4 ms·

http://withouthotair.com/ http://withouthotair.com/ "A vital tool agains global warming" means that it's our only possibility. It's not about cost, it's about

by vlehto 8y ago

http://withouthotair.com/ http://withouthotair.com/ "A vital tool agains global warming" means that it's our only possibility. It's not about cost, it's about what is physically possible.

lispm 8y ago
repeated appeals were not what I was looking for. where are the numbers which describe the the contribution of nuclear power to control global warming? How many? What timeframe? Costs? Who builds them? Which models? Where do we build them? What effects does it have when? What are possible scenarios? If nuclear proponents want to be taken serious, they need to answer those kinds of questions. Currently nuclear is stagnating on a global scale.
- vlehto 8y ago
  If you take climate change stuff seriously, then the answers are these: >How many? As many as you can build. You run out of engineers and carpenters before you make too many reactors in time. >What timeframe? Now. >Costs? Doesn't matter that much. Easily cheaper than climate change. >Who builds them? Whoever can. >Which models? Hardly matters, any model is safer than burning coal. >Where do we build them? Doesn't matter. Any location is safer than burning coal. >What effects does it have when? Hope that we might have climate change to stop below 3 degrees.
  - lispm 8y ago
    Just like I thought. You have no idea how to do it, what it is going to cost and what impact it will have. This will convince nobody.
    - vlehto 8y ago
      Are you doubting nuclear or are you doubting climate change?
      - jason0597 8y ago
        I'm a bit on the pro-nuclear side, but if you met a banker and asked him for a couple of billion upfront to build a nuclear plant, and said those things, he'd reject you outright.
        vlehto 8y ago
        Of course. I'm not arguing to get funding here. I'm arguing that if you believe the IPCC storyline about climate change, then nuclear is the only viable option. Building should have started yesterday and the voting public of democratic nations should be fully aware of this. If you don't believe the IPCC storyline, nuclear is still best power source right now. But there is no hurry. We can safely dabble with renewables and batteries and such until oil, gas and coal run out. No political hard decisions are needed, because prices of fossil fuels will increase well in advance to any catastrophe. So it will become economically sound to produce energy in some other way. Maybe it won't be nuclear then, I don't really care.
  - iforgotpassword 8y ago
    Again just random stuff you pulled out of your ass.
    - vlehto 8y ago
      If we talk about future, everything is random stuff pulled from someones ass. Future cannot be researched, calculated or predicted. You can just be worried about stuff and bet on some solutions to give your children a decent place to live in.
      - lispm 8y ago
        > Future cannot be researched, calculated or predicted Sure it can. Otherwise you wouldn't know about the effects of climate change. > You can just be worried about stuff and bet on some solutions to give your children a decent place to live in. Use a bicycle. Don't fly. Don't make vacation on a cruise ship. Don't buy flown in goods. Don't eat meat. Don't reproduce. Recycle stuff. Get solar onto your roof. Heat with electricity from non-fossil fuels. Don't use a car.
        vlehto 8y ago
        >Otherwise you wouldn't know about the effects of climate change. Well actually we don't know. We have maybe a sophisticated guess at best. Knowledge requires data, that by definition cannot be gathered from future. At least not before someone invents a time machine. Even the best forecasts we can make about anything are very poor. Look at a simple things like construction budgets or projected congestion of particular traffic system upgrade. They are usually off by magnitude of order. And this is well documented by Kahnemann. In regards of atmosphere, it might be that IPCC has overestimated the whole thing with a fat margin. Or it might be we are all dead no matter what we do. >Don't reproduce. If I don't do that, then I'm not going to give a shit about this phenomena anyhow. >Heat with electricity from non-fossil fuels. Where I'm from, that's impossible without the whole state going non-fossil fuel. Which again is practically impossible without nuclear. Heating accounts probably about half of my carbon footprint. And with rough winters that's a lot. I've already minimized everything else.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mch82 8y ago
    Two important questions to ask are: - Will you volunteer to live by the nuclear plant or waste storage facilities? - Will you work at or advise your friends & family to work there?
aurelwu 8y ago
It's always about cost, if it wasn't about cost we could just build so much PV/Wind + Power to Gas/Liquid Facilities as we need and be done with it. And building new nuclear is way more expensive than projected in your link, (No blame to the authors, 10 years ago they couldn't know that those numbers are not realistic) while Wind/PV are still becoming cheaper every year) they assume ~1,3 Billion per 1 GW nuclear capacity[0], but right now it looks like 3-5 Billion per 1 GW is more whats happening. [0] http://withouthotair.com/c28/page_216.shtml http://withouthotair.com/c28/page_216.shtml [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...
- kuzehanka 8y ago
  > It's always about cost As the direness of the climate situation becomes more and more urgent, cost becomes irrelevant. During times of emergency and total war, dollars don't mean anything. If you have the manpower and the raw resources to do something, it gets done. Ignoring the politics and economics of energy production, from a physics standpoint nuclear is a high outlier in terms of energy density per resource spent or per unit climate change impact, and that fact will increasingly override dollar costs or public perception as the the climate gets increasingly hostile. Until the crisis becomes apparent, I am sure nuclear will continue to be a mostly ignored option across europe and the west while political forces dominate the issue. China on the other hand isn't bothered by public sentiment[1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/china-nuclearpower/china-likely-to-more-than-triple-nuclear-power-capacity-by-2030-official-idUSL4N1XJ3AR https://www.reuters.com/article/china-nuclearpower/china-lik...
  - lispm 8y ago
    just claiming that without any numbers and without scenarios to back it up will convince no one. You'll need to answer real practical questions like the UK currently faces: who will build the proposed reactors and who will pay how much for it. It's not like this is an easy question, just check the news the UK from the past few years, with Hitachi and Toshiba giving up. France's state owned nuclear industry builds another plant in the UK - with a proposed cost of 20bn pounds... The decision for this reactor took almost ten years.

by vlehto 8y ago

http://withouthotair.com/ http://withouthotair.com/ "A vital tool agains global warming" means that it's our only possibility. It's not about cost, it's about what is physically possible.

lispm 8y ago

repeated appeals were not what I was looking for. where are the numbers which describe the the contribution of nuclear power to control global warming? How many? What timeframe? Costs? Who builds them? Which models? Where do we build them? What effects does it have when? What are possible scenarios? If nuclear proponents want to be taken serious, they need to answer those kinds of questions. Currently nuclear is stagnating on a global scale.

vlehto 8y ago
If you take climate change stuff seriously, then the answers are these: >How many? As many as you can build. You run out of engineers and carpenters before you make too many reactors in time. >What timeframe? Now. >Costs? Doesn't matter that much. Easily cheaper than climate change. >Who builds them? Whoever can. >Which models? Hardly matters, any model is safer than burning coal. >Where do we build them? Doesn't matter. Any location is safer than burning coal. >What effects does it have when? Hope that we might have climate change to stop below 3 degrees.
- lispm 8y ago
  Just like I thought. You have no idea how to do it, what it is going to cost and what impact it will have. This will convince nobody.
  - vlehto 8y ago
    Are you doubting nuclear or are you doubting climate change?
    - jason0597 8y ago
      I'm a bit on the pro-nuclear side, but if you met a banker and asked him for a couple of billion upfront to build a nuclear plant, and said those things, he'd reject you outright.
      - vlehto 8y ago
        Of course. I'm not arguing to get funding here. I'm arguing that if you believe the IPCC storyline about climate change, then nuclear is the only viable option. Building should have started yesterday and the voting public of democratic nations should be fully aware of this. If you don't believe the IPCC storyline, nuclear is still best power source right now. But there is no hurry. We can safely dabble with renewables and batteries and such until oil, gas and coal run out. No political hard decisions are needed, because prices of fossil fuels will increase well in advance to any catastrophe. So it will become economically sound to produce energy in some other way. Maybe it won't be nuclear then, I don't really care.
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
  Again just random stuff you pulled out of your ass.
  - vlehto 8y ago
    If we talk about future, everything is random stuff pulled from someones ass. Future cannot be researched, calculated or predicted. You can just be worried about stuff and bet on some solutions to give your children a decent place to live in.
    - lispm 8y ago
      > Future cannot be researched, calculated or predicted Sure it can. Otherwise you wouldn't know about the effects of climate change. > You can just be worried about stuff and bet on some solutions to give your children a decent place to live in. Use a bicycle. Don't fly. Don't make vacation on a cruise ship. Don't buy flown in goods. Don't eat meat. Don't reproduce. Recycle stuff. Get solar onto your roof. Heat with electricity from non-fossil fuels. Don't use a car.
      - vlehto 8y ago
        >Otherwise you wouldn't know about the effects of climate change. Well actually we don't know. We have maybe a sophisticated guess at best. Knowledge requires data, that by definition cannot be gathered from future. At least not before someone invents a time machine. Even the best forecasts we can make about anything are very poor. Look at a simple things like construction budgets or projected congestion of particular traffic system upgrade. They are usually off by magnitude of order. And this is well documented by Kahnemann. In regards of atmosphere, it might be that IPCC has overestimated the whole thing with a fat margin. Or it might be we are all dead no matter what we do. >Don't reproduce. If I don't do that, then I'm not going to give a shit about this phenomena anyhow. >Heat with electricity from non-fossil fuels. Where I'm from, that's impossible without the whole state going non-fossil fuel. Which again is practically impossible without nuclear. Heating accounts probably about half of my carbon footprint. And with rough winters that's a lot. I've already minimized everything else.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mch82 8y ago
  Two important questions to ask are: - Will you volunteer to live by the nuclear plant or waste storage facilities? - Will you work at or advise your friends & family to work there?

aurelwu 8y ago

It's always about cost, if it wasn't about cost we could just build so much PV/Wind + Power to Gas/Liquid Facilities as we need and be done with it. And building new nuclear is way more expensive than projected in your link, (No blame to the authors, 10 years ago they couldn't know that those numbers are not realistic) while Wind/PV are still becoming cheaper every year) they assume ~1,3 Billion per 1 GW nuclear capacity[0], but right now it looks like 3-5 Billion per 1 GW is more whats happening. [0] http://withouthotair.com/c28/page_216.shtml http://withouthotair.com/c28/page_216.shtml [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...

kuzehanka 8y ago
> It's always about cost As the direness of the climate situation becomes more and more urgent, cost becomes irrelevant. During times of emergency and total war, dollars don't mean anything. If you have the manpower and the raw resources to do something, it gets done. Ignoring the politics and economics of energy production, from a physics standpoint nuclear is a high outlier in terms of energy density per resource spent or per unit climate change impact, and that fact will increasingly override dollar costs or public perception as the the climate gets increasingly hostile. Until the crisis becomes apparent, I am sure nuclear will continue to be a mostly ignored option across europe and the west while political forces dominate the issue. China on the other hand isn't bothered by public sentiment[1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/china-nuclearpower/china-likely-to-more-than-triple-nuclear-power-capacity-by-2030-official-idUSL4N1XJ3AR https://www.reuters.com/article/china-nuclearpower/china-lik...
- lispm 8y ago
  just claiming that without any numbers and without scenarios to back it up will convince no one. You'll need to answer real practical questions like the UK currently faces: who will build the proposed reactors and who will pay how much for it. It's not like this is an easy question, just check the news the UK from the past few years, with Hitachi and Toshiba giving up. France's state owned nuclear industry builds another plant in the UK - with a proposed cost of 20bn pounds... The decision for this reactor took almost ten years.