4 ms·

We don't need more innovation. It can be solved in a day if green activists stop protesting nuclear. These pseudo environmentalist are more unscientific than fl

by rtx 6y ago

We don't need more innovation. It can be solved in a day if green activists stop protesting nuclear. These pseudo environmentalist are more unscientific than flat earthers. What does HN think who is financing this anti nuclear and pro solar movement.

breakyerself 6y ago
I think co2 should have a cost associated with it and whatever technology is best in a given situation will be used. I have nothing against nuclear, but it isn't a silver bullet. Mandating nuclear is likely just as bad a move as mandating solar. I've also seen anti-nuclear activists pondering who paid off pro-nuckear climate activists. There are likely very few people being paid off on either side. It's silly to me the bad faith both sides have. People can think differently without being sold out.
burlesona 6y ago
Two questions: (1) Why does pro-solar have to be anti-nuclear? (2) How quickly can nuclear reactors and associated transmission lines be built, and at what cost? My understanding is we’ve reached the point where solar and wind are quite cheap (cheaper than nuclear) and rapidly getting cheaper. We still need to solve the storage issue, but things on that front are progressing quickly. I am certainly in favor of nuclear power where it makes sense, but again as I understand it the situations where nuclear is more economical are rapidly decreasing. Perhaps it’s better for society to “skate to where the puck is going?” Or perhaps I am incorrect about the economics?
- cipher_system 6y ago
  Yes nuclear is expensive at the moment but we are hardly building any new reactors. Lets say that society could research and engineer a mass producable reactor type safe enough to be politically viable and set the goal to replace fossil fuels as fast as possible. What would the cost be then?
the_gastropod 6y ago
I know this is a common refrain, but it’s not based in actual science. Check out MIT’s EN-ROADS project [1] and see what a tiny difference full nuclear funding actually makes. Aside: accusing people of being unscientific while proposing a very complicated issue could “be solved in a day” kind of calls into question your credibility. [1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.19 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7....
DennisP 6y ago
I support nuclear but: > there are few technologies available to bring emissions down to zero in areas such as shipping, trucking and aviation, the IEA said. The same problem exists in heavy industries like steel, cement and chemicals.
- 08-15 6y ago
  Nuclear powered ships are a reality (there are several hundred out there), and how to use nuclear power for process heat ("chemicals") is pretty obvious. Cargo should move to rail, because we already have nuclear powered trains, the last mile can be handled by battery-electric trucks. Steel is already made in electric furnaces. That leaves a few high temperature chemical processes (pig iron, cement) and aviation that depend on hydrocarbons. Don't you think we can figure those few out after we decarbonize the electric grid, space heating, industrial process heat, bulk transportation, fertilizer manufacturing, and few more low hanging fruit I probably forget?
  - freezing_coffee 6y ago
    Your arguments for transport sound reasonable and would be the best case scenario. Nonetheless, nuclear power is dangerous and not widely used in shipping. The ships that have nuclear reactors are either warships, where cost is not a factor, or huge ice breakers to enable shipping routes in northern russia. There is a push towards mobile power plants, but they have severe limitations, but could be an intermediary solution to help balance grids? I'm not sold here. Nice presentation of nuclear based ships - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilbOrNrAhOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilbOrNrAhOA . For chemical processes we have a lot more work to do. While electric furnaces are used in steel production, they are used for recycling, not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal. There are hydrogen based alternatives in development, but not widely used.
    - 08-15 6y ago
      > nuclear power is dangerous ... in shipping No, it isn't. There hasn't been a single fatal incident. > not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal Yes, production of new steel. Steel is made from pig iron by oxidizing the carbon, with the optional addition of alloying elements. No reductant is needed, quite the opposite. If you're going to nitpick, do it correctly! Now pig iron is a different story, which is why I didn't mention it. Are you really trying to say that because nuclear power can't do everything, it shouldn't be used for anything?

by rtx 6y ago

breakyerself 6y ago

I think co2 should have a cost associated with it and whatever technology is best in a given situation will be used. I have nothing against nuclear, but it isn't a silver bullet. Mandating nuclear is likely just as bad a move as mandating solar. I've also seen anti-nuclear activists pondering who paid off pro-nuckear climate activists. There are likely very few people being paid off on either side. It's silly to me the bad faith both sides have. People can think differently without being sold out.

burlesona 6y ago

Two questions: (1) Why does pro-solar have to be anti-nuclear? (2) How quickly can nuclear reactors and associated transmission lines be built, and at what cost? My understanding is we’ve reached the point where solar and wind are quite cheap (cheaper than nuclear) and rapidly getting cheaper. We still need to solve the storage issue, but things on that front are progressing quickly. I am certainly in favor of nuclear power where it makes sense, but again as I understand it the situations where nuclear is more economical are rapidly decreasing. Perhaps it’s better for society to “skate to where the puck is going?” Or perhaps I am incorrect about the economics?

cipher_system 6y ago
Yes nuclear is expensive at the moment but we are hardly building any new reactors. Lets say that society could research and engineer a mass producable reactor type safe enough to be politically viable and set the goal to replace fossil fuels as fast as possible. What would the cost be then?

the_gastropod 6y ago

I know this is a common refrain, but it’s not based in actual science. Check out MIT’s EN-ROADS project [1] and see what a tiny difference full nuclear funding actually makes. Aside: accusing people of being unscientific while proposing a very complicated issue could “be solved in a day” kind of calls into question your credibility. [1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.19 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7....

DennisP 6y ago

I support nuclear but: > there are few technologies available to bring emissions down to zero in areas such as shipping, trucking and aviation, the IEA said. The same problem exists in heavy industries like steel, cement and chemicals.

08-15 6y ago
Nuclear powered ships are a reality (there are several hundred out there), and how to use nuclear power for process heat ("chemicals") is pretty obvious. Cargo should move to rail, because we already have nuclear powered trains, the last mile can be handled by battery-electric trucks. Steel is already made in electric furnaces. That leaves a few high temperature chemical processes (pig iron, cement) and aviation that depend on hydrocarbons. Don't you think we can figure those few out after we decarbonize the electric grid, space heating, industrial process heat, bulk transportation, fertilizer manufacturing, and few more low hanging fruit I probably forget?
- freezing_coffee 6y ago
  Your arguments for transport sound reasonable and would be the best case scenario. Nonetheless, nuclear power is dangerous and not widely used in shipping. The ships that have nuclear reactors are either warships, where cost is not a factor, or huge ice breakers to enable shipping routes in northern russia. There is a push towards mobile power plants, but they have severe limitations, but could be an intermediary solution to help balance grids? I'm not sold here. Nice presentation of nuclear based ships - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilbOrNrAhOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilbOrNrAhOA . For chemical processes we have a lot more work to do. While electric furnaces are used in steel production, they are used for recycling, not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal. There are hydrogen based alternatives in development, but not widely used.
  - 08-15 6y ago
    > nuclear power is dangerous ... in shipping No, it isn't. There hasn't been a single fatal incident. > not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal Yes, production of new steel. Steel is made from pig iron by oxidizing the carbon, with the optional addition of alloying elements. No reductant is needed, quite the opposite. If you're going to nitpick, do it correctly! Now pig iron is a different story, which is why I didn't mention it. Are you really trying to say that because nuclear power can't do everything, it shouldn't be used for anything?