this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
140 points (91.2% liked)
Hacker News
1770 readers
1 users here now
This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.
Rules
0. Keep it legal
- Keep it civil and SFW
- Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All of them, on both sides of the "green spectrum" are either insane or ignoring reality.
Closing existing nuclear power plants is wasteful if they are still safe to run.
Creating new fission based power plants is useless because they will not be ready in time to make a bit of difference, separate from the fact that increasing surface water temperatures will render most of these units unusable/inefficient in the next decade or so.
Renewables+storage will be safer and at a much lower cost.
None of this will help save the "planet". Reduction of (the growth of) carbon emissions is insufficient to cool the planet down in any way shape or form to a degree that helps in time to prevent disaster/extinction.
Increasing earths albedo is the only method currently achievable to get from +2W/m² forcing to -2W in time to save at least something of our current habitat but those sort of literally world saving options is drowned out by a discussion about how big energy can wring more subsidies from the public coffers by promising that Nuclear will save the day and having "Green" proponents make the argument for them. Don't be fooled. Stop wasting public money on big, slow and ultimately wasteful projects just so energy companies can keep themselves alive.
Renewable + storage on the scale we need is not cheaper. And nuclear wont' be too late. Or we're already too late even for renewable at this point.
There is exactly one study that says nuclear is too costly, and it's very much propaganda because it ignores most of history of building nuclear power plant and it discards some important sources about the subject because they're deemed not objective enough, which is quite hilarious to read.
Horizon for going into production of a NPP is at least a decade, more likely two. By that time storage techniques and renewable prduction will be able to cope handsomely and at a lower price, so yes, too late. And yes we are much too late in reducing carbon output (output is still growing) and capturing greenhouse gasses is miles away from being relevant to cooling the planet.
Influx reduction is our best bet and it will have to happen quickly or this planet is going to be hard to live on.
Nuclear is not the future or even the present.
The mean time to build a nuclear power plant is 7 years. France was able to build 60 reactors in 30 years, some of which in 5 years. That's something that was done, that history proves we can do it, and we can probably do even better.
Meanwhile there isn't enough lithium production in the world to do the same for renewables.
Propaganda is only propaganda. When ecofasfists will start to actually fight for the climate rather than for their fantasies, everyone will win.
From plan to production is not 7 years, just the building itself. Especially not now that cooling capabilities are disappearing (many of those French installations had to reduce output significantly due to the heat wave this year.) This will mean it will cost much longer to get these installations okayed and their usefulness is further limited.
Calling me an ecofacist also means this is the end of the line of this "discusssion". Have fun in your alternate reality.
I'm not calling you an ecofascist. You put yourself in this category because you are so radically against nuclear I guess.
And you're denying facts. And making hypothesis about the future. The output reduction last year was exceptional, a combination of factors. It's as likely, if not less, as a Europe scale meteorological event that alter the output of solar and wind on the whole continent.