4 ms·

> A single pellet of uranium fuel no bigger than your fingertip provides as much energy as a ton of coal (and certainly even more wood). How many trees will be

> A single pellet of uranium fuel no bigger than your fingertip provides as much energy as a ton of coal (and certainly even more wood). How many trees will be clearcut before this boondoggle of absurdity is stopped? Nuclear energy is the best answer we have so far, but the problem with nuclear energy is it doesn't require human beings to sacrifice anything. Unlike vastly inferior technologies like solar and wind, nuclear does not limit civilization. Nuclear energy doesn't force you to cut back your usage. Many environmentalist causes and activism around climate change would be obsolete, and people don't like being obsolete, especially when their activism is their theology.

pluijzer 4y ago
Are you stating that the environmental activists that are against nuclear energie are not so because of the possible dangerous but simply because it might be a solution and that would make them obsolete? I am sorry but that argument rings as absurd to me.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  Without saying that that is what it is about, I want to point out that such a thing would not be unprecedented. Supposedly, "roughly 100 U.S. firefighters are convicted of arson each year." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on... (Aka Munchhausen by Proxy)
- ravenstine 4y ago
  Of course environmentalists believe in possible dangers. Whether those dangers are acceptable or even real is a different matter. But yeah, when people dedicate their lives to something, anything really, facts and logic have a poor track record at convincing people to change their minds. If that's news to you, then I'm really not sure what else to say other than that you might benefit from learning more about human psychology.
  - pluijzer 4y ago
    But that is a different argument. People can have an irrational fear against something new and protest purely from those fears not with logic. That might be the case for nuclear power too. I don't know all the factors but I would also rather see nuclear power instead of burning coal. It is just that I do not buy that people protest against it because conciously or subconsciously they know it is the answer to the problem and fear of becoming irrelevant. This is luddites that fear that progress would stop their livelihood.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  This is an actual argument that nuclear PR reps make in detail: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-reason-renewables-cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-meant-to https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06... > The goal of renewables was to turn modern industrial societies back into agrarian ones, argued Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment. > The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could. I guess it works in certain political bubbles, even if it appears insane from others
shin_lao 4y ago
It's not just that they would be obsolete, there is religious fervor into having those sacrifices and somehow a dislike for growth and progress.
hackerlight 4y ago
[flagged]
- spoiler 4y ago
  I'm not sure what political beliefs have to do with this. If you're American (don't know if you are), please stop slapping left/right political stickers on every issue. First of all, it's just kinda trashy. An second it's divisive to the point that outrage-loving and loud people latch onto this left-vs-right bullshit to the point it's impossible have any constructive discussion about the topic, because people start treating it as a "us vs them" topic, instead of a problem solving topic.
WA 4y ago
Simplistic view. You don’t have to sacrifice everything if you switch to more sustainable options. For example, if every car had an electric engine, we’d save >50% of transportation energy, just because an electric engine turns electricity into movement way more efficiently (>85%) than an ICE with a max efficiency of <40%. Sure, there are other challenges, but it’s too simple to say that anything else but nuclear is worth it.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  Irrelevant. Who cares how much energy is being saved by an electric engine when the energy provided by nuclear energy means that relatively minuscule savings like 50% would not be appreciable in any way? The only way that percentages such as those you describe would even matter is when the energy substrate is either in shortage or pollutive, or if the infrastructure isn't scaled. When the energy is beyond plentiful, why quibble over engine efficiency other than from a personal cost standpoint? > but it’s too simple to say that anything else but nuclear is worth it. Nonsense. You call my argument "simplistic", but all you've done is point out how great you think electric engines are, as if that says anything at all about nuclear energy or the philosophy behind its opponents.
  - WA 4y ago
    Because nuclear energy has risks that solar and wind don’t have. And nuclear does pollute a lot more. If we plaster the world with nuclear reactors, risk and pollution goes up. You dismiss these two factors as completely irrelevant. Energy efficiency is important, because it helps to reduce both.
    - ravenstine 4y ago
      > Because nuclear energy has risks that solar and wind don’t have. Everything has risk. Solar panels can fall and kill you. Wind turbines kill birds. > And nuclear does pollute a lot more. Oh really. Tell me more. > If we plaster the world with nuclear reactors, risk and pollution goes up. What pollution? What about CO2? > You dismiss these two factors as completely irrelevant. That's because it is irrelevant. What you were doing is applying a benefit of a technology to a situation where it's anything but impressive. In the most logically extreme circumstance, imagine if humanity achieved unlimited power; why would anyone care at that point whether their electric engine was even 200% more efficient than an internal combustion engine? Without something to make the efficiency meaningful, such as energy shortage or personal cost, it wouldn't matter. What you appear to be saying is that electric engines running on wind and solar can replace nuclear as if they can as easily scale and be as affordable, neither of which are true because they can't produce electrical energy 24/7/365 the way nuclear energy can.
shakezula 4y ago
> Many environmentalist causes and activism around climate change would be obsolete No, they absolutely wouldn’t be. I’m sorry but this is so wrong it’s close to a bad-faith argument. Even with an immediate 100% switch to nuclear across the globe there would still be a shitload of work to be done just on the climate change front.
locallost 4y ago
I live in Germany and the cost of storing existing nuclear waste will be over 100 billion [1]. It will be paid by me, my children and their children and God knows how many generations because the companies would've just declared bankruptcy if they had to pay for the whole thing themselves. And it doesn't even work with all of these massive explicit or implicit subsidies! More harm has been done to the environment by wasting money on this grand delusion for decades than anything other than directly emitting co2 in the atmosphere. It was figured out already in the eighties that the math doesn't work, which was the first time we saw concepts like small modular being designed on purpose [2]. But those didn't work either, so it was back to the beginning, which predictably failed like it did the first time. Now we are back at maybe small modular can help us, and any reasonable person can make a good guess if it will work. People building these things are laughing all the way to the bank. [1] https://learngerman.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 https://learngerman.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear... [2] https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/872-873/forgotten-history-small-nuclear-reactors https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/872-873/forgot...
- ravenstine 4y ago
  Germany is one of the world's largest economies. Your GDP is 4.2 trillion USD. How do you picture the cost of 100 billion being a problem?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - locallost 4y ago
    100 billion you spend on something is a 100 billion you can't spend on something else. It's the basic definition of opportunity cost. It's especially a problem because even if you ignore it, nuclear is not competitive. So basically you have to overpay other solutions and then later you need to spend a huge chunk of money to get out of the investment. It's a bad deal in every way. The promise of nuclear was unlimited energy for almost free. This hasn't panned out, we have decades of evidence. The last bastion is can we run a grid on 100% renewables -- you can debate it, but renewables have been dismissed for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% of total grid and the critics were proven wrong every time. It's not a guarantee, but I won't bet on the losing horse.
Arnt 4y ago
Nuclear does indeed not require sacrifice, but it does require things like manufacture, transport and use of dangerous materials. (And not just radioactive, it's also a matter of poison, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32613470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32613470 has numbers.) Handling dangerous materials is expensive and IMO likely to grow more so, as our societies seem to grow more risk-averse. We didn't have policies to avoid all traffic deaths a few decares ago, for example. And with many voters being opposed to nuclear, I think states will be less likely provide free insurance cover in 10-20 years than was the case 10-20 years ago. This too increases the costs to nuclear power operators. An increasing cost curve that faces a decreasing cost curve for solar and wind isn't something about which you can say "is the best". You need some solid arguments. (FWIW, I think nuclear has no hope.)
goethes_kind 4y ago
> but the problem with nuclear energy is it doesn't require human beings to sacrifice anything Not true. 1. Compared to renewables, grid energy would be much more centralized if it was mainly nuclear based. 2. It is much more expensive to build, especially the upfront costs. This is the real reason it is not popular. 3. Only a minority of countries are developed enough to be reasonably trusted with nuclear energy. What about the rest? 4. Nuclear is not suitable for areas with low population density, this is related to point 1. 5. Nuclear waste is a solved issue or acceptable risk according to so academics but not all. 6. With nuclear energy you still have the same problem of grid storage because nuclear plants cannot be ramped up or down quickly enough, so you either need lots of storage or gas peaker plants. 7. Sunlight and wind are free, and some locations have an abundance of them. Uranium is not. 8. Political ties necessary for most countries to source uranium fuel need to be taken into account, too. 9. Once you build a nuclear plant you are invested in it for a decades. You cannot very easily shut it down and upgrade to a new model or use a newer technology altogether. This is one of the reasons we are stuck with nuclear plants decades ago. 10. The risk of a nuclear catastrophe is always there. The fact that it has been averted in most cases, does not mean the risk does not exist. Especially when you have extraordinary situations like a tsunami or a war breaking out. This is not meant to say that nuclear energy should not be considered. But I just cannot stand these childish takes on the subject.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  > Compared to renewables, grid energy would be much more centralized if it was mainly nuclear based. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Modern nuclear reactors can also be built at a much smaller scale than previous generations. Just because this hasn't truly been implemented doesn't mean it isn't absolutely feasible at this point. > It is much more expensive to build, especially the upfront costs. This is the real reason it is not popular. "But it costs money" isn't really a good argument for anything in and of itself. Politicians not wanting to deal with the upfront cost of building new nuclear plants isn't really a good excuse for not doing the right thing. Under the premise that climate change is an existential threat to human civilization, switching to nuclear energy is the right thing to do whether or not it's popular. Eating healthy is not popular and costs more (in the short term), therefore no one should eat healthy? > Nuclear is not suitable for areas with low population density, this is related to point 1. Fine, small areas can use renewables or even fossil fuel. No one is suggesting that nuclear is a panacea. It does take care of at least 85% of the problem, and possibly more given that smaller nuclear reactors are achievable. > Nuclear waste is a solved issue or acceptable risk according to so academics but not all. My opinion of academics is not good. Also depends on what "solved" means. > With nuclear energy you still have the same problem of grid storage because nuclear plants cannot be ramped up or down quickly enough, so you either needs lots of storage or gas peaker plants. So do renewables to a much, much larger degree, and without constant output. > Sunlight and wind are free, and some locations have an abundance of them. Uranium is not. Nonsense. You think that all the silicon, copper, silver, and steel that go into solar panels and wind turbines are free? Do they have no repair cycle or EOL? They are not "free." Not even close. How about all the lithium for the batteries needed just to keep the lights on when solar fails? Does that grow on trees? > Political ties necessary for most countries to source uranium fuel need to be taken into account, too. Yeah. > Once you build a nuclear plant you are invested in it for a decades. You cannot very easily shut it down and upgrade to a new model or use a newer technology altogether. This is one of the reasons we are stuck with nuclear plants decades ago. We should be invested in nuclear. The trouble with things that don't have obvious long term consequences is that we tend to not take them seriously. > The risk of a nuclear catastrophe is always there. The fact that it has been averted in most cases, does not mean the risk does not exist. Especially when you have extraordinary situations like a tsunami or a war breaking out. All the more reason to build multiple smaller ones than having a few large scale nuclear power plants. All the more reason to invest in R&D so that nuclear can be made even safer and distributed than it already is. We are far more at risk of true catastrophe from nuclear weapons than nuclear reactors. If climate change is an existential crisis, then we are more at risk from that than nuclear reactors being compromised by war. Or we can choose power sources that haven't seen a meaningful leap in advancement in the last 60 years and require civilization's progress to slow to a crawl to accommodate.

pluijzer 4y ago

Are you stating that the environmental activists that are against nuclear energie are not so because of the possible dangerous but simply because it might be a solution and that would make them obsolete? I am sorry but that argument rings as absurd to me.

im3w1l 4y ago
Without saying that that is what it is about, I want to point out that such a thing would not be unprecedented. Supposedly, "roughly 100 U.S. firefighters are convicted of arson each year." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter_arson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on... (Aka Munchhausen by Proxy)
ravenstine 4y ago
Of course environmentalists believe in possible dangers. Whether those dangers are acceptable or even real is a different matter. But yeah, when people dedicate their lives to something, anything really, facts and logic have a poor track record at convincing people to change their minds. If that's news to you, then I'm really not sure what else to say other than that you might benefit from learning more about human psychology.
- pluijzer 4y ago
  But that is a different argument. People can have an irrational fear against something new and protest purely from those fears not with logic. That might be the case for nuclear power too. I don't know all the factors but I would also rather see nuclear power instead of burning coal. It is just that I do not buy that people protest against it because conciously or subconsciously they know it is the answer to the problem and fear of becoming irrelevant. This is luddites that fear that progress would stop their livelihood.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
This is an actual argument that nuclear PR reps make in detail: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-reason-renewables-cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-meant-to https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06... > The goal of renewables was to turn modern industrial societies back into agrarian ones, argued Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment. > The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could. I guess it works in certain political bubbles, even if it appears insane from others

shin_lao 4y ago

It's not just that they would be obsolete, there is religious fervor into having those sacrifices and somehow a dislike for growth and progress.

hackerlight 4y ago

[flagged]

spoiler 4y ago
I'm not sure what political beliefs have to do with this. If you're American (don't know if you are), please stop slapping left/right political stickers on every issue. First of all, it's just kinda trashy. An second it's divisive to the point that outrage-loving and loud people latch onto this left-vs-right bullshit to the point it's impossible have any constructive discussion about the topic, because people start treating it as a "us vs them" topic, instead of a problem solving topic.

WA 4y ago

Simplistic view. You don’t have to sacrifice everything if you switch to more sustainable options. For example, if every car had an electric engine, we’d save >50% of transportation energy, just because an electric engine turns electricity into movement way more efficiently (>85%) than an ICE with a max efficiency of <40%. Sure, there are other challenges, but it’s too simple to say that anything else but nuclear is worth it.

ravenstine 4y ago
Irrelevant. Who cares how much energy is being saved by an electric engine when the energy provided by nuclear energy means that relatively minuscule savings like 50% would not be appreciable in any way? The only way that percentages such as those you describe would even matter is when the energy substrate is either in shortage or pollutive, or if the infrastructure isn't scaled. When the energy is beyond plentiful, why quibble over engine efficiency other than from a personal cost standpoint? > but it’s too simple to say that anything else but nuclear is worth it. Nonsense. You call my argument "simplistic", but all you've done is point out how great you think electric engines are, as if that says anything at all about nuclear energy or the philosophy behind its opponents.
- WA 4y ago
  Because nuclear energy has risks that solar and wind don’t have. And nuclear does pollute a lot more. If we plaster the world with nuclear reactors, risk and pollution goes up. You dismiss these two factors as completely irrelevant. Energy efficiency is important, because it helps to reduce both.
  - ravenstine 4y ago
    > Because nuclear energy has risks that solar and wind don’t have. Everything has risk. Solar panels can fall and kill you. Wind turbines kill birds. > And nuclear does pollute a lot more. Oh really. Tell me more. > If we plaster the world with nuclear reactors, risk and pollution goes up. What pollution? What about CO2? > You dismiss these two factors as completely irrelevant. That's because it is irrelevant. What you were doing is applying a benefit of a technology to a situation where it's anything but impressive. In the most logically extreme circumstance, imagine if humanity achieved unlimited power; why would anyone care at that point whether their electric engine was even 200% more efficient than an internal combustion engine? Without something to make the efficiency meaningful, such as energy shortage or personal cost, it wouldn't matter. What you appear to be saying is that electric engines running on wind and solar can replace nuclear as if they can as easily scale and be as affordable, neither of which are true because they can't produce electrical energy 24/7/365 the way nuclear energy can.

shakezula 4y ago

> Many environmentalist causes and activism around climate change would be obsolete No, they absolutely wouldn’t be. I’m sorry but this is so wrong it’s close to a bad-faith argument. Even with an immediate 100% switch to nuclear across the globe there would still be a shitload of work to be done just on the climate change front.

locallost 4y ago

I live in Germany and the cost of storing existing nuclear waste will be over 100 billion [1]. It will be paid by me, my children and their children and God knows how many generations because the companies would've just declared bankruptcy if they had to pay for the whole thing themselves. And it doesn't even work with all of these massive explicit or implicit subsidies! More harm has been done to the environment by wasting money on this grand delusion for decades than anything other than directly emitting co2 in the atmosphere. It was figured out already in the eighties that the math doesn't work, which was the first time we saw concepts like small modular being designed on purpose [2]. But those didn't work either, so it was back to the beginning, which predictably failed like it did the first time. Now we are back at maybe small modular can help us, and any reasonable person can make a good guess if it will work. People building these things are laughing all the way to the bank. [1] https://learngerman.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 https://learngerman.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear... [2] https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/872-873/forgotten-history-small-nuclear-reactors https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/872-873/forgot...

ravenstine 4y ago
Germany is one of the world's largest economies. Your GDP is 4.2 trillion USD. How do you picture the cost of 100 billion being a problem?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- locallost 4y ago
  100 billion you spend on something is a 100 billion you can't spend on something else. It's the basic definition of opportunity cost. It's especially a problem because even if you ignore it, nuclear is not competitive. So basically you have to overpay other solutions and then later you need to spend a huge chunk of money to get out of the investment. It's a bad deal in every way. The promise of nuclear was unlimited energy for almost free. This hasn't panned out, we have decades of evidence. The last bastion is can we run a grid on 100% renewables -- you can debate it, but renewables have been dismissed for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% of total grid and the critics were proven wrong every time. It's not a guarantee, but I won't bet on the losing horse.

Arnt 4y ago

Nuclear does indeed not require sacrifice, but it does require things like manufacture, transport and use of dangerous materials. (And not just radioactive, it's also a matter of poison, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32613470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32613470 has numbers.) Handling dangerous materials is expensive and IMO likely to grow more so, as our societies seem to grow more risk-averse. We didn't have policies to avoid all traffic deaths a few decares ago, for example. And with many voters being opposed to nuclear, I think states will be less likely provide free insurance cover in 10-20 years than was the case 10-20 years ago. This too increases the costs to nuclear power operators. An increasing cost curve that faces a decreasing cost curve for solar and wind isn't something about which you can say "is the best". You need some solid arguments. (FWIW, I think nuclear has no hope.)

goethes_kind 4y ago

> but the problem with nuclear energy is it doesn't require human beings to sacrifice anything Not true. 1. Compared to renewables, grid energy would be much more centralized if it was mainly nuclear based. 2. It is much more expensive to build, especially the upfront costs. This is the real reason it is not popular. 3. Only a minority of countries are developed enough to be reasonably trusted with nuclear energy. What about the rest? 4. Nuclear is not suitable for areas with low population density, this is related to point 1. 5. Nuclear waste is a solved issue or acceptable risk according to so academics but not all. 6. With nuclear energy you still have the same problem of grid storage because nuclear plants cannot be ramped up or down quickly enough, so you either need lots of storage or gas peaker plants. 7. Sunlight and wind are free, and some locations have an abundance of them. Uranium is not. 8. Political ties necessary for most countries to source uranium fuel need to be taken into account, too. 9. Once you build a nuclear plant you are invested in it for a decades. You cannot very easily shut it down and upgrade to a new model or use a newer technology altogether. This is one of the reasons we are stuck with nuclear plants decades ago. 10. The risk of a nuclear catastrophe is always there. The fact that it has been averted in most cases, does not mean the risk does not exist. Especially when you have extraordinary situations like a tsunami or a war breaking out. This is not meant to say that nuclear energy should not be considered. But I just cannot stand these childish takes on the subject.

ravenstine 4y ago
> Compared to renewables, grid energy would be much more centralized if it was mainly nuclear based. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Modern nuclear reactors can also be built at a much smaller scale than previous generations. Just because this hasn't truly been implemented doesn't mean it isn't absolutely feasible at this point. > It is much more expensive to build, especially the upfront costs. This is the real reason it is not popular. "But it costs money" isn't really a good argument for anything in and of itself. Politicians not wanting to deal with the upfront cost of building new nuclear plants isn't really a good excuse for not doing the right thing. Under the premise that climate change is an existential threat to human civilization, switching to nuclear energy is the right thing to do whether or not it's popular. Eating healthy is not popular and costs more (in the short term), therefore no one should eat healthy? > Nuclear is not suitable for areas with low population density, this is related to point 1. Fine, small areas can use renewables or even fossil fuel. No one is suggesting that nuclear is a panacea. It does take care of at least 85% of the problem, and possibly more given that smaller nuclear reactors are achievable. > Nuclear waste is a solved issue or acceptable risk according to so academics but not all. My opinion of academics is not good. Also depends on what "solved" means. > With nuclear energy you still have the same problem of grid storage because nuclear plants cannot be ramped up or down quickly enough, so you either needs lots of storage or gas peaker plants. So do renewables to a much, much larger degree, and without constant output. > Sunlight and wind are free, and some locations have an abundance of them. Uranium is not. Nonsense. You think that all the silicon, copper, silver, and steel that go into solar panels and wind turbines are free? Do they have no repair cycle or EOL? They are not "free." Not even close. How about all the lithium for the batteries needed just to keep the lights on when solar fails? Does that grow on trees? > Political ties necessary for most countries to source uranium fuel need to be taken into account, too. Yeah. > Once you build a nuclear plant you are invested in it for a decades. You cannot very easily shut it down and upgrade to a new model or use a newer technology altogether. This is one of the reasons we are stuck with nuclear plants decades ago. We should be invested in nuclear. The trouble with things that don't have obvious long term consequences is that we tend to not take them seriously. > The risk of a nuclear catastrophe is always there. The fact that it has been averted in most cases, does not mean the risk does not exist. Especially when you have extraordinary situations like a tsunami or a war breaking out. All the more reason to build multiple smaller ones than having a few large scale nuclear power plants. All the more reason to invest in R&D so that nuclear can be made even safer and distributed than it already is. We are far more at risk of true catastrophe from nuclear weapons than nuclear reactors. If climate change is an existential crisis, then we are more at risk from that than nuclear reactors being compromised by war. Or we can choose power sources that haven't seen a meaningful leap in advancement in the last 60 years and require civilization's progress to slow to a crawl to accommodate.