4 ms·

After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong. Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the

After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong. Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait. Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change. https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate-adaptation https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate-adapta...

ncmncm 4y ago
After 60 years perhaps the nuke-boosters can admit that nukes were never a good idea. They have always depended on massive public subsidy to appear competitive. Now nukes are radically more expensive than alternatives even neglecting the massive subsidies. Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.
- treeman79 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We've had to warn you about this kind of thing more than once in the past. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- bogantech 4y ago
  Yeah thank god we went with the cheaper option that instead will make large parts of the planet uninhabitable /s
  - monkaiju 4y ago
    ?
- kennend3 4y ago
  Time will tell... My province (Ontario) use to have one of the largest coal plants in the world (Nanticoke 3964 MW). It was finally shutdown and now most of our power is "green" 59% from nuclear, 24% from hydroelectricity, 8% from wind, and 1% from solar. Curious.. if "solar" and "wind" are so great why is Nuclear producing 59% of our energy? Perhaps because our climate isnt great for solar (dark winters)? No matter the energy source, NIMBY will be there to protest. when we built wind farms the protesters claimed it "made them sick"?? "Wind turbines making us sick: Protesters" When we built solar, they protested that too: "Solar project demonstration in Tay Township" Everyone LOVES the convenience of power, as long as the generation is not near them? I live within 10KM of a rather large (3,100 MW) nuclear plant, i have no issues with it as it is cleaner vs most sources and delivers reliable power.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    It costs more to operate nukes than renewables, even neglecting the staggering capital expenditure nukes cost. As a result, existing nukes will be mothballed as they become unable to sell power at a price that enables them to continue operating. Financing to build new ones is already prohibitive, except under government coercion.
    - kennend3 4y ago
      Odd.. because this is NOT what took place here (Ontario) where our government pushed us to near-bankruptcy debt by signing long-term contracts to build "green energy". it cost them an election, and many years later the party responsible for those decisions (among others) have yet to gain "party status". Can you show us any "renewables" that were not government subsidized as well? https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/2021-commercial-industrial-electricity#:~:text=The%20renewable%20generation%20subsidy%20will%20subsidize%20%241.8%20billion%20in%20electricity,portion%20of%20their%20electricity%20bills https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/2021-commercial-.... Seems "renweables" love the government subsidy bandagon as well? Speaking of "government coercion" - this is exactly how Ontario got green energy in the first place. First they mandated it, then they forced people to accept the wind farms despite their numerous protests. take a read: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-wind-power-opponents-protest-in-toronto-1.791208 https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-wind-power-opponents-prot... As i posted above, no matter the power source, you can be 100% confident NIMBY will be there to protest it. In Ontario, the cost to generate power is : - Hydroelectric (5cents) - Wind (8.6 cents) - Solar (15.7 cents) - Nuclear (16.5 cents). Added bonus, nuclear produces power 24x7, when it is raining or cloudy, when we have a heat wave and zero winds.. in the cold dark winter nights... If renewables are such a good deal, why is there so little of it? As i posted, Ontario gets 59% of its power from nuclear, 5% from wind and 1% from solar...
- jjk166 4y ago
  It's almost like a concerted effort over the past several decades to put up so many obstacles to nuclear construction that the cost of clearing such political hurdles can't be justified has worked. The fact that nuclear costs only skyrocketed in the US while they stayed relatively constant or decreased in other countries suggests quite strongly the issue is political, not technical. In countries like South Korea, the LCOE of nuclear is less than half that of solar.
loopback_device 4y ago
Where does this idea that the anti-nuclear movement advocated for fossil fuels come from? That's never been the case, as anyone who lived at the time of the early protests can tell you (or anyone who's parents did). Even Wikipedia has a whole section on that topic [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Nuclear-free_alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Nuclear-...
- jjk166 4y ago
  The members of the anti-nuclear movement didn't intend to advocate for fossil fuels, but in practice that's exactly what they did. When the choice is between a nuclear plant and a coal plant, being anti nuclear is being pro coal. That's why many organizations opposing nuclear power received substantial donations from the fossil fuel industry - because they wanted their opponents to fight amongst themselves.
- ttfkam 4y ago
  Everyone wants the lights and heat to stay on. If that isn't coming from nuclear, it has to come from somewhere, and for the first several decades, it couldn't come from solar and wind. Coal was the inevitable base load power source given a lack of alternatives. If you focus on limiting nuclear with far greater zeal than coal, this is the result. See: perfect is the enemy of good.
  - EricE 4y ago
    It still can't come from solar or wind. Even if we waved a magic wand and had infinite and free energy storage, scaling solar and wind for sustained base load support is still a pipe dream. We are struggling to recycle the minuscule waste stream for solar and wind right now. Heck for wind turbine blades we aren't even really doing anything meaningful - meanwhile they are stacking up. Without nuclear we are not getting off of fossil fuels - period.
- throwawayffffas 4y ago
  I don't think anyone thinks the activists are pro fossil fuels, but by stopping the development of nuclear projects they essentially served the fossil fuels industry interests. It's not an accident for example that Friends of the Earth was founded by money from an oil magnate. From the groups wikipedia page: > stopped more than 150 destructive dams and water projects worldwide While I empathize with the desire to preserve waterways, you can be sure that for each one of these dams that didn't get built a coal or gas plant didn't shutdown.

ncmncm 4y ago

After 60 years perhaps the nuke-boosters can admit that nukes were never a good idea. They have always depended on massive public subsidy to appear competitive. Now nukes are radically more expensive than alternatives even neglecting the massive subsidies. Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.

treeman79 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We've had to warn you about this kind of thing more than once in the past. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
bogantech 4y ago
Yeah thank god we went with the cheaper option that instead will make large parts of the planet uninhabitable /s
- monkaiju 4y ago
  ?
kennend3 4y ago
Time will tell... My province (Ontario) use to have one of the largest coal plants in the world (Nanticoke 3964 MW). It was finally shutdown and now most of our power is "green" 59% from nuclear, 24% from hydroelectricity, 8% from wind, and 1% from solar. Curious.. if "solar" and "wind" are so great why is Nuclear producing 59% of our energy? Perhaps because our climate isnt great for solar (dark winters)? No matter the energy source, NIMBY will be there to protest. when we built wind farms the protesters claimed it "made them sick"?? "Wind turbines making us sick: Protesters" When we built solar, they protested that too: "Solar project demonstration in Tay Township" Everyone LOVES the convenience of power, as long as the generation is not near them? I live within 10KM of a rather large (3,100 MW) nuclear plant, i have no issues with it as it is cleaner vs most sources and delivers reliable power.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It costs more to operate nukes than renewables, even neglecting the staggering capital expenditure nukes cost. As a result, existing nukes will be mothballed as they become unable to sell power at a price that enables them to continue operating. Financing to build new ones is already prohibitive, except under government coercion.
  - kennend3 4y ago
    Odd.. because this is NOT what took place here (Ontario) where our government pushed us to near-bankruptcy debt by signing long-term contracts to build "green energy". it cost them an election, and many years later the party responsible for those decisions (among others) have yet to gain "party status". Can you show us any "renewables" that were not government subsidized as well? https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/2021-commercial-industrial-electricity#:~:text=The%20renewable%20generation%20subsidy%20will%20subsidize%20%241.8%20billion%20in%20electricity,portion%20of%20their%20electricity%20bills https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/2021-commercial-.... Seems "renweables" love the government subsidy bandagon as well? Speaking of "government coercion" - this is exactly how Ontario got green energy in the first place. First they mandated it, then they forced people to accept the wind farms despite their numerous protests. take a read: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-wind-power-opponents-protest-in-toronto-1.791208 https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-wind-power-opponents-prot... As i posted above, no matter the power source, you can be 100% confident NIMBY will be there to protest it. In Ontario, the cost to generate power is : - Hydroelectric (5cents) - Wind (8.6 cents) - Solar (15.7 cents) - Nuclear (16.5 cents). Added bonus, nuclear produces power 24x7, when it is raining or cloudy, when we have a heat wave and zero winds.. in the cold dark winter nights... If renewables are such a good deal, why is there so little of it? As i posted, Ontario gets 59% of its power from nuclear, 5% from wind and 1% from solar...
jjk166 4y ago
It's almost like a concerted effort over the past several decades to put up so many obstacles to nuclear construction that the cost of clearing such political hurdles can't be justified has worked. The fact that nuclear costs only skyrocketed in the US while they stayed relatively constant or decreased in other countries suggests quite strongly the issue is political, not technical. In countries like South Korea, the LCOE of nuclear is less than half that of solar.

loopback_device 4y ago

Where does this idea that the anti-nuclear movement advocated for fossil fuels come from? That's never been the case, as anyone who lived at the time of the early protests can tell you (or anyone who's parents did). Even Wikipedia has a whole section on that topic [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Nuclear-free_alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Nuclear-...

jjk166 4y ago
The members of the anti-nuclear movement didn't intend to advocate for fossil fuels, but in practice that's exactly what they did. When the choice is between a nuclear plant and a coal plant, being anti nuclear is being pro coal. That's why many organizations opposing nuclear power received substantial donations from the fossil fuel industry - because they wanted their opponents to fight amongst themselves.
ttfkam 4y ago
Everyone wants the lights and heat to stay on. If that isn't coming from nuclear, it has to come from somewhere, and for the first several decades, it couldn't come from solar and wind. Coal was the inevitable base load power source given a lack of alternatives. If you focus on limiting nuclear with far greater zeal than coal, this is the result. See: perfect is the enemy of good.
- EricE 4y ago
  It still can't come from solar or wind. Even if we waved a magic wand and had infinite and free energy storage, scaling solar and wind for sustained base load support is still a pipe dream. We are struggling to recycle the minuscule waste stream for solar and wind right now. Heck for wind turbine blades we aren't even really doing anything meaningful - meanwhile they are stacking up. Without nuclear we are not getting off of fossil fuels - period.
throwawayffffas 4y ago
I don't think anyone thinks the activists are pro fossil fuels, but by stopping the development of nuclear projects they essentially served the fossil fuels industry interests. It's not an accident for example that Friends of the Earth was founded by money from an oil magnate. From the groups wikipedia page: > stopped more than 150 destructive dams and water projects worldwide While I empathize with the desire to preserve waterways, you can be sure that for each one of these dams that didn't get built a coal or gas plant didn't shutdown.