4 ms·

Sure, in the medium term, nuclear probably is the best solution. But, nuclear is not going to save us from 1.5°C (nothing can, in fact)[0], and it isn't going

Sure, in the medium term, nuclear probably is the best solution. But, nuclear is not going to save us from 1.5°C (nothing can, in fact)[0], and it isn't going to do anything for us for 20-30 years. That's how long it takes to build a nuclear plant in the US. We can't let nuclear distract us from the goal, which is preventing more serious warming. --- [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-caused-unprecedented-and-irreversible-change-to-climate-scientists-warn https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-...

p_l 5y ago
Building extra LNG plants is going to help us even less, and that's what it currently takes to keep grid operational with renewables, so...
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Who said anything about LNG? Why the straw man? I said nuclear won't save us, full stop. Please do not put words in my mouth.
  - p_l 5y ago
    Well, the "it's not going to do anything right now so let's forget about it, maybe there will be magic battery tech in that time" is also a straw man. Meanwhile the best we have from renewable grids, even in huge interconnected systems that ostensibly should be able to shift renewable power around is... LNG build up to cover for instability of renewables, and reduced pressure on shutdown (or even extensions) to coal power plants. Also, USA might take 30 years, but then USA is infamous for having trouble building any infrastructure these days. Global warming and energy scarcity is a global problem.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      > Well, the "it's not going to do anything right now so let's forget about it, maybe there will be magic battery tech in that time" is also a straw man. Yes, and I also didn't say that. Again, do not put words in my mouth. I'm getting really tired of your disingenuous, bad faith non-arguments.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      Natural gas isn't stored as LNG in the US; it's stored as compressed gas in underground caverns. Many millions of tonnes of natural gas are stored in these caverns; they buffer the transmission system against seasonal changes in gas demand. We could store hydrogen in those caverns instead.
radu_floricica 5y ago
I'm ok with 1.5C. I'm ok with significant climate change long term. I haven't read anything yet that caused me to think it's a particularly large problem. Like anything else there will be winners and losers - some places will be better, some worse. More people will die of heatstroke, a lot less of cold. It may well end up being a net benefit. Should we avoid particularly large climate changes? Well, yes, mostly for Chesterton's Fence reasons. But I'm far from panic.
- LightG 5y ago
  Luckily there are democracies who are fianlly not ok with 1.5c and significant climate change long term. Time will tell who wins out.
- monodeldiablo 5y ago
  > I haven't read anything yet that caused me to think it's a particularly large problem. Then you haven't read much. I suggest looking into the North Atlantic current, ENSO, ocean acidification, and long term forecasts of glacier formation, drought, fire, flooding, tropical storms, heat waves, and other extreme weather phenomena. Just skimming through the first few pages of the -- extremely conservative -- IPCC report should upend your current notion that global warming "may well end up being a net benefit". Global warming does not simply mean the world uniformly heats up a degree. It means more energy is injected into the atmosphere, adding additional chaos and instability to an already chaotic and unpredictable system. This will mean more extreme weather, steep reduction in fish stocks and agricultural productivity that will shock the food system, and mass migrations of people unlucky enough to be born in those regions most badly affected. To believe that global warming -- literally a global problem -- isn't "a particularly large problem" is akin to saying covid is "a bit of a cold". That statement spectacularly underestimates the scope and scale of the threat, and ignores the chorus of experts who have spent the last half-century being depressingly accurate (or even conservative) in all their forecasts. You are "ok with 1.5C" because you don't understand what it means.
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    I did read the IPCC report a while back, or at least the summary. It's surprisingly common sense, given how it's described. Change is coming, some of it bad, a minority pretty bad. There are quite a lot "pretty bad" things out there.
orangecat 5y ago
it isn't going to do anything for us for 20-30 years. That's how long it takes to build a nuclear plant in the US. First, the time it takes to build a nuclear plant is not an unalterable law of nature. Second, when people were saying that we should build more plants 20 years ago, a common objection was that it would be useless because it would take 20 years and by then everything would be powered by clean renewables. I'm similarly unconvinced that wind and solar will provide everything we need by 2040.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  > I'm similarly unconvinced that wind and solar will provide everything we need by 2040. Have you actually looked at the numbers for renewable energy installations, or is this just based on personal incredulity? While the nuclear industry has been shouting about how we need nuclear, the US has installed about 20GW worth of renewable generation in one year. That is equivalent to about ten nuclear power plants (in the US, most plants are 1-2GW; a few are 3-3.5.) 40% of our installed capacity over the last 2 years has been renewable energy sources, and both wind and solar installed capacity is growing at a nearly logarithmic scale. The only thing cheaper than wind is solar, and both are continuing to get cheaper. Those figures, by the way, are for utility/grid scale projects and do not include residential systems. Utilities already consider this a solved problem and have now shifted focus to storage technology. There is a strong online PR effort by the nuclear industry because they are desperate to stay in business I'm not exaggerating when I say that the blog of a guy who runs such a PR consulting firm has been featured more than once here on HN. The nuclear waste problem is solvable but has not yet been solved in the US. Nuclear power plants are decade-scale projects and even once they sync up to the grid, it takes them another decade just to offset the carbon impact of their construction. Nuclear power plants have very high OPEX and very deep/complex/exacting supply chains when we're seeing lots of supply chain issues due to climate change. Reactor vessels require very high grade metal and specialized firms, and those firms have years if not decades long waiting lists. We can't just snap our fingers and create more reactor vessel manufacturers. No wind farm or solar farm has caused a catastrophe of any sort, much less one that renders thousands of square miles of land uninhabitable for a century. Wind and solar do not generate material that is extremely lethal and weaponizable. The list goes on and on.
ch4s3 5y ago
The guardian isn’t a reputable source on this. We could adjust regulation in the US, pre-approve a handful of small to medium reactor designs and probably have a lot of them built in under 10 years. The historical lag time comes from the period of rapid technological improvement and regulatory change where projects had to be redesigned multiple times mid project. If you think grid scale solar and wind are just as susceptible to bad regulation, NIMBYs, graft, and bureaucratic nonsense then you may not be paying attention. Note the lack of offshore wind in the US. Existing nuclear power tech could displace natural gas and coal without the need for storage or much land. We also wouldn’t need to overhaul the grid.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Not a reputable source on what? Your comment has nothing to do with what the Guardian article I linked says.

p_l 5y ago

Building extra LNG plants is going to help us even less, and that's what it currently takes to keep grid operational with renewables, so...

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Who said anything about LNG? Why the straw man? I said nuclear won't save us, full stop. Please do not put words in my mouth.
- p_l 5y ago
  Well, the "it's not going to do anything right now so let's forget about it, maybe there will be magic battery tech in that time" is also a straw man. Meanwhile the best we have from renewable grids, even in huge interconnected systems that ostensibly should be able to shift renewable power around is... LNG build up to cover for instability of renewables, and reduced pressure on shutdown (or even extensions) to coal power plants. Also, USA might take 30 years, but then USA is infamous for having trouble building any infrastructure these days. Global warming and energy scarcity is a global problem.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    > Well, the "it's not going to do anything right now so let's forget about it, maybe there will be magic battery tech in that time" is also a straw man. Yes, and I also didn't say that. Again, do not put words in my mouth. I'm getting really tired of your disingenuous, bad faith non-arguments.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Natural gas isn't stored as LNG in the US; it's stored as compressed gas in underground caverns. Many millions of tonnes of natural gas are stored in these caverns; they buffer the transmission system against seasonal changes in gas demand. We could store hydrogen in those caverns instead.

radu_floricica 5y ago

I'm ok with 1.5C. I'm ok with significant climate change long term. I haven't read anything yet that caused me to think it's a particularly large problem. Like anything else there will be winners and losers - some places will be better, some worse. More people will die of heatstroke, a lot less of cold. It may well end up being a net benefit. Should we avoid particularly large climate changes? Well, yes, mostly for Chesterton's Fence reasons. But I'm far from panic.

LightG 5y ago
Luckily there are democracies who are fianlly not ok with 1.5c and significant climate change long term. Time will tell who wins out.
monodeldiablo 5y ago
> I haven't read anything yet that caused me to think it's a particularly large problem. Then you haven't read much. I suggest looking into the North Atlantic current, ENSO, ocean acidification, and long term forecasts of glacier formation, drought, fire, flooding, tropical storms, heat waves, and other extreme weather phenomena. Just skimming through the first few pages of the -- extremely conservative -- IPCC report should upend your current notion that global warming "may well end up being a net benefit". Global warming does not simply mean the world uniformly heats up a degree. It means more energy is injected into the atmosphere, adding additional chaos and instability to an already chaotic and unpredictable system. This will mean more extreme weather, steep reduction in fish stocks and agricultural productivity that will shock the food system, and mass migrations of people unlucky enough to be born in those regions most badly affected. To believe that global warming -- literally a global problem -- isn't "a particularly large problem" is akin to saying covid is "a bit of a cold". That statement spectacularly underestimates the scope and scale of the threat, and ignores the chorus of experts who have spent the last half-century being depressingly accurate (or even conservative) in all their forecasts. You are "ok with 1.5C" because you don't understand what it means.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  I did read the IPCC report a while back, or at least the summary. It's surprisingly common sense, given how it's described. Change is coming, some of it bad, a minority pretty bad. There are quite a lot "pretty bad" things out there.

orangecat 5y ago

it isn't going to do anything for us for 20-30 years. That's how long it takes to build a nuclear plant in the US. First, the time it takes to build a nuclear plant is not an unalterable law of nature. Second, when people were saying that we should build more plants 20 years ago, a common objection was that it would be useless because it would take 20 years and by then everything would be powered by clean renewables. I'm similarly unconvinced that wind and solar will provide everything we need by 2040.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
> I'm similarly unconvinced that wind and solar will provide everything we need by 2040. Have you actually looked at the numbers for renewable energy installations, or is this just based on personal incredulity? While the nuclear industry has been shouting about how we need nuclear, the US has installed about 20GW worth of renewable generation in one year. That is equivalent to about ten nuclear power plants (in the US, most plants are 1-2GW; a few are 3-3.5.) 40% of our installed capacity over the last 2 years has been renewable energy sources, and both wind and solar installed capacity is growing at a nearly logarithmic scale. The only thing cheaper than wind is solar, and both are continuing to get cheaper. Those figures, by the way, are for utility/grid scale projects and do not include residential systems. Utilities already consider this a solved problem and have now shifted focus to storage technology. There is a strong online PR effort by the nuclear industry because they are desperate to stay in business I'm not exaggerating when I say that the blog of a guy who runs such a PR consulting firm has been featured more than once here on HN. The nuclear waste problem is solvable but has not yet been solved in the US. Nuclear power plants are decade-scale projects and even once they sync up to the grid, it takes them another decade just to offset the carbon impact of their construction. Nuclear power plants have very high OPEX and very deep/complex/exacting supply chains when we're seeing lots of supply chain issues due to climate change. Reactor vessels require very high grade metal and specialized firms, and those firms have years if not decades long waiting lists. We can't just snap our fingers and create more reactor vessel manufacturers. No wind farm or solar farm has caused a catastrophe of any sort, much less one that renders thousands of square miles of land uninhabitable for a century. Wind and solar do not generate material that is extremely lethal and weaponizable. The list goes on and on.

ch4s3 5y ago

The guardian isn’t a reputable source on this. We could adjust regulation in the US, pre-approve a handful of small to medium reactor designs and probably have a lot of them built in under 10 years. The historical lag time comes from the period of rapid technological improvement and regulatory change where projects had to be redesigned multiple times mid project. If you think grid scale solar and wind are just as susceptible to bad regulation, NIMBYs, graft, and bureaucratic nonsense then you may not be paying attention. Note the lack of offshore wind in the US. Existing nuclear power tech could displace natural gas and coal without the need for storage or much land. We also wouldn’t need to overhaul the grid.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Not a reputable source on what? Your comment has nothing to do with what the Guardian article I linked says.