5 ms·

Which other countries are building nuclear in a meaningful capacity? We need a reactor going online each week to make a dent. Not disagreeing that the regulat

Which other countries are building nuclear in a meaningful capacity? We need a reactor going online each week to make a dent. Not disagreeing that the regulations in the US are way too onerous for nuclear.

Ygg2 3y ago
Your ignoring the externalities of solar and wind power. Ignoring externalities of fossil fuels is what got us here in the first place. What happens if in 30 years we have to discuss nano PV particulates in blood and great PV patch in some ocean?
- flir 3y ago
  Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?)
  - mrmanner 3y ago
    > ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?) Noise is problematic for wildlife, and in some areas we tend to build wind power in previously quiet areas.
    - flir 3y ago
      Yeah, I'm just reading up on the subject. Apparently a badly placed wind farm can have knock-on effects on the whole food web. We quickly reach a "never do anything" impasse though.
    - jnsaff2 3y ago
      This is like the peak of bikeshedding. Completely forgets the impact of climate change to the ecosystems.
      - mrmanner 3y ago
        No, climate change is a far bigger problem. No one argues otherwise. There’s a pervasive idea, though, that renewable electricity production is harmless so there’s no point focusing on and avoiding waste. Adding to that, by acknowledging the harms of wind power we can locate it where it’s less harmful. Near cities or at sea, instead of destroying the few quiet places.
  - defrost 3y ago
    If, as you say, you're reading up on the subject, side effects of wind power (and increased electric networks with solar, batteries, etc) are increased mining and concentrate processing of copper, nickel, lithium, etc. Not being a scaremonger, these are just real costs that come along for the ride into a brave new future. Spodumene processing in Malaysia from Australian concentrates (Mt. Weld, etc) to produce litium for batteries creates massive acid dams of wate and tonnes of radioactive waste. Copper mining has always been problematic (albeit out of sight for many) and much more of that is called for. Without being pro or anti any of the possible solutions for power generation we need moving forward, they all have toxic waste issues that bear looking into.
    - jnsaff2 3y ago
      4 billion tonnes of coal mined per year. 2021 produced 50 thousand tons of pure lithium. Coal gets used ONCE, lithium stores energy thousands of times before recycling to do it again. This kind of context is important before whatabouting.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Coal has peaked, is on a plateau, and will decline and continue so, according to the IEA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 Lithium, Copper, Nickel, and a slew of other minerals and elements are on the increase and have some serious waste products. The comparison here is to > Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. (with implied /s) with the rational response that all resources come with a downside. This kind of context is important before whatabouting. You've whatabout'd by dragging in coal.
        flir 3y ago
        Lets try rephrasing it. Given that we need about 580m terajoules (source https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/ene...) what's the least worst way of achieving that? Mixed, obviously, and different mixes in different parts of the world, but what should be our first-choice energy source? Assume fusion's off the table for now, lets stick with things that already exist. My gut feeling is that wind, with its primarily local ecological impacts that are able to be minimised with careful placement and design, is a strong candidate for least-worst solution. The catastrophic failure mode of a wind farm does a lot less damage than the catastrohopic failure mode of a nuclear reactor, for a start. I do realise a lot of that wind power is probably going to end up in batteries (I'm hopeful for StEnSEA, but like fusion it's a bit Real Soon Now).
- mrmanner 3y ago
  “Nano PV particulates” are mostly sand, and mostly harmless. All forms of electricity production have negative externalities, we want to minimize those so internalizing them is good policy. Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) and PV waste (large amounts, maybe reusable, there’s no mid-term plan), as well as fossil fuel waste (all of the above).
  - Ygg2 3y ago
    And plastic is mostly oil. But that's not the whole picture is it? PV aren't just sand, if they were my windows would be PV. Small impurities matter over long times and large quantities. Also wrong on long term plan for nuclear. Long term plan is wait. Radioactivity reduces itself with time.
    - mrmanner 3y ago
      > Impurities matter Yes, we need to recycle the materials. Landfill is not a viable solution for any waste, none of that is unique to solar power. > Long term plan is wait Waiting a lifetime is easy. Waiting hundreds of generations after we’re dead is not. Is that an argument against nuclear power? Not in my opinion. There’s still no finalized plan describing how waiting will work in practice though.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) 90% of nuclear waste is harmless within a year or two. The rest is so dense, that it fits a couple of trucks, and can be stored indefinitely long in a very small storage
    - mrmanner 3y ago
      Stored indefinitely until a curious explorer decides to investigate the unknown tomb of the gods of the third millennium, and… voila. I’m convinces we’ll solve storage by reusing the waste - but it’s not a solved problem by any stretch.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  You are talking about mostly unknown maybe externalities. I’m talking about the massive externality of climate change that is certain. Waiting for nuclear to maybe get its shit together is not a gamble that we can take. That said, I have nothing against nuclear. It’s just not happening unfortunately.
  - Ygg2 3y ago
    Sure, I never said give up on solar, PV, wind, etc. Give up on coal, oil and gas, but carefully consider your options to do so. My point is even plastic packaging was invented to deal with problems of previous packing techniques namely glass, tin, paper, etc. Now we have a huge plastic environment issues.

Ygg2 3y ago

Your ignoring the externalities of solar and wind power. Ignoring externalities of fossil fuels is what got us here in the first place. What happens if in 30 years we have to discuss nano PV particulates in blood and great PV patch in some ocean?

flir 3y ago
Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?)
- mrmanner 3y ago
  > ("Externalities of wind power"? Oh.... is this bird strikes?) Noise is problematic for wildlife, and in some areas we tend to build wind power in previously quiet areas.
  - flir 3y ago
    Yeah, I'm just reading up on the subject. Apparently a badly placed wind farm can have knock-on effects on the whole food web. We quickly reach a "never do anything" impasse though.
  - jnsaff2 3y ago
    This is like the peak of bikeshedding. Completely forgets the impact of climate change to the ecosystems.
    - mrmanner 3y ago
      No, climate change is a far bigger problem. No one argues otherwise. There’s a pervasive idea, though, that renewable electricity production is harmless so there’s no point focusing on and avoiding waste. Adding to that, by acknowledging the harms of wind power we can locate it where it’s less harmful. Near cities or at sea, instead of destroying the few quiet places.
- defrost 3y ago
  If, as you say, you're reading up on the subject, side effects of wind power (and increased electric networks with solar, batteries, etc) are increased mining and concentrate processing of copper, nickel, lithium, etc. Not being a scaremonger, these are just real costs that come along for the ride into a brave new future. Spodumene processing in Malaysia from Australian concentrates (Mt. Weld, etc) to produce litium for batteries creates massive acid dams of wate and tonnes of radioactive waste. Copper mining has always been problematic (albeit out of sight for many) and much more of that is called for. Without being pro or anti any of the possible solutions for power generation we need moving forward, they all have toxic waste issues that bear looking into.
  - jnsaff2 3y ago
    4 billion tonnes of coal mined per year. 2021 produced 50 thousand tons of pure lithium. Coal gets used ONCE, lithium stores energy thousands of times before recycling to do it again. This kind of context is important before whatabouting.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Coal has peaked, is on a plateau, and will decline and continue so, according to the IEA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 Lithium, Copper, Nickel, and a slew of other minerals and elements are on the increase and have some serious waste products. The comparison here is to > Good thing nothing like that ever happens with nuclear. (with implied /s) with the rational response that all resources come with a downside. This kind of context is important before whatabouting. You've whatabout'd by dragging in coal.
      - flir 3y ago
        Lets try rephrasing it. Given that we need about 580m terajoules (source https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/ene...) what's the least worst way of achieving that? Mixed, obviously, and different mixes in different parts of the world, but what should be our first-choice energy source? Assume fusion's off the table for now, lets stick with things that already exist. My gut feeling is that wind, with its primarily local ecological impacts that are able to be minimised with careful placement and design, is a strong candidate for least-worst solution. The catastrophic failure mode of a wind farm does a lot less damage than the catastrohopic failure mode of a nuclear reactor, for a start. I do realise a lot of that wind power is probably going to end up in batteries (I'm hopeful for StEnSEA, but like fusion it's a bit Real Soon Now).
mrmanner 3y ago
“Nano PV particulates” are mostly sand, and mostly harmless. All forms of electricity production have negative externalities, we want to minimize those so internalizing them is good policy. Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) and PV waste (large amounts, maybe reusable, there’s no mid-term plan), as well as fossil fuel waste (all of the above).
- Ygg2 3y ago
  And plastic is mostly oil. But that's not the whole picture is it? PV aren't just sand, if they were my windows would be PV. Small impurities matter over long times and large quantities. Also wrong on long term plan for nuclear. Long term plan is wait. Radioactivity reduces itself with time.
  - mrmanner 3y ago
    > Impurities matter Yes, we need to recycle the materials. Landfill is not a viable solution for any waste, none of that is unique to solar power. > Long term plan is wait Waiting a lifetime is easy. Waiting hundreds of generations after we’re dead is not. Is that an argument against nuclear power? Not in my opinion. There’s still no finalized plan describing how waiting will work in practice though.
- troupo 3y ago
  > Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) 90% of nuclear waste is harmless within a year or two. The rest is so dense, that it fits a couple of trucks, and can be stored indefinitely long in a very small storage
  - mrmanner 3y ago
    Stored indefinitely until a curious explorer decides to investigate the unknown tomb of the gods of the third millennium, and… voila. I’m convinces we’ll solve storage by reusing the waste - but it’s not a solved problem by any stretch.
jnsaff2 3y ago
You are talking about mostly unknown maybe externalities. I’m talking about the massive externality of climate change that is certain. Waiting for nuclear to maybe get its shit together is not a gamble that we can take. That said, I have nothing against nuclear. It’s just not happening unfortunately.
- Ygg2 3y ago
  Sure, I never said give up on solar, PV, wind, etc. Give up on coal, oil and gas, but carefully consider your options to do so. My point is even plastic packaging was invented to deal with problems of previous packing techniques namely glass, tin, paper, etc. Now we have a huge plastic environment issues.