8 ms·

The headline feels very "water is wet" (nuclear does not produce air pollution so replacing is a net loss fir air quality) but the text is slightly more motivat

The headline feels very "water is wet" (nuclear does not produce air pollution so replacing is a net loss fir air quality) but the text is slightly more motivated in pointing out that policy should take into account the (predictable) mortality due to air quality when considering ways to phase out nuclear (which they estimate to 5200 death a year in the US if one were to fully replace nuclear power).

KennyBlanken 4y ago
The only reason "nuclear does not produce air pollution" is because everyone pretends that there's no air pollution from the massive supply chain the plants require (and no, not just fuel. Consider how expensive almost any part that is destined for a nuclear power plant is, how much technical and administrative and safety overhead there is to everything, etc.) In the US, nuclear power is being replaced at several times the rate it is being decommissioned...by solar and wind, both of which are significantly cheaper. Those plants are being shut down because they don't make economic sense. The biggest problem we have right now is that bitcoin mining operators are chewing up massive amounts of power, in many areas causing coal fired power plants to come back into service because of how much demand they're placing on the grid...and states are encouraging this, because it's helping prop up demand for coal.
- andrewmutz 4y ago
  Of course, there is a polluting supply chain for solar and wind as well. If you do an all-in comparison on the total emissions, nuclear is about the same as wind, and is three times better than solar: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and...
- tmn 4y ago
  This reads like a silly cartoon. I wish the biggest problem we had is bitcoin mining power consumption.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Indeed - there is a range of frivolous human activities that gobble up insane amount of power, cars that are too big, casinos...
- survirtual 4y ago
  Here’s a thought experiment for you. You have 3 power generation systems adjacent to each other. One is a massive solar power field. One is a massive wind turbine field. And one is a nuclear power plant. In the ideal conditions, all 3 generate an equivalent amount of power. Suddenly, the sun goes down and all the wind stops. Which one is now generating the most power?
  - tcfhgj 4y ago
    this never happens
    - _ache_ 4y ago
      Low sunshine and low wind are pretty common in winter. Depending on the location obviously. In some places, winter imply too much wind !
      - tcfhgj 4y ago
        define low - usually there's always wind on a sufficient large area
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      Last time this discussion was here I posted link from literally that same day at 5AM here in Poland. No sun yet, wind below 5% capacity.
      - tcfhgj 4y ago
        is Poland located on an island with no neighbours that still have wind?
        natmaka 4y ago
        https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
- simondotau 4y ago
  Artificially inflated prices and administrative overhead causes air pollution? You seriously wrote that with a straight face? You know what also produces air pollution? Manufacturing and transport of wind turbines. Construction of hydro power dams. Manufacturing and distribution of solar panels. Mining, manufacturing and distribution of grid batteries. By your logic, no grid-scale source of energy is good enough. I hope you're browsing Hacker News using landfill-diverted computer hardware powered by a landfill-diverted off-grid solar power array, because otherwise your objections to nuclear power apply equally to your own life.
  - defrost 4y ago
    > I hope you're browsing Hacker News using landfill-diverted Just as an aside and a reasonable data point, I can't be the only person with a majority of formerly commercial refabbed EOL equipment (more than just computers + solar panels). As a non urban Australian in a sparse area scoring and repurposing other people's "crap" has been a way of life for six decades .. nine for my father who is still actively trawling auction sites, curb dumps, and local tip sites.
    - eru 4y ago
      To go off on that tangent: If you use your own 'crap' for long enough, it's has the same impact: you just skip the step of switching ownership.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    > Artificially inflated prices and administrative overhead causes air pollution? You seriously wrote that with a straight face? What artificially inflated prices? And...No? Nice strawman, though? Nuclear power plants have a massively expensive supply chain - their capex and opex expenses are huge, the highest of any form of generation. Every worker the plant requires, every manager, every gauge, every piece of pipe - all has a carbon footprint. And because it's for nuclear, all those parts are a lot more expensive because of all the documentation, engineering and reliability, and that means a higher carbon footprint. > You know what also produces air pollution? Manufacturing and transport of wind turbines. Construction of hydro power dams. Manufacturing and distribution of solar panels. Mining, manufacturing and distribution of grid batteries. All the things you name immediately start paying back 'dividends', solar/wind have a fraction of the opex, and produce electricity at a far lower cost than nuclear and are dropping in cost per GWhr, whereas nuclear plants take decades to "break even", only do so if you ignore the carbon footprint of their supply chain, and the cost of electricity from nuclear is going up. > I hope you're browsing Hacker News using landfill-diverted computer hardware powered by a landfill-diverted off-grid solar power array, because otherwise your objections to nuclear power apply equally to your own life. So cliche a response it's literally a meme. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > The biggest problem we have right now is that bitcoin mining operators are chewing up massive amounts of power, in many areas causing coal fired power plants to come back into service Other than the single time a mining group bought an old coal plant in NY, is there a single other example of this happening?
  - brightlancer 4y ago
    As a more positive example, I read about crypto miners who had something like shipping containers that they would put at oil wells to capture gases that weren't economical for the energy companies to use and are instead burned off. While I'm sure some folks would jump on that because it was using Fossil Fuels, I look at as it's profitable for crypto miners to use _excess_ energy where it's produced and would otherwise be wasted, which will happen regardless of how energy is sourced.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      That's pretty neat, and an interesting use of nat-gas, but I'm just really ambivalent about crypto and the miners.
- natmaka 4y ago
  The more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint. Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity (this is your proposition, if I understand correctly) will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions. Scientific studies are clear: M. Lenzen ("between 10 and 130 g CO2-e/kWhel, with an average of 65 g") and E. Warner et G. Heath ("9 to 110 g CO‐eq/kWh by 2050")...
pydry 4y ago
Which is balanced against the rather significant safety risks of running plants beyond their expected lifetime: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-ageing-nuclear-reactors-pose-significant-safety-risks/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-ageing-nucl...
- simondotau 4y ago
  I’m unfamiliar with the publisher but the content is unquestionably written by someone who has a sub-high-school understanding of nuclear physics and is egregiously misusing numbers out of context for maximum fear. Seek better sources.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - simondotau 4y ago
    [Replying to my own comment] There is a sibling comment to this one which is flagged and "dead". It was inflammatory in tone but something I would vouch for in substance. My advice to its author is to not give censcorious people an excuse to mob away your views. Avoid the hyperbole. Greenpeace, for one reason or another, has been obsessed with nuclear power to the objective net detriment of the environment. Their activism has directly resulted in a strengthening of legacy fossil fuel industries and the increased reliance on fossil fuel consumption. Absent the campaigning by Greenpeace there would certainly be more, newer, safer nuclear energy reactors in Europe today. This would directly result in offsetting need for coal power — especially if Greenpeace had applied as much effort to opposing coal as they did nuclear power.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      We could have completely replaced coal power with nuclear if it wasn't for Greenpeace.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Go move downwind from husab and then get back to us on the lack of air pollution.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

The only reason "nuclear does not produce air pollution" is because everyone pretends that there's no air pollution from the massive supply chain the plants require (and no, not just fuel. Consider how expensive almost any part that is destined for a nuclear power plant is, how much technical and administrative and safety overhead there is to everything, etc.) In the US, nuclear power is being replaced at several times the rate it is being decommissioned...by solar and wind, both of which are significantly cheaper. Those plants are being shut down because they don't make economic sense. The biggest problem we have right now is that bitcoin mining operators are chewing up massive amounts of power, in many areas causing coal fired power plants to come back into service because of how much demand they're placing on the grid...and states are encouraging this, because it's helping prop up demand for coal.

andrewmutz 4y ago
Of course, there is a polluting supply chain for solar and wind as well. If you do an all-in comparison on the total emissions, nuclear is about the same as wind, and is three times better than solar: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and...
tmn 4y ago
This reads like a silly cartoon. I wish the biggest problem we had is bitcoin mining power consumption.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Indeed - there is a range of frivolous human activities that gobble up insane amount of power, cars that are too big, casinos...
survirtual 4y ago
Here’s a thought experiment for you. You have 3 power generation systems adjacent to each other. One is a massive solar power field. One is a massive wind turbine field. And one is a nuclear power plant. In the ideal conditions, all 3 generate an equivalent amount of power. Suddenly, the sun goes down and all the wind stops. Which one is now generating the most power?
- tcfhgj 4y ago
  this never happens
  - _ache_ 4y ago
    Low sunshine and low wind are pretty common in winter. Depending on the location obviously. In some places, winter imply too much wind !
    - tcfhgj 4y ago
      define low - usually there's always wind on a sufficient large area
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    Last time this discussion was here I posted link from literally that same day at 5AM here in Poland. No sun yet, wind below 5% capacity.
    - tcfhgj 4y ago
      is Poland located on an island with no neighbours that still have wind?
      - natmaka 4y ago
        https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
simondotau 4y ago
Artificially inflated prices and administrative overhead causes air pollution? You seriously wrote that with a straight face? You know what also produces air pollution? Manufacturing and transport of wind turbines. Construction of hydro power dams. Manufacturing and distribution of solar panels. Mining, manufacturing and distribution of grid batteries. By your logic, no grid-scale source of energy is good enough. I hope you're browsing Hacker News using landfill-diverted computer hardware powered by a landfill-diverted off-grid solar power array, because otherwise your objections to nuclear power apply equally to your own life.
- defrost 4y ago
  > I hope you're browsing Hacker News using landfill-diverted Just as an aside and a reasonable data point, I can't be the only person with a majority of formerly commercial refabbed EOL equipment (more than just computers + solar panels). As a non urban Australian in a sparse area scoring and repurposing other people's "crap" has been a way of life for six decades .. nine for my father who is still actively trawling auction sites, curb dumps, and local tip sites.
  - eru 4y ago
    To go off on that tangent: If you use your own 'crap' for long enough, it's has the same impact: you just skip the step of switching ownership.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  > Artificially inflated prices and administrative overhead causes air pollution? You seriously wrote that with a straight face? What artificially inflated prices? And...No? Nice strawman, though? Nuclear power plants have a massively expensive supply chain - their capex and opex expenses are huge, the highest of any form of generation. Every worker the plant requires, every manager, every gauge, every piece of pipe - all has a carbon footprint. And because it's for nuclear, all those parts are a lot more expensive because of all the documentation, engineering and reliability, and that means a higher carbon footprint. > You know what also produces air pollution? Manufacturing and transport of wind turbines. Construction of hydro power dams. Manufacturing and distribution of solar panels. Mining, manufacturing and distribution of grid batteries. All the things you name immediately start paying back 'dividends', solar/wind have a fraction of the opex, and produce electricity at a far lower cost than nuclear and are dropping in cost per GWhr, whereas nuclear plants take decades to "break even", only do so if you ignore the carbon footprint of their supply chain, and the cost of electricity from nuclear is going up. > I hope you're browsing Hacker News using landfill-diverted computer hardware powered by a landfill-diverted off-grid solar power array, because otherwise your objections to nuclear power apply equally to your own life. So cliche a response it's literally a meme. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
ch4s3 4y ago
> The biggest problem we have right now is that bitcoin mining operators are chewing up massive amounts of power, in many areas causing coal fired power plants to come back into service Other than the single time a mining group bought an old coal plant in NY, is there a single other example of this happening?
- brightlancer 4y ago
  As a more positive example, I read about crypto miners who had something like shipping containers that they would put at oil wells to capture gases that weren't economical for the energy companies to use and are instead burned off. While I'm sure some folks would jump on that because it was using Fossil Fuels, I look at as it's profitable for crypto miners to use _excess_ energy where it's produced and would otherwise be wasted, which will happen regardless of how energy is sourced.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    That's pretty neat, and an interesting use of nat-gas, but I'm just really ambivalent about crypto and the miners.
natmaka 4y ago
The more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint. Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity (this is your proposition, if I understand correctly) will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions. Scientific studies are clear: M. Lenzen ("between 10 and 130 g CO2-e/kWhel, with an average of 65 g") and E. Warner et G. Heath ("9 to 110 g CO‐eq/kWh by 2050")...

pydry 4y ago

Which is balanced against the rather significant safety risks of running plants beyond their expected lifetime: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-ageing-nuclear-reactors-pose-significant-safety-risks/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-ageing-nucl...

simondotau 4y ago
I’m unfamiliar with the publisher but the content is unquestionably written by someone who has a sub-high-school understanding of nuclear physics and is egregiously misusing numbers out of context for maximum fear. Seek better sources.
- XorNot 4y ago
  [flagged]
- simondotau 4y ago
  [Replying to my own comment] There is a sibling comment to this one which is flagged and "dead". It was inflammatory in tone but something I would vouch for in substance. My advice to its author is to not give censcorious people an excuse to mob away your views. Avoid the hyperbole. Greenpeace, for one reason or another, has been obsessed with nuclear power to the objective net detriment of the environment. Their activism has directly resulted in a strengthening of legacy fossil fuel industries and the increased reliance on fossil fuel consumption. Absent the campaigning by Greenpeace there would certainly be more, newer, safer nuclear energy reactors in Europe today. This would directly result in offsetting need for coal power — especially if Greenpeace had applied as much effort to opposing coal as they did nuclear power.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    We could have completely replaced coal power with nuclear if it wasn't for Greenpeace.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Go move downwind from husab and then get back to us on the lack of air pollution.