56 ms·

All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected

• readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  It would be interesting to know what the "green zone" means to them. They don't bother to link to any edifying documents. But this is a very defensive treatise. A bad look.
  • rglover 5y ago
    It's the name of the event: https://greenzonetickets.ukcop26.org/home https://greenzonetickets.ukcop26.org/home
• beders 5y ago
  Good. Focus on renewables + storage. Anything else is too costly and too late. (BTW, 10 countries are running on 95%-100% renewables now. Why can't the US?)
  • glogla 5y ago
    Can you share what is your storage solution that will be needed to make renewables without coal and gas practical? Where can I see storage handling gigawatthours to terawatthours in the real world? Or are you relying on some magical technology we don't have?
    • catlikesshrimp 5y ago
      I have read in theglobeandmail forums comments from some people who think that building battery parks is a great idea, and that it is a huge oversight that solar + batteries aren't pushed as the final solution to all energy needs in Canada. And they seem as sincere as they are earnest. It is very hard to argue with that logic. Where do we start? Just saying batteries are really expensive doesn't reach people who want a perfect magic solution.
      • glogla 5y ago
        I mean batteries might work! My problems with that approach is that: 1) Batteries are in everything. If we want to go from fossil fuels to renewables + batteries, at the same time as we go from ICE cars to BEVs, that's going to be a lot of batteries. Does the world have enough raw materials and batteries to do that? Back of the envelope: My country consumes 77 TWh yearly or about 212 GWh per day (assuming it is evenly distributed). To cover day-to-night cycle, would we need 100 to 150 GWh of batteries? That's a lot of batteries (seem like yearly production of whole world but I can't find good source) and 10 % of our GDP in current battery prices. 2) If we're saying "renewables are cheaper", are we really adding the cost of storage?
  • rsj_hn 5y ago
    Maybe because the U.S. isn't Iceland or Norway? No country is actually running on solar and wind -- it's too variable. Norway is running on Hydro, Iceland is running on geothermal.
    • beders 5y ago
      Newer data says otherwise. https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1452771074119135237 https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1452771074119135237 And variability is easy to deal with: overbuild and/or storage. Southern Australia shows how it is done.
      • rsj_hn 5y ago
        > Newer data says otherwise OK, GLWT. > And variability is easy to deal with: overbuild and/or storage. Southern Australia shows how it is done. Australian energy is 72% fossil fuel, 11% hydro, rest solar and wind. https://www.worlddata.info/australia/australia/energy-consumption.php https://www.worlddata.info/australia/australia/energy-consum...
        • cycomanic 5y ago
          He did say South Australia, which is investing heavily into renewables and battery storage. The thing is that Australia has a huge coal lobby (being one of the biggest producers in the world) and the current conservative government is essentially in bed with them. Incidentally Australia is also one of the biggest producers of Uranium.
          • rsj_hn 5y ago
            It's like California shutting down their nuclear plant. Well, OK it imports 30% of it's electricity from the rest of the grid already, so that can go up to 40%. Utah will add another gas plant, turn that on at night, and California can claim that it has replaced nuclear with solar. Both of them are pulling from the same grid and electricity is fungible. So adding unreliable renewables to a grid is not an impressive achievement as long as you have a reliable source on the same grid. This is why I asked for examples of countries. To switch entirely to wind or solar, you have to spend a lot on battery tech or other energy storage, and those costs dwarf the costs of the solar panels or wind turbines, and that is ultimately what determines whether something is feasible to scale up to the entire grid.
  • beders 5y ago
    and the pro nuclear hacker news cohorts are already on their way down voting. Do me a favor and google nuclear power plant opportunity cost and read.
    • cbg0 5y ago
      Do yourself a favor and write more thought out comments instead of "go google X" before complaining about down votes.
    • holomorphically 5y ago
      If you're concerned about cost when faced with an existential crisis then you have lost the plot.
• poorjohnmacafee 5y ago
  Hate to conclude but climate change has evolved into a self-serving political agenda for our elites and this is yet more evidence of that. Nuclear is obviously renewable and proven. Flourocarbons - CFCs - HCFCs - HFCs - and other related are extremely aggressive GHGs yet all of those are not phased out (or in case of CFCs there's plenty of evidence (see Nature) that emission continues in non Western nations) but making it part of the debate gets stonewalled too.
  • cesarb 5y ago
    > Nuclear is obviously renewable and proven. Nuclear is obviously not renewable; the fuel it consumes was created before the formation of the Earth, and there's a limited amount of it. (And this shows that being renewable is not the most important factor if what you're worried about is global warming. Nuclear is not renewable, but other than the huge amount of concrete needed during the construction of a nuclear power plant, it emits a very low amount of global warming gases.)
• chuckee 5y ago
  It's so frustrating seeing nuclear pitted against renewables, while fossil fuel powerplants are still operating/being built, whose baseline power could be replaced by nuclear. But somehow the idea took hold that nuclear would be built instead of solar, and not instead of coal.
  • ianai 5y ago
    Especially when the incumbent, fossil fuel energy, has been propped up by subsidies and unpaid externalities for centuries.
    • SllX 5y ago
      A century, I could maybe see. A century and maybe a plural amount of decades, perhaps. Gonna need you to cite that plural centuries though.
      • apendleton 5y ago
        Coal was already in reasonably widespread use in industrial processes 200 years ago, and produced unpaid-for externalities then just as it does now (actually worse ones, presumably, given that air quality was not yet regulated in any meaningful way).
        • atroche 5y ago
          But was it being "propped up" two centuries ago?
          • Brian_K_White 5y ago
            Unpaid externalities is a fancy way of saying propped up.
        • SllX 5y ago
          Where’s my citation I asked for? I’m not saying the parent is necessarily wrong, but given the recency of the industrial revolution and the length of time between which it “began” and when many of the most useful industrial applications for coal were discovered, I can’t take it at face value “centuries” is correct. It might be close to correct, it might be technically correct, but it’s not merely an pedantic point: his comment reads as hyperbole because of the vagueness of what centuries even means here. Even if it has been technically two centuries, century plural technically, that’s overstating his case. Overstating your case is a good way to get people to turn off to what you are saying if they perceive it that way.
• whatever1 5y ago
  Neither the technology nor the fuel for nuclear plants are abundant or renewable. For example, can Iran build its own reactors? No. Can Somalia run its hypothetical reactors? No. Can Syria import enriched uranium? No. Can we have reactors without them blowing up every 50 years? No. Do we have a solution for containing nuclear waste without leaks and without ruining the local communities? No. Enough with this joke of pitching nuclear as a viable alternative. I get it that technologists love it because it will enable them to rule over the developing countries and it will open many high paid jobs but let’s stop pretending. Nuclear is what oil was 100 years ago.
  • SllX 5y ago
    Nuclear is essentially my canary in the coal mine for whether an American politician is taking climate change specifically seriously. If they’re not, then pretending to care is most likely cover for a whole bunch of other stupid crap. Unfortunately proliferation actually is a solid argument against nuclear fission outside of countries that are already nuclear-capable, but the major powers that are don’t really have that excuse.
    • badmadrad 5y ago
      almost all politicians are using "climate change" as a fear based method of controlling the masses. nuclear would do to much damage to the narrative.
  • programmarchy 5y ago
    Rare earth metals are currently required inputs for wind to produce magnets and solar to produce photovoltaics. It’s not exactly abundant or renewable.
    • adrianN 5y ago
      Solar panels are almost exclusively sand and a little bit of copper for the wiring.
      • 5y ago
• dmead 5y ago
  Good. Next.
  • holomorphically 5y ago
    How is this good?
    • 6510 5y ago
      Nuke plants make great targets to bomb.
      • badmadrad 5y ago
        if we are in a position where civilian targets are getting bombed we have other problems. not mention in said "war" if we are reliant on green energy we will certainly lose to whoever bombed our power plants.
      • holomorphically 5y ago
        If the assumption is that the major world powers don't cooperate enough to tackle a global existential crisis then we're fucked even without someone bombing a nuclear power plant. Nuclear is currently the only viable option for buying enough time to address all the other negative consequence of 2C+ of warming. All the other plans currently on the table are accelerating us towards 3C of warming and that essentially means human civilization as we now know it is over.
      • mlindner 5y ago
        They're not "nuke plants". "nuke" is a word that means "nuclear weapons". Secondly, they're heavily surrounded by highly reinforced concrete with extremely high levels of security. The furthest any activist with a bomb belt could get is jumping a fence and getting immediately caught. Even if they could drive a truck through the front gate and set off a car bomb, they're not getting through the extremely thick concrete.
        • LandR 5y ago
• rglover 5y ago
  Read between the lines. It's not about the best solution(s), it's about _their_ solution. Nuclear solves the problem they champion, which means, it negates the need for their efforts and existence (economic). Ironically, the rejection of nuclear as a viable option seems to be the result of a psychological existential threat to the supposed "elite" of our world. The mask is off. Protecting the future of humanity isn't the goal; it's protecting their own egos.
  • passerby1 5y ago
    Gains and profits, and power. Not egos.
  • 7952 5y ago
    I think you could make the same argument against nuclear advocates. Ego based focus on the "best" option and endless ad-hominem against proponents of good options. When actually the best option is one that is politically possible. Also, the green zone is managed by the British Government rather than the UN who are fairly supportive of nuclear. Nuclear is politically viable in the UK so it gets built. Onshore turbines in South-East England are not politically viable so they don't get built and we go offshore instead. The objective should be to stop climate change rather than chase optimal technology.
  • jillesvangurp 5y ago
    The reason nuclear is unpopular is that it is expensive. It's more expensive than coal and gas typically. It's also very slow to deploy. A decade is nothing. We'll hit 2035 when several countries are planning to be 100% renewable powered in about 13 years. That's not a lot of time to build a meaningful amount of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants coming online recently are not great examples of speedily execution on a tight budget either. Despite this, there are still a quite a few under construction (around 50 world wide). It's their financial performance relative to renewables that determines if we end up with more of them. The word baseload always comes up in these discussions but its meaning never really gets specified in a very satisfying way. For example in GW needed for how long (i.e. GWH). Having such a number would facilitate a discussion about alternate ways how we would get that power more cheaply. That's not a debate nuclear proponents like having because it focuses attention on poor financial performance of nuclear relative to just about anything else. The simple reality driving a lot of the decision making is that you simply get more GWH per $ with solar and wind. And not just a little bit; the difference is massive. And you get it much quicker too. And it's far less risky from a political point of view. So instead of getting say 8GW with a very big nuclear plant costing maybe 30-40 billion and taking two decades to get built and planned with lots of uncertainty around the process, you can have 30-40 GW online two years from now for about the same amount of money. That's based on a price of 5000$/kw for recent offshore wind installations. A couple of hundred GW of wind came online over the last few years. The investments in renewables are massive and for good reasons: it delivers results quickly and prices are trending down. Offshore wind is actually relatively expensive compared to solar and onshore wind. But also relatively reliable. People put solar on their roofs for less (2-3k/kw) and solar plants are even cheaper but of course less stable sources of power. Add batteries to the mix and other forms of storage (ammonia, hydrogen, thermal mass, pumped hydro, etc.) and there is no lack of a "baseload" that can't be planned for and mitigated. It will have a price and a certain capacity and that's what needs to be debated in Glasgow. It's a conference about allocating massive amounts of money in the next decades. The stakes are high both in financial terms and in the outcomes. Nuclear might be part of this if the price is right. But the whole nuclear or nothing attitude is just not a very productive argument. Many countries that have the option are still doing some nuclear of course. But far less than what they are allocating for wind and solar (in dollars and planned GWH capacity).
• Goety 5y ago
  Nuclear is not a palatable political solution for a lot of people and it is easily simpler to reject the proliferation of such materials. The current 'theater' from a geopolitical standpoint for nuclear is China and it does not appear to be succeeding well. I don't expect France to succeed given all that has occurred. Smaller nuclear devices will need constant care and monitoring that it is highly likely people will need to 'grow with' such devices. I dont think the will UN back something without a proof of concept which could delay adoption years.
  • mlindner 5y ago
    It's not palatable because of poor education. We need to be including nuclear in the list of green technologies in basic school science textbooks. We don't.
    • Goety 5y ago
      Stronger controls on education about the nuclear industry is not the magic pill for success. The magic pill in my estimation is trust and time without accidents.
  • ep103 5y ago
    What happened with France?
    • Goety 5y ago
      Currently Macron is trying to promote 'french nuclear power plants' and 'small nuclear reactors' across the globe. Both geopolitical opponents and activists are agains this. https://fortune.com/2021/10/12/nuclear-power-insulates-france-energy-crisis-macron-doubling-down-on-it-35-billion-moonshot/ https://fortune.com/2021/10/12/nuclear-power-insulates-franc... French problems in China nuclear reactor: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/business/china-nuclear-power-problem.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/business/china-nuclear-po... https://weatherboy.com/as-chinese-nuclear-incident-unfolds-expert-falls-off-building-dies/ https://weatherboy.com/as-chinese-nuclear-incident-unfolds-e... There are multiple nuclear reactors being built in China at present. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
• moksly 5y ago
  I think this is a more complicated issue than most people seem to think it is. Very few countries have knowledge in nuclear technology while they have decades of knowledge in other green technologies. So it’s only natural that there is a severe push from European countries to make sure Nuclear doesn’t become a “green” source of energy because our industries are build upon wind and solar, and if we start using Nuclear as a viable alternative then all that industry money will go to China rather than our local production industry. So there is a monetary issue. There is also a democratic issue. The overwhelming majority of Europeans are against nuclear power and if you consider our current unstable political climate, I think nobody will want the “elite” to start pushing a technology that is genuinely seen as much more dangerous than coal. What I think a lot of Nuclear supports fail to grasp is that it doesn’t matter if Nuclear is safer or better solution if that’s not what people think it is. A good example that Americans might better understand is the covid vaccine and how irrational your country has been in accepting it. That’s how the EU is with Nuclear, and pushing it could quite literally end up toppling governments. I’m personally not convinced Nuclear is the “right” solution. It may be the only real way to solve the climate crisis, but it’s only safe when you have a stable government that maintains it in a sane manner. I don’t think we can be sure that we are going to have such governments in 25 years. So it’s not that I don’t trust the technology, it’s that I don’t trust us to handle it.
  • rsj_hn 5y ago
    The issue isn't whether nuclear energy is complicated, but whether it's part of the discussion. Of course it has to be part of the discussion, so this makes COP look less serious, as it seems like they are catering more to Green movement politics than to fossil fuel alternatives.
    • moksly 5y ago
      I’m not sure people view COP as serious in general. In my anecdotal experience, people sort of stopped thinking the political elite would solve this back in the 90’ies. And back then they managed to do something about the hole in the ozone layer. A hole that is bigger today than it was back then, prompting no action. But you’re right of course. I was just getting into the myriad of reasons why some EU leaders actively work against Nuclear at places like COP. My own country is actively lobbying against getting Nuclear recognised as green technology by the EU because wind and solar are major industries in Denmark.
• HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
  Easy to predict, once you get the notion that the real purpose of all this flailing is to disempower people, i.e., to change things so that ordinary people cannot buy and use as much electricity as they like, for that to be something for rich powerful people only.
• rvz 5y ago
  Another year and the same old talking heads, literally screaming protestors and policy makers still unable to come up with realistic solutions other than screaming at each other. At least the technologists and engineers at several companies and startups are doing something about it with real world solutions, products and ideas. I won’t be surprised that next year the same people are going to have the same discussion and it will be a forever blame game until they miss their own unrealistic timelines. I have respect for those who ‘do’ rather than those who continue talking, mocking, screaming or blaming others and repeat themselves without giving anything substantiative to contribute themselves to the problem.
• m0zg 5y ago
  Of course. Think of it in terms of cui bono. You're on the precipice of convincing a bunch of folks they should shut down their economies and give you trillions of dollars to send to your donors as you please. Then a guy comes along and says that your shit won't work (which will be amply demonstrated in Europe this coming winter) and offers something that actually does work. It's like that meme - the guy will fly straight through the window for suggesting such foolishness. They never were interested in solving the problem, they're interested in trillions of dollars that they'll get control over because the problem exists.
  • passerby1 5y ago
    Winter? What are you talking about, the climate is changing and it's getting warmer! /s
  • catlikesshrimp 5y ago
    What is with "The winter is coming" vibe? Your comment is too vague for me to understand.
    • m0zg 5y ago
      Did you not read about the European energy crisis? Here, let me help you out: https://search.brave.com/search?q=european+energy+crisis&source=desktop https://search.brave.com/search?q=european+energy+crisis&sou...
      • catlikesshrimp 5y ago
        I suppose it is my fault for asking about less vagueness. Who is asking for trillions? Who is flying out of a window?
        • m0zg 5y ago
          > Who is asking for trillions? Governments and their owners/political donors. > Who is flying out of a window? Common sense. We could solve climate and achieve net zero carbon in a decade if we focused on 4th gen nuclear. But that's not as profitable to the aforementioned donors, so it ain't happening.
• mlindner 5y ago
  What a dissappointment. Nuclear (of some kind, hoping for Fusion later) is a key component of any plan to stop global warming. Solar and Wind can get you to a greater than 50% green power production, but as you get closer to 100% you need exponentially more and more production and more and more transmission lines to handle dips and avoid blackouts from rare situations. You need a power generation source that is consistent. At some point in the future we may have enough battery production for grid energy storage such that nuclear is not needed, but we are a long long way from that. Battery supply is growing rapidly, but not nearly rapidly enough.
  • iamgopal 5y ago
    We make millions/billions of high tech phones, battery is just peanuts compare to this, it was a problem of right kind of tech , which I think current gen battery tech have achieved and also price point requirement is also achieved, very soon, once all usual suspects starts manufacturing the same, sky will only be the limit.
• sandGorgon 5y ago
  So a lot of the discussions here are around EU or US opinions about nuclear power. The problem is something entirely different. India and China will move to emphatically reject coal restrictions during COP26. Remember India has probably some of the largest investments in renewable rightnow. But I dont think people outside of these countries have even an idea of the amount of hunger for power that is being generated as huge populations start clawing out of hunger and poverty. 3 years back, there were 240 million Indians who had NO electricity - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-24/living-in-the-dark-240-million-indians-have-no-electricity https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-24/living-in... So talking about pollution in this context is only solvable through large sources of clean power. We dont have enough land in India to support renewables for 1.3 billion people. Neither does China. Europe ? Very easily so. Coal ban is not an option. Unless nuclear power and technology transfer is on the table. India and China have both rejected targets - https://www.ft.com/content/eef90c01-4cbe-48b7-8b2c-2beb398a4fb1 https://www.ft.com/content/eef90c01-4cbe-48b7-8b2c-2beb398a4... COP26 basically seems to be a non starter now. with coal being pushed back in and nuclear pushed back out.
  • glogla 5y ago
    Yes. This is a huge win for coal lobby. This might be the turning point that kills humanity.
    • throwawaysea 5y ago
      > This might be the turning point that kills humanity. What makes you say that? To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction.
      • Goety 5y ago
        As you accurately describe the threat is mass conflict and disorder. Why do you willingly support that or changing the narrative? Global instability is likely to lead to more conflict and war without any guarantees of end. A vast population reduction of vulnerable people for a lot of people IS extinction.
• theGeatZhopa 5y ago
  What about drilling for geothermal energy? And what about thermal fusion which is upcoming? For what do we need fission any longer, except to bridge the time up to availability of fusion? As long there is no good concept for the nuclear waste, that long nuclear shouldn't be praised as solution to anything, except for bridging. There have been news on here, for a newly developed technique to "recycle" and/or to "treat" the nuclear waste by utilizing a collider. May be this is an solution for the nuclear industry? Safety of the power plants is, I think, comparably given by learnings of the accidents in history. Which shows quite a lot of incidences.. It's difficult. Me dunna want to have the power to decide on here.
  • BrandoElFollito 5y ago
    Nuclear fusion is upcoming for 30 years and we did tiny steps so far. Except if there is a breakthrough, it will take so much time (if it works at all) that we will need new nuclear plants. The safety and ecology of nuclear plants has been discussed to death. I much prefer to live near a nuclear plant than anything combustion.
  • kergonath 5y ago
    > And what about thermal fusion which is upcoming? Fusion is great, and we are making good progress. It could plausibly change everything in a couple of decades. But it is not available today, so we cannot rely on it. That’s the thing when you follow the latest r&d developments: we talk about a technology well before it is useable, so all we can use at a given moment are mature technologies that are old news. Example with fusion: we’ve been talking about ITER for 20 years, but it’s not finished building yet. Other developments like spherical tokamaks and stellarators are nowhere near prototypes at the industrial scale. If we are serious about climate change, we need to act now, which means putting in place solutions based on technologies that are already mature and useable. Waiting 10 years for the next fancy energy source with blockchain, or the mythical carbon capture solution (which cannot possibly work with anything resembling the current markets) is reckless. > There have been news on here, for a newly developed technique to "recycle" and/or to "treat" the nuclear waste by utilizing a collider. There are much better and cheaper ways of doing that, using breeder reactors. We’re further along the readiness path than with fusion, but they still require some engineering before we can build them.
• aetherspawn 5y ago
  Unpopular opinion in this thread but ... I don't want a world with nuclear. That makes me anxious. It's not if there will be a problem, but when. I'd rather the world spend money on batteries and solar/wind energy, like South Australia. And by focusing on that technology, the market will drive innovation in that class of renewables. That technology is reusable in other applications, like domestic (rooftop), EVs and Space.
  • option_greek 5y ago
    The world is filled with nuclear energy. We are literally bathing in the results of a continuously running nuclear reaction if you think about it.
    • danlugo92 5y ago
      If only there were a way to capture all of that energy.
  • phtrivier 5y ago
    I understand the anxiety, and I suppose you've already weighted the pro / cons argument ; however, I'm curious about the psychology - and please don't read that as whataboutism. So, how do you feel about the present problems with our current carbon heavy energy productions ? Are you less anxious about deaths from coal and every catastrophe related to climate change (heat waves, floods, mass exiles, civil wars, etc...) because they feel further in the future than the possibility of an accident at a power plant next close to home ? I get that those can be blown out of proportion too ; and I get that using death/kWh is rather inhumane as a metric ; and I get that living in a country that had ~70% of it's electricity coming from very-much-non-exploding plants colors my thinking.
    • aetherspawn 5y ago
      It's more long term thinking from me: I know that we can reach 100% renewables in 20 or so years, but I'd rather that it's wind/solar/hydro than something like nuclear, that is more volatile in nature and requires continuous maintenance from a capable overseer. For example, what if a negligent person is promoted to maintenance overseer at a power plant that's several cities across? I have no control over that at all. I'm literally in the passenger seat with nuclear. I have to trust that a handful of people in charge of that plant are exceptional at their job, otherwise we all have a really bad day, and there are no safeguards or precautions that any of us can put in place that will protect us from a meltdown. That's a source of anxiety for me. Worst case solar power disaster, the lights go out or something like that and I don't personally get seriously hurt.
• driest 5y ago
  I am a fan of nuclear energy for various reasons, and it's obvious that the safety and waste problems can be solved with new technology like small modular reactors with inherently safe designs. However, even I realize that nuclear energy is not viable to significantly combat climate change due to the following reasons: * The technology is not there yet. There are a lot of promising companies that are trying to solve the safety problem, and there is a lot of research on how to better deal with the waste, but due to the inherent dangers it will take decades to prove these designs are safe, work as intended and can be produced at a significant scale at the promised cost. Sadly, we don't have decades, we need to start replacing coal right now. * nuclear energy is way to expensive. Wind and solar are much cheaper. current numbers are roughly 50% cheaper for renewables, and while lots of companies promise cheaper nuclear design, these claims are unproven and the renewables are also still significantly improving in cost. The nuclear cost models I've seen also ignore most of the storage and security cost for handling the waste for millenia. There are cheaper alternatives with existing and proven technology. Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%. which funny enough corresponds to its cost advantage over nuclear. simply building a lot more wind and solar capacity and using power to gas to fill existing gas storage systems with excess energy from renewables has roughly the same cost as nuclear, without the safety and proliferation headache, and the added advantage of long term storage. * proliferation. even if we could solve the problem of safeguarding thousands of SMR in developed countries, you can't just export them to every country on earth. however, that's a requirement for replacing coal, as those countries need to reduce emissions, too. So yeah, I'd love molten salt SMR to be a thing, and they probably will be in some applications in developed countries in 10-20 years, but the value of this to combat climate change is minimal and people who think otherwise are ignoring the previously mentioned facts.
  • mlindner 5y ago
    > * nuclear energy is way to expensive. Wind and solar are much cheaper. current numbers are roughly 50% cheaper for renewables, and while lots of companies promise cheaper nuclear design, these claims are unproven and the renewables are also still significantly improving in cost. The nuclear cost models I've seen also ignore most of the storage and security cost for handling the waste for millenia. There are cheaper alternatives with existing and proven technology. Power to gas for example has an efficiency of roughly 50%. which funny enough corresponds to its cost advantage over nuclear. simply building a lot more wind and solar capacity and using power to gas to fill existing gas storage systems with excess energy from renewables has roughly the same cost as nuclear, without the safety and proliferation headache, and the added advantage of long term storage. Wind and solar aren't that much cheaper (or actually usually much more expensive), when you include the batteries that are required for them to operate as the entire grid. Right now they can only displace SOME not ALL of the energy generation of a country (unless you have huge natural resources of hydro or geothermal energy that can act as that base load). Nuclear is needed for that baseload, or tons and tons of batteries. Taken in that respect Nuclear is cheaper than solar and wind, for that purpose. Grids will eventually need to go somewhere around 80% solar/wind and 20% nuclear/geothermal/hydro (+/- 15%).
• chhs 5y ago
  I don't think the applications for nuclear energy were rejected for the reasons being implied by the original article. This article[1] mentions that they weren't accepted because they missed the submission deadline. > According to Kirsty Gogan, cofounder of TerraPraxis and a senior climate and energy advisor to the U.K. government, “All three Green Zone applications by nuclear groups were rejected.” However, it seems some of that may be due to miscommunication regarding application deadlines for the COP26 Green Zone. I couldn't find the original source for the miscommunication on application deadlines, hopefully someone can find it. [1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-3188/controversy-over-nuclear-organizations-involvement-in-the-cop26-green-zone/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-3188/controversy-over-nucle...
• malthuswaswrong 5y ago
  That's how you know none of this is real. If mankind was actually on the brink of extinction all options would be on the table. Especially one that offers free unlimited energy. Mankind does not have an energy generation problem. It only has an energy storage problem.
  • DisjointedHunt 5y ago
    It could both be real and at the same time be true that these people don’t care. They simply want to use to genuine concern around climate to further their own ends.
    • malthuswaswrong 5y ago
      Agreed. It could also be real but no where near as serious as they are claiming. Mankind went from the first manned flight to footprints on the moon in 60 years. I'm not losing any sleep about a mathematically insignificant projection that may or may not lead to something 100 years from now. 100 years from now if they want terraforming to strictly regulate the climate it should be well within their capabilities. Again, these people aren't serious. And their actions prove how the threat is either not real at all, or extremely distant to the point of being irrelevant for us.
      • catlikesshrimp 5y ago
        I will be inmoral this once If climate change wasn't a real threat... they would act as you said. If climate change was a real threat to humanity... they would still act in spite of it. Tragedy of the commons. What is a better future? Having done your part, when nobody did, and facing a broken world with a broken economy OR Helped kill the world environment but playing an even field? That has been China's stance all along, anyways. The only reason to move toward "renewables" is to not depend on fossil fuel imports. It is about sovereignity, not about morality.
        • malthuswaswrong 5y ago
• aquir 5y ago
  I think rejecting the nuclear fission power is the mistake of the these times and we are already paying for it. If the world goes that direction we've been in a better place in terms of global warming.
• yosito 5y ago
  I'm working for a non-profit that is heavily involved in COP, because I care about the planet and preserving the environment as much as possible for future generations. This news is very disheartening for me, because there is no way that humanity achieves a sustainable energy future without either nuclear or catastrophic declines in human population. Inside both my organization and other climate organizations, it seems that humanistic science and innovation are being rapidly replaced by a humanity-hating religion that cares more about virtue signaling than actual environmental outcomes. If anyone knows of any innovative, outcome driven organizations or startups working on sustainable energy, including nuclear, that are hiring, feel free to share.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• lamontcg 5y ago
  Nuclear is too expensive and has a negative learning curve.
• throwawaysea 5y ago
  It’s very disappointing to hear that nuclear solutions were rejected. Reuters ran a story just earlier today about how nuclear is a key high tech solution for climate change: https://youtu.be/TNSaRJylY4A https://youtu.be/TNSaRJylY4A
• wdb 5y ago
  Shame, I lived near windmills in the past and the moving shadow drove me crazy. The noise pollution wasn’t too bad compared to a busy highway. And they look so ugly.
• p2t2p 5y ago
  Basically if you say to me that you care about climate change and then reject nuclear, I stop talking to you and taking you in any kind of seriously. Once you reject nuclear it’s just virtue signalling.
  • tejohnso 5y ago
    People can reject nuclear without empty virtue signalling. They may believe that non-nuclear alternatives are perfectly viable. "The sun provides enough energy to power the world's needs 30,000 times over"...and all that. You might be mistaking disingenuousness with ignorance, or naiveté.
  • DangitBobby 5y ago
    Yes, you can use simple methods like this in every facet of life to have perfect knowledge of all situations. It's truly a marvel that everyone doesn't know everything. My favorite trick is if someone blinks twice in 10 seconds I know they ate something with garlic today.
• fulafel 5y ago
  The COP is an event and the green zone is some kind of parlor there where you can apply to present your project. Many commenters seem to think this is about nuclear power projects getting rejected, this is not about that, calm down.
  • DisjointedHunt 5y ago
    It's not just any event and it's not just any presentation. The proposals here are what entire Nations agree to in order to reduce carbon emissions. Not having Nuclear represented there is dumb. That's the point.
    • fulafel 5y ago
      The "Green Zone" at the COP26 conference, what the article is about, is described as: "Youth groups, civil society, academia, artists, business from across the UK and all over the world will be hosting events, exhibitions, cultural performances, workshops and talks." [1] Nations deliberating on proposals and agreeing about climate actions is a whole other department. [1] https://ukcop26.org/the-conference/green-zone-programme-of-events/ https://ukcop26.org/the-conference/green-zone-programme-of-e...
• lokimedes 5y ago
  As long as nuclear energy is treated as PICK_ANY(obsolete, uneconomical, systemically dangerous) it leaves me with zero hope for humanity. Nuclear is way more than technology, it's Prometheus' fire. It may burn the unprepared but it is incomparable to anything else we possess. That factor million more energy per gram than chemical reactions should be enough for us to treat it as literally unlocking the next level of human development. This petty discussion on whether it is sustainable, dirty, expensive or dangerous is simply mind-boggling. Yes, it requires a much deeper "readiness" to utilise by our civilization than any other energy source, but the long-term benefit should be what it is held up against.
  • newacct583 5y ago
    > treat it as literally unlocking the next level of human development That was literally the way it was thought about a three quarters of a century ago. It... didn't work out. It's just not there. It's fine. It's safe enough. But it's outrageously expensive relative to other equally advantageous sources, and all the magic technologies needed to "fix" that are always a decade away.
    • JoeAltmaier 5y ago
      No longer true. New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive. If we can stop thinking in terms of a quarter century ago, we can finally get to that future we used to imagine.
      • newacct583 5y ago
        > New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive. They've been "coming" since the 1960's. Start yelling about building stuff when they've arrived.
        • cplusplusfellow 5y ago
          > prevent building things by any measure possible > yawn when we say we can build new things and to wake you up when we have them These actions aren’t compatible with progress.
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  Nuclear energy was cancelled. This does seem political
• xvilka 5y ago
  Basically it is just a worthless and meaningless event. "Bla-bla" as per Greta Thunberg.
  • go_elmo 5y ago
    While it is bla bla it is necessary. How else would you establish political pressure in a democracy? Many green transition tech would be feasible if co2 taxes were established, even within the eu.
    • tejohnso 5y ago
      > How else would you establish political pressure in a democracy? Non-violent civil disobedience?
      • go_elmo 5y ago
        Thats.. what not going to school & protest are..?
• LatteLazy 5y ago
  This is the 26th agreement to do nothing about the problem. And that doesn't count a bunch of separate but related agreements like Paris. It's time for local adaption and mitigation. Forget saving the world, save your own corner of it. Or move to a saveable one.
• The_rationalist 5y ago
  Retard alert
• jrochkind1 5y ago
  > We are deeply concerned about the news that every application on nuclear energy for the Green Zone at the upcoming COP26 conference has been rejected I don't understand what this means. What's an "application for the Green Zone at the upcoming COP26"? "Green zone"? What, is this a military occupation? OK: > The Green Zone is the ‘official’ fringe space (managed by the UK government), with around 200 events for the general public, civil society, youth groups and academia. Tickets are free. --https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/an-architects-guide-to-cop26 https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/an-architects-guide... > The Green Zone is managed by the UK Government, and is a platform for the general public, youth groups, civil society, academia, artists, business and others to have their voices heard through events, exhibitions, workshops and talks that promote dialogue, awareness, education and commitments. > …The Green Zone will be a stakeholder-led space and act as a key hub for engagement during the Summit. As such we are keen to see proposals that drive participation and interaction focused on the themes of climate change >…In the Green Zone a number of exhibition spaces are available for organisations. As a public-facing venue, we are keen to receive proposals that engage audiences with the themes of climate change and climate action through interaction and participation. We see this two week showcase zone as a hub of tactile and immersive activity. > …The Green Zone aims to facilitate discussion and engagement, and we’ve heard how important it is for organisations to have a focal point for convening attendees and having conversations. A number of stalls will be provided free of charge to use for one or two days, depending on demand, over the course of the Summit. These are spaces for dialogue and conversation, and might be of interest specifically for NGOs, trade bodies, and youth organisations. —https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Stakeholder-involvement-at-COP26-packV1.pdf https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Stakeholder-i... "Green Zone", really? OK, anyways.
• pelasaco 5y ago
  Well based in the history, the United Nations Climate Change conference, or COP, started at Germany in 1995. There Merkel should play a central role. Looking back on her time in the Ministry of the Environment. Fast forward to 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities. They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years. Add to it the (in)famous “German angst” caused after the Fukushima accident. With that narrative, built over the time, it will be very hard to change the actual scenario.
• nenadg 5y ago
  ctrl+f 'fukushima' = 1 match ctrl+f 'chernobyl' = 1 match ctrl+f 'weapons' = 2 matches Good, we are getting over childish concerns about it's safety. Nuclear energy is way better than any other known so far.
• cinntaile 5y ago
  This is not the actual title. "Message: Nuclear must be represented at COP26, says World Nuclear Association"
• yodelshady 5y ago
  At some point, you have to wonder: why does the nuclear industry seem to just suck at lobbying? The wind lobby has professionals who made the case to people who matter. That's not evil, that's your - the industries - job. At a high level the nuclear industry, sorry to say, honestly doesn't care. It's the Boeing of the energy world, except even more so: wring every last drop out of dead tech, and never invest a cent.
  • afarrell 5y ago
    > the nuclear energy, sorry to say, honestly doesn’t care. I’m perplexed where you get this idea. Certainly they are failing, but that does not mean they don’t care.
  • mihaaly 5y ago
    Nuclear technology and radiation are not sexy. Formed its image during several long centuries starting its career with mass murder in Japan followed by several high profile accidents and the cold war's arm race, giving birth to the concept of the nuclear apocalypse pictured in popular culture (novels, movies, games). Combined with people being afraid of cancer caused by radiation to their core. It is planted deeply into the human consciousness now. Wind is harmless and clear compared to that. Try to run a big old truck driver against a cute puppy in a popularity contest, you can be the world champion of PR still you will loose.
  • vmchale 5y ago
    It's hard for scientists to go against negative press - here coming from the oil lobby etc. Smears and lies.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• mdale 5y ago
  The most pragmatic solution is making high pollutant energy costly. Some small set of polluters are responsible for the majority of the emissions. (1) This is only possible because of being able to chalk the damage up to externalities. We need to set up systems to adding cost to emissions. A substantial PR rebrand modern Nuclear energy (maybe called something else) would be needed if you wanted to get traction on that. Long gone are days where people / governments make decisions based on any objective facts and pragmatic cost/ benefit/ risk analysis. I understand solar is competitive and full tilt on that would be good. It's got better PR right now. Whatever we do .. install some some smoke scrubbers on dirty energy ASAP. And probably do your 15 year R&D plan on carbon capture tech (if we had to choose one direction) as we have already done (otherwise) irreversible harm that switching to renewables / Nuclear now won't solve. 1) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-percent-power-plants-release-73-percent-global-electricity-production-emissions-180978355/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-percent-power...
  • DisjointedHunt 5y ago
    What you will then get is an unsustainable set of shortcuts that threaten your energy supplies at crucial times. ie, what's happening in Europe now[1] Germany went on a spree, dismantling their nuclear plants after being scared by Fukushima. Fossil fuel plants tool their place. Subsidies to unsustainable alternatives and penalties on polluters made it so it was not profitable to increase energy supply on sources such as natural gas and fossil fuels that could ramp quickly in response to demand. And the price of natural gas in Europe went parabolic. [1] https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/28/why-europe-s-energy-prices-are-soaring-and-could-get-much-worse https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/28/why-europe-s-energy-pric...
    • cinntaile 5y ago
      This is a very common myth but fossil fuel plants did not take their place. Wind and solar did though. Both nuclear and fossil fuel plants are a smaller piece of the pie compared to when Fukushima happened and the Energiwende happened. [0] [0] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c... Looks like the guy above me said the same thing, but at the time of writing it wasn't there yet.
• noasaservice 5y ago
  An area where nuclear power makes a lot of sense is in desalination factories. Constant load can make clean water. And water can be stored effectively. There's no reason for these to change other than for maintenance. And we needed them 20 years ago.
• peter_retief 5y ago
  Scary that anyone could think that nuclear is not an option for clean power generation. Should COP26 be taken seriously or should there be a more intelligent option?
• rurban 5y ago
  Great news. At least there is some hope in politics, when they detect this high-paid lobbyists trying to selling their dangerous crap and super expensive power stations, when they still don't know after decades how to get rid of their radioactive waste. Not speaking about the risk yet.
• JamisonM 5y ago
  Here is a recent article rather than the linked statement by a lobby group: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/nuclear-power-s-awkward-role-in-crucial-cop26-climate-talks-1.1671975 https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/nuclear-power-s-awkward-role-in-... This provides a lot more information and context about what is actually happening as well as what the "green zone" is (as opposed to the "blue zone")... as well as maybe a bit of unnecessary editorializing too! (I would add that the HN link name is misleading here, what applications for what that were rejected is not clear and it is misleading to imply that there is no representation for nuclear energy at COP26.)
  • DisjointedHunt 5y ago
    The protests by this lobby group are targeted at the greenzone, yes, but the entirety of COP26 ignores Nuclear as a viable option. You may review the stated agendas of the leading participants or the goals they have published. The global minimum alternative tax is a higher priority this week than anything climate.
    • JamisonM 5y ago
      I see this from the Canadian context and Canada is in the process of buying/building a new SMR and has more in the pipeline with funding lined up. Canada still has some coal to phase out, and the lure of the idea of small reactors for remote communities will always make is popular with Canadian technocrats - if not the public. China is building a lot of plants now too, they will want to sell that technology and build for others. I can understand why COP wouldn't be keen to have prominent nuclear stuff in the public areas, nuclear isn't very popular with the general public. But the host country is commissioning new plants right now, they obviously see it as a viable option, so it has a seat at the table at COP26. I haven't heard a peep about global minimum taxes as it relates to COP26, maybe you are confused about the G20 meeting that just happened?
• intricatedetail 5y ago
  What's the point of COP26 if biggest polluters don't participate? If smaller countries take green measures, they'll force their bigger companies to move their factories to China or face bankruptcy and it's a certain death for SMEs. Unless there are real sanctions and worldwide ban, this is self defeating.
• kruzda 5y ago
  This is UK specific but people here might find the data represented here useful when arguing about energy sources and use: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
• Shadonototra 5y ago
  They are waiting for the US to get into the market, then they'll accept it You'll see Just like the weed, now that the US is leading the market, they are pushing for a global legalization Rigged society, civilization for the bad people!
• molszanski 5y ago
  This is crazy. We can not afford to not be pragmatical and practical anymore.