3 ms·

One obvious benefit of nuclear over wind & solar is that it provides a baseload that doesn't require an as-yet unavailable mass storage solution. This is a comm

One obvious benefit of nuclear over wind & solar is that it provides a baseload that doesn't require an as-yet unavailable mass storage solution. This is a common concern on HN, so I'm simply regurgitating what people far more knowledgable than I frequently point out. - ed Actually, is storage included in the CO2 calculation when it comes to wind and solar? If we want to evolve a non-hydrocarbon based energy economy, we need to shift industry and transport to electric too - how much wind and solar would THAT require?

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
"Baseload" is an amazing rebranding of nuclear's biggest weakness. It's so expensive that it only makes sense if you run it full out, which means it's terrible for anything but your minimum load. I'm going to rebrand solar as really good for "peak load" and totally ignore the bits it's less good at. Then when I have a conversation with a nuclear fan I can just say "peak load" and walk away in triumph.
- detritus 7y ago
  A problem here is that you seem to be viewing the equation as zero sum - as Temporal above and a glance at my comment history might suggest, many nucular proponents on HN are cognizant of potential drawbacks yet keen on the distribution of the industry alongside wind and solar and other renewables. Legacy III generation's nuclear's a worst case scenario, but still worthwhile as a transition to full electric, never mind the developments in IV, V, travelling wave or fusion beyond. Frankly, the idea of using fission to somewhat stupidly boil water to drive turbines seems a bit daft to me, but dafter still is the fear of pushing it forward into better technologies. - ed We're going to need a LOT of electrical energy in future. It's got to come from somewhere.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    Well, to a degree it is zero sum. I think the answer is a portfolio (an almost infinitely complex one mediated by markets with externalities internalized via carbon fees ideally) but each part of that portfolio will exclude other tech that fills the same niche. One type of insulation will be slightly better than another for a certain purpose And I have no real philosophical objection to nuclear. I just despair at people who use nuclear support as a shield for climate change denial. A passive aggressive "well, we tried to save civilization but you weren't grateful for the way we did it so we're just going to let humanity die to spite you. But you can't blame us for still voting for climate change deniers even now because you don't like nuclear which is a perfect solution with no drawbacks whatsoever. Ha, in your face hippie". Which is where I came in, saying people vocally supporting nuclear often don't seem to care about nuclear at all. Its just a rhetorical club to give them the illusion of the moral high ground.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      You and I must live in a different universes; in the one I inhabit, people pushing for nuclear are the opposite of climate deniers. I thought you might have a point when you said pro-nuclear discourse is like climate denial - to quote, "seems like a great way to hijack people's emotions to drive them towards bad decisions, and basically echos climate change denial strategy". But here, you seem to actually believe that pro-nuclear is positively correlated with climate change denialism, which is an absurd proposition in the universe I come from.
      - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
        In the US, nuclear support is correlated with voting Republican, so yes I do think that.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

"Baseload" is an amazing rebranding of nuclear's biggest weakness. It's so expensive that it only makes sense if you run it full out, which means it's terrible for anything but your minimum load. I'm going to rebrand solar as really good for "peak load" and totally ignore the bits it's less good at. Then when I have a conversation with a nuclear fan I can just say "peak load" and walk away in triumph.

detritus 7y ago
A problem here is that you seem to be viewing the equation as zero sum - as Temporal above and a glance at my comment history might suggest, many nucular proponents on HN are cognizant of potential drawbacks yet keen on the distribution of the industry alongside wind and solar and other renewables. Legacy III generation's nuclear's a worst case scenario, but still worthwhile as a transition to full electric, never mind the developments in IV, V, travelling wave or fusion beyond. Frankly, the idea of using fission to somewhat stupidly boil water to drive turbines seems a bit daft to me, but dafter still is the fear of pushing it forward into better technologies. - ed We're going to need a LOT of electrical energy in future. It's got to come from somewhere.
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  Well, to a degree it is zero sum. I think the answer is a portfolio (an almost infinitely complex one mediated by markets with externalities internalized via carbon fees ideally) but each part of that portfolio will exclude other tech that fills the same niche. One type of insulation will be slightly better than another for a certain purpose And I have no real philosophical objection to nuclear. I just despair at people who use nuclear support as a shield for climate change denial. A passive aggressive "well, we tried to save civilization but you weren't grateful for the way we did it so we're just going to let humanity die to spite you. But you can't blame us for still voting for climate change deniers even now because you don't like nuclear which is a perfect solution with no drawbacks whatsoever. Ha, in your face hippie". Which is where I came in, saying people vocally supporting nuclear often don't seem to care about nuclear at all. Its just a rhetorical club to give them the illusion of the moral high ground.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    You and I must live in a different universes; in the one I inhabit, people pushing for nuclear are the opposite of climate deniers. I thought you might have a point when you said pro-nuclear discourse is like climate denial - to quote, "seems like a great way to hijack people's emotions to drive them towards bad decisions, and basically echos climate change denial strategy". But here, you seem to actually believe that pro-nuclear is positively correlated with climate change denialism, which is an absurd proposition in the universe I come from.
    - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
      In the US, nuclear support is correlated with voting Republican, so yes I do think that.