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

571–580 of 666 posts

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

#571

Post by wahern »

EGreg wrote: post #476
wahern wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume you're trolling, but I still think it worth pointing out that no science proves causation. The scientific method, for example, only rejects null hypotheses--that is, alternative explanations. Scientists and society writ large come to tentative, qualified conclusions about causation by assessing, among other things, 1) consistency with observed phenomena, especially consistent, multi-dimensional correlations…

"I won't even touch your other points." That's too bad. As for your comments I just refer you to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

So you dispute that the scientific method only rejects null hypotheses, as opposed to proving a hypothesis?

I left unstated that you can also reject the hypothesis, but that's implied from what I've said--you can only reject, not prove, any particular theory of causation.

But we now live in bizarro world, where people who don't actually understand science or logic rationalize their conclusions by redefining the very methodologies modern society has used to pull itself out of the swamp.

In bizarro world there's "real" science that unveils the "truth", like Moses coming down from the mountain. And then there's all this messy business, dependent on process, contingent on qualitative and quantitative factors, that can be dismissed out of the hand. No matter that the former never existed, that everything we know comes from the latter. No matter that science is fundamentally a _process_, not a product.

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

#572

Post by mkandes »

adrianN wrote: post #444
mkandes wrote: post #213

We will probably have no better production-ready, scalable, (minimally) carbon-free option for energy production to combat climate change in our lifetimes. If you don't believe me and you haven't seen a real scientist explain the scale of the energy problem in a cogent way, you should watch Nathan Lewis: 2005: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKqx2uk-Gs 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IQhTiN6OI If he cannot s…

I'm not that old. I believe that I'll see a fusion reactor connected to the grid.

Maybe one day. My bet is that, at best, a commercially built one won't be switched on before 2065. ITER [1] is and will continue to be behind schedule and over budget, pushing back any follow on plans for DEMO [2], let alone the subsequent commercialization of that technology. Of course, there's always hope for a breakthrough.

[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO

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

#573

Post by dang »

JanezStupar wrote: post #462

Until radical left ideologues stop cockblocking any discussion about nuclear and fearmongering we aren't going to be seeing any reasonable discussion on the topic.

Political ranting and name-calling aren't allowed here. Please don't post like this, regardless of your politics or anyone else's.

Edit: actually, since I see you've done this quite frequently and ignored previous requests to stop, we've banned your account. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13238756

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13236566 and marked it off-topic.

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

#575

Post by dang »

JanezStupar wrote: post #482

You have no idea what you are talking about.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines by posting uncivil and unsubstantive comments and ignoring our requests to stop.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13236820 and marked it off-topic.

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

#576

Post by Recurecur »

patall wrote: post #375
mseebach wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…

It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant.…

"It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant. So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows."

Nuclear done right will be a great solution going forward. We need a SpaceX of nuclear to out-compete the dinosaur companies like GE. Thorcon Power (thorconpower.com) is one good candidate.

With molten salt technology, there is zero chance of a meltdown or explosive distribution of material. Thorcon's plan is to site the reactors 30 m underground.

"So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with radioactive waste, why would you chose that one? And while I agree that we need some back up plan to stabilize the net load, that also wont be nuclear power as those plants are not fast in start up managment either."

Thorcon's estimate is that power cost $.02-$.05 per KWH. The ramp up or down for a nuclear plant is a non-issue because fuel costs are negligible.

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

#577

Post by shawn-furyan »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #208
underrun wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advantages of advancing technology and building smaller safer reactors would go a long way to avoiding such disasters. Because things can go wrong is not a reason to stop research into making them better and safer. The real way to keep ahead of this is not to extend the life span of existing reactors but to build aggressively in order to take older ones offline as newer smaller safer reactors are ready. And keep…

Iterating aggressively is great when the consequences aren't as dire as nuclear mistakes. The last thing I'd want is more plants built aggressively when stupid mistakes happen at the non-aggressive rate, such as installing the reactor backwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...

+1

Design is not actualization.

So the salient question becomes:

How robust are modern reactor designs to manufacturing/construction/installation/etc. errors?

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

#578

Post by paulmd »

natch wrote: post #527
hxegon wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear power is centralized and lends itself to government or corporate control of the energy system As opposed to what we have now?

As opposed to alternatives like solar. Admittedly solar does not work everywhere, but there are transport mechanisms, and batteries, and it does work in some places. And we have to decide where to spend our money. Spending on solar is a choice that leads to more local control and less centralized control, as compared to spending on nuclear. And it's not necessarily totally one or the other in every situation. I'm jus…

If you are talking about grid-scale transport and storage mechanisms that move power in from "someplace [else]" we are back to a centralized power system.

Moreover, you still have yet to make a case for why a decentralized system is inherently good.

There's a strong argument for centralized systems where they are feasible, and that's that centralized systems are easy and decentralized systems are hard. We all know this from our own experience - it's easiest to use a Single Big Server if you can get away with it, it's tougher to use a cluster of systems coherently (CAP theorem comes into play), and as you continue to decentralize further and further you eventually need something like a blockchain to have any hope of consistency, latency becomes measured in minutes, etc.

Distributed systems are hard and we don't want to make the power grid any more complex than it needs to be. A few big centralized power sources are greatly preferable to many decentralized power sources from an engineering perspective, although perhaps not from your political perspective.

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

#579

Post by n2dasun »

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…

I graduated 3 years after you (just snooped your linkedin) and was a Nuke Submariner. I've always been a big proponent of nuclear, even after leaving it, but I'd have to agree somewhat with your statements. Fear drives narratives very easily. The Fukushima disaster occurred 5.5 years ago, and still holds a leading spot in news headlines today.

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

#580

Post by Retric »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #528
Retric wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100,000 homes within 40 miles is probably on the low side. Also, a reasonable penalty for unwanted risk bumps up the costs. Further the value of property and possessions likely increases faster than inflation making the time value equation tricky. More importantly Nuclear is already to expencive before this cost, increasing things further and it's really not worth it.

Also the average American home price is $189k, not $1M. Round up to $200k for cost to move, and we're down to $380/person. Add in the fact that the worst disaster (Chernobyl) has an exclusion zone of 1004 miles^2 (equivalent to a 17 mile circle, rather than your 40 miles) and we discover that my initial estimate was about 25x too pessimistic. I'm beginning to think your concerns about cost are FUD. Out of curiosity,…

Cost to move is only part of the problem, you need to move while losing all your stuff which may or may not include your car etc. Further, this is not limited to housing but includes farms / offices / schools / factory's and infrastructure like highways and water pipes etc.

As to area, nobody lives in the ocean and houses next to an exclusion zone also have huge drops in property values. So, yes some sort of decreasing metric, as a sanity check the property value drop from being within sight of a nuclear power plant is going to be more than 300$. Further, actual exclusion zones may depend on wind so risk really does extend out to 40 miles.

Edit: As an upside, if you included these costs then there would be a push to place reactors in the middle of nowhere to lower costs which IMO is a very good thing.

PS: As a sanity check fukushima is estimated to cost tax payers ~188 billion$ and many people are worse off after the disaster so real costs are higher than that. If the odds are 0.2% that's ~400 million vs your estimate of 300 * 100,0000 = 30 million.

Post reply on HN