Hacker News Reader

Comment by SllX | Hacker News Reader

If we ran the entire world off of nuclear reactors, we could increase the energy we used and still not worry about exhausting the amount of uranium available to us. Proliferation would be a concern though.

That said, why would we run the entire world on nuclear, or go for a nuclear-only strategy when we also have solar and wind and geothermal and hydroelectric? For that matter, why should we exclude nuclear from the energy mix available to us?

Different sources of power have different properties with different tradeoffs, but if you can cover your bases with multiple types, why wouldn’t you?

View on HN

Hydro is actually not a particularly good choice in most cases. Some hydro installations can actually produce just as much global warming impact as a fossil fuel plant (largely methane produced in the flooded area - which has a far greater impact than CO2; about 80X greater). They also have significant ecological impact that isn't usually accounted for in folks mental models. [1, 2] Hydro isn't really green energy.

Geothermal I think only works in some places without causing earthquakes. [3]

Wind and solar are good, though.

[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/hundreds-new-dams-co...

[2] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/hydropower-emissions-fossil...

[3] https://news.stanford.edu/2019/05/23/lessons-south-korea-sol...

The massive advantage of hydro is that it also serves as energy storage. Too much wind today? Just use the excess electricity to pump water back up

From a Californian perspective, hydro and geothermal are basically tapped as far as I know, in-State anyway. The plants that are operational already is about the extent of what we can probably build.

Actually something of a dream of mine is to see nuclear reactors eventually replace some of our dams, maybe restore some of the lakes and tributaries that have been lost, but presently new reactor construction is prohibited here per a ballot initiative from before I was born.

My larger point is that society is going to continue to demand increased electricity generation, which means new plants and installations. It’s one thing to want to replace existing installations but if you’re going to service future demand, then new sources of multiple types have to remain on the table. I would take nuclear over gas-fired plants, but I would take gas-fired plants over coal-fired plants.

> From a Californian perspective, hydro and geothermal are basically tapped as far as I know

For what I understand, the California State Water Project as visioned in the 1960s, had Stage I and Stage II. Only Stage I was built. Then from the 1980s onward, there was political opposition and Phase II was never started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project...

True, but the Klamath River is in the grand scheme of things a fairly minor watershed in California. Some room for growth, but effectively tapped out as far as the major watersheds in the State go. We have just a lot of dams and we’re still importing more and more of our energy from other States as we make it harder to build plants here.

> Proliferation would be a concern though.

https://whatisnuclear.com/non-proliferation.html

Non-proliferation as a movement is only as strong a movement as nuclear-equipped nations are willing to enforce it. I’m not willing to hold up deploying reactors in the US over it, but proliferation is a legitimate concern.

I'm more concerned about global warming personally...

Really, this week? With nuclear war looming over us all?

Also lets put things in perspective, Global Warming means future generations will need to adapt to new weather patterns. Some animal and plant species will become extinct, others may thrive.

Nuclear war will end civilization and make many parts of the world completely uninhabitable.

> Really, this week? With nuclear war looming over us all?

Nuclear war has been looming over us all since 1949, this week is no different than last week or 10 years ago.

There is nothing we can do if Putin decides to push the button. The world as we know it ends at that point because the USA won't hesitate to answer with our own nukes, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't worry about things that I could never have any control over. I am worried about global warming per this conversation about energy sources that won't destroy human civilization via natural disasters.

I thought we were talking about proliferation of nuclear technology, and we _do_ have control over that.

What happens when every country has nuclear weapons at the ready and dictators in power? Pretty sure global warming (Climate change) won't be as disastrous as a nuclear winter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com