7 ms·

Fision power is no long term solution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

Aachen 4y ago
Cookiewalled video is on the channel Sabine Hossenfelder (German theoretical phycisist), titled "Is Nuclear Power Green?" The conclusion chapter transcription: > What speaks in favor of nuclear is that it's climate-friendly, has a small landuse and creates power on demand. What speaks against it is that it's expensive and ultimately not renewable. The disadvantages could be alleviated with new technologies, but it's unclear whether that will work and even if it works, it almost certainly won't have a significant impact on climate change in the next twenty years. > It also speaks against nuclear power that people are afraid of it. Even if these fears are not rational, that doesn't mean they don't exist. If someone isn't comfortable near a nuclear power plant, that affects the quality of life and that can't just be dismissed. > There are two points I didn't discuss which you may have expected me to mention: one is nuclear proliferation and the risk posed by nuclear power plants during war times. This is certainly an important factor, but it's more political than scientific and that would be an entirely different discussion. The other point I didn't mention is nuclear waste. That's because I think it's a red herring which some activist groups are using in the attempt to scare people. For what I'm concerned, burying the stuff in a safe place solves the problem just fine. It's right that there aren't any final disposal sites at the moment, but Finland is expecting to open one next year and several other countries will follow. > And, no, provided adequate safety standards, I wouldn't have a problem with the nuclear waste deposit in my vicinity. > So, what did I learn from this? I learned that nuclear power has become economically even unappealing than it already was 20 years ago, and it's not clear this will ever change. Personally, I would say that this development can be left to the market. I'm not in favor of regulation that makes it even more regulation for us to reduce carbon emissions. To me, this just seems insane. In all fairness, it looks like nuclear won't help much, but then again, every little bit helps. Having said that, I think part of the reason the topic is so controversial is that, what you think is the best strategy depends on local conditions. There is no globally right decision. If your country has abundant solar and wind power, it might not make much sense in nuclear. Though you might want to keep in mind that climate change can affect wind and precipitation patterns in the long run. If your country is at a high risk of earthquakes, then maybe nuclear power just poses too high a risk. If on the other hand, renewables are unreliable in your region of the world, and you don't have a lot of space, and basically never see earthquakes, nuclear power might make a lot of sense. > In the end, I'm afraid my answer to the question "is nuclear power green?" is: it's complicated. --- I wonder if HN needs a "your content is in another castle: link-only comments aren't thoughtful or substantive" guideline, a la stackoverflow (combining the principles from here https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-is-in-another-castle-when-is-an-answer-not-an-answer https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-... and here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
- Aachen 4y ago
  What I'm missing in this conclusion is weighing it against other options. At all. Sure, it's expensive. It is also expensive as compared to buying farmland for solar panels and getting food from elsewhere? And as compared to finding enough people that are okay with wind turbines nearby? (If you can't just get it all from the sea of course.) From my point of view we ought to work on both fronts, I'm not sure this was addressed elsewhere in the video but at least it's not hinted at in the conclusion. The suggestion of leaving it to the market sounds good in principle, but forgets that we've been using the "low hanging fruit" space so far, making nuclear seem like a terrible investment for any market party that optimizes short/medium-term gain. It also ignores the political aspect: try building one of these things and getting a license to handle enriched uranium or whatever and see what the German government suddenly thinks about leaving it to the market. No sane investor is going to waste billions on that gamble, so a government needs to publish assurances at minimum. Both of these things ought to be factored in when you want to create a level playing field to let the market figure it out. Kinda weird to opine that creating a level playing field is "insane". That said, it's a more accurate conclusion than I expected from a link-only comment. Usually such comments link sources rather than speaking for themselves due to extreme opinions, but that's not exactly the case here.
  - cturner 4y ago
    In general, solar is not in the same category of energy generation as nuclear because it can't carry the base load of the energy grid, because it is so inconsistent. We do not currently have a general-purpose battery for solar and wind that could power the grid when they stop producing. (Some regions can through pumped storage hydro.) Nuclear compares against base-load power sources: coal, gas, oil, hydro, geothermal.
    - Aachen 4y ago
      That's an additional issue I didn't think of when writing my comment. Another omission in the linked video I guess? Though I am kinda expecting we can fix this with batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, load shifting, interconnects, molten salt future tech idk, it generally seems like we have solutions here that should, however, be factored in (as you correctly comment) when comparing most renewables to nuclear.
cturner 4y ago
There is a comment against that video by user jem780 that claims to quote an Australian academic to counter the argument that there are inadequate uranium reserves. When I was watching the video, that argument reminded me of the Peak Oil campaign from about twenty years ago. This claimed that the world had reached a point where the amount of oil available would be in decline going forward, and claiming that this justified major changes. At the time, this Peak Oil claim got a lot of sympathetic coverage in mainstream media. Oil production has been healthy in the years since, and technology changes have opened up new reserves.

Aachen 4y ago

Cookiewalled video is on the channel Sabine Hossenfelder (German theoretical phycisist), titled "Is Nuclear Power Green?" The conclusion chapter transcription: > What speaks in favor of nuclear is that it's climate-friendly, has a small landuse and creates power on demand. What speaks against it is that it's expensive and ultimately not renewable. The disadvantages could be alleviated with new technologies, but it's unclear whether that will work and even if it works, it almost certainly won't have a significant impact on climate change in the next twenty years. > It also speaks against nuclear power that people are afraid of it. Even if these fears are not rational, that doesn't mean they don't exist. If someone isn't comfortable near a nuclear power plant, that affects the quality of life and that can't just be dismissed. > There are two points I didn't discuss which you may have expected me to mention: one is nuclear proliferation and the risk posed by nuclear power plants during war times. This is certainly an important factor, but it's more political than scientific and that would be an entirely different discussion. The other point I didn't mention is nuclear waste. That's because I think it's a red herring which some activist groups are using in the attempt to scare people. For what I'm concerned, burying the stuff in a safe place solves the problem just fine. It's right that there aren't any final disposal sites at the moment, but Finland is expecting to open one next year and several other countries will follow. > And, no, provided adequate safety standards, I wouldn't have a problem with the nuclear waste deposit in my vicinity. > So, what did I learn from this? I learned that nuclear power has become economically even unappealing than it already was 20 years ago, and it's not clear this will ever change. Personally, I would say that this development can be left to the market. I'm not in favor of regulation that makes it even more regulation for us to reduce carbon emissions. To me, this just seems insane. In all fairness, it looks like nuclear won't help much, but then again, every little bit helps. Having said that, I think part of the reason the topic is so controversial is that, what you think is the best strategy depends on local conditions. There is no globally right decision. If your country has abundant solar and wind power, it might not make much sense in nuclear. Though you might want to keep in mind that climate change can affect wind and precipitation patterns in the long run. If your country is at a high risk of earthquakes, then maybe nuclear power just poses too high a risk. If on the other hand, renewables are unreliable in your region of the world, and you don't have a lot of space, and basically never see earthquakes, nuclear power might make a lot of sense. > In the end, I'm afraid my answer to the question "is nuclear power green?" is: it's complicated. --- I wonder if HN needs a "your content is in another castle: link-only comments aren't thoughtful or substantive" guideline, a la stackoverflow (combining the principles from here https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-is-in-another-castle-when-is-an-answer-not-an-answer https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-... and here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Aachen 4y ago
What I'm missing in this conclusion is weighing it against other options. At all. Sure, it's expensive. It is also expensive as compared to buying farmland for solar panels and getting food from elsewhere? And as compared to finding enough people that are okay with wind turbines nearby? (If you can't just get it all from the sea of course.) From my point of view we ought to work on both fronts, I'm not sure this was addressed elsewhere in the video but at least it's not hinted at in the conclusion. The suggestion of leaving it to the market sounds good in principle, but forgets that we've been using the "low hanging fruit" space so far, making nuclear seem like a terrible investment for any market party that optimizes short/medium-term gain. It also ignores the political aspect: try building one of these things and getting a license to handle enriched uranium or whatever and see what the German government suddenly thinks about leaving it to the market. No sane investor is going to waste billions on that gamble, so a government needs to publish assurances at minimum. Both of these things ought to be factored in when you want to create a level playing field to let the market figure it out. Kinda weird to opine that creating a level playing field is "insane". That said, it's a more accurate conclusion than I expected from a link-only comment. Usually such comments link sources rather than speaking for themselves due to extreme opinions, but that's not exactly the case here.
- cturner 4y ago
  In general, solar is not in the same category of energy generation as nuclear because it can't carry the base load of the energy grid, because it is so inconsistent. We do not currently have a general-purpose battery for solar and wind that could power the grid when they stop producing. (Some regions can through pumped storage hydro.) Nuclear compares against base-load power sources: coal, gas, oil, hydro, geothermal.
  - Aachen 4y ago
    That's an additional issue I didn't think of when writing my comment. Another omission in the linked video I guess? Though I am kinda expecting we can fix this with batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, load shifting, interconnects, molten salt future tech idk, it generally seems like we have solutions here that should, however, be factored in (as you correctly comment) when comparing most renewables to nuclear.

cturner 4y ago

There is a comment against that video by user jem780 that claims to quote an Australian academic to counter the argument that there are inadequate uranium reserves. When I was watching the video, that argument reminded me of the Peak Oil campaign from about twenty years ago. This claimed that the world had reached a point where the amount of oil available would be in decline going forward, and claiming that this justified major changes. At the time, this Peak Oil claim got a lot of sympathetic coverage in mainstream media. Oil production has been healthy in the years since, and technology changes have opened up new reserves.