuel is the cheapest part of the launch). Each launch releases around 440,000 kg of CO2[2] into the atmosphere. That's 163Mt, an increase of 44% of the UK's current CO2 pollution from the launches alone.

Just for fun, if we wanted to send all nuclear waste all the way to pluto using only Falcon Heavies we'd have to launch around 1.8 per second. Going off the 80 million USD price tag for these launches, that's 4.5 quadrillion USD. That's about 60 times the Gross World Product to cover the UK alone.

[0] https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/03/how-much-radioactive-wast... [1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-does-it-take-to-travel-t... [2] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/13082/calculate-fa...

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#56

Post by SubiculumCode »

The thesis, A new generation of environmentalists is learning to stop worrying and love atomic power is unsupported by the text if the article.

My readthrough of the article failed to reveal supporting evidence that there is widespread change in opinion about nuclear in younger generations, much less that a pro-nuclear movement is growing.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#57

Post by pvaldes »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #32
beaconstudios wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this might sound silly (and it probably is), but I don't understand why we don't build a hulking great cannon and shoot our nuclear waste into space.

because a misfire would result in a fine mist of nuclear fallout spread over the entire planet

We'll have to pack it very carefully in any case. Perhaps we should assume that this will happen and work with that scenery in mind. The concept of a fire resistant box is not new at a smaller scale; We can vitrify the less dangerous waste and store the crystal in steel containers. Then we could theoretically design explosion-proof containers for it with some outer sacrificial disposable layers made of a plastic clay-like matherial or so.

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#58

Post by jazzyjackson »

BurningFrog wrote: post #46
beaconstudios wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this might sound silly (and it probably is), but I don't understand why we don't build a hulking great cannon and shoot our nuclear waste into space.

I like to remind people that we already live on a radioactive planet. We can build nuclear reactors because radioactive stuff naturally is everywhere. There probably wouldn't be life here without it. So to me the "let's get it off the planet" idea is an overreaction. Radioactive material just need to be handled with common sense.

Hmm... what's the over-under on dropping barrels into a volcano?

You get a little radioactive steam surely...but eventually turns into radioactive dust...

As an aside, ignorant physics question, does the half-life of something decrease with heat? Like does more beta-decay mean it gets to safe levels faster?

Maybe a few years in between tectonic plates would do a planet good eh?

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#59

Post by chongli »

ben-schaaf wrote: post #55
beaconstudios wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this might sound silly (and it probably is), but I don't understand why we don't build a hulking great cannon and shoot our nuclear waste into space.

I know others have addressed the dangers of this, but I had a little fun looking at the logistics. The UK alone produces 2Mt of radioactive waste[0] per year, ~9% is of "intermediate" level. Just sending those 18Mt into LEO would take 129,000 Saturn V launches per year. That's about one launch every 4 minutes. And LEO is not where we want to send anything. Lets assume a Trans-Lunar Injection is enough, bringing that…

Launching waste into space with a rocket is a silly idea. We don't really care if the waste gets damaged as long as it doesn't break up and make a mess. Why not build a giant railgun to launch it?

Re: A new generation of environmentalists is learning to love atomic power

#60

Post by v_lisivka »

mikestew wrote: post #47
v_lisivka wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can build one CO2 capture factory in Nevada desert to capture excessive CO2 and bury it there. I see no difference.

Can we do that today? Well, there’s your difference.

The problem with CO2 is that we can do it tomorrow, or, even better, somebody else will do that instead of us.

With radioactive waste, we _must_ bury it today.

Post reply on HN