Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aachen | Hacker News Reader

The crisis doesn't abate because people haven't implemented any solution. The topic remains relevant because the future will still be worse if we don't implement sufficient changes, as compared to living with the changes from ~today onwards. That's my understanding anyway

View on HN

I believe the government had one “Oh shit!” card where they could require dramatic changes for the good of the people and they used it on Covid. I cannot see the general populations accepting the changes needed for climate change.

(I’m cynical of peoples behaviours but do know climate change is real)

The "general population" didn't accept "dramatic changes" for COVID, either. Except in places like China where the government has far more power than democratic republics. And even in those places there was pushback.

The government has never had an "Oh shit!" card, except in scifi movies. It has always had to make a sales pitch for population buy-in. And it did a crap selling job during COVID because of polarized media companies and fractured government.

Literally billions have been, and are being, spent on electrification. Solar, wind etc have had a ridiculous amount of investment.

Yet the one technology that could actually solve this problem (nuclear energy) is off the table for some reason. We have unlimited clean energy at our fingertips. But instead of discussing it as a solution we’d rather resort to doom and gloom emergency language.

How does nuclear energy solve your problem when a huge faction of the US population says you can pry their ICE vehicles out of their cold, dead hands?

Also, when you do the full analysis, we only need a 10% bump in generation to accommodate every single US household have 2 EVs - and that's if they don't shift to charging at night and insist on charging during the day during peak load.

Add in the fact that the average US household can produce 50% of their power using solar power and you realize there's no need for any bump-out of generation at all.

Why promote nuclear with all of its attendant complications when you don't need to?

We've spent a lot on nuclear and it's still too expensive for all but the largest countries to afford. We've spent a lot on wind and solar and every country can afford them.

Solar and Wind are now much cheaper than nuclear has ever been.

Germany has been adding 1GW of PV every month in 2023. That's one typical, large nuclear every month.

While I don't see nuclear energy as the folly I used to, I don't think it's the answer either.

Solar and wind are great, we should continue to build that stuff. But also "have ever been" is the key part of your message. The cost of nuclear is based on technology from the 1960's. There have been no new reactor designs since then. New reactor designs could be built and operated at a fraction of the cost of old designs and would be many times safer as well.

Nuclear power is great, on paper, but in the real world humans have demonstrated over and over again that they cannot be trusted to a) Build it on time b) On budget c) Without corruption, skimping on materials, or taking shortcuts d) Regulate it properly e) Hold those involved accountable f) Design and implement a robust plan to store the resulting waste in a responsible manner

Just look at the medical isotope shortages that have occurred. As a species we can't even see the need to have redundant sources of life saving materials that can only be produced in specialized reactors. What if something happens to them unexpectedly or they need maintenance? Shrug... is the answer we get.

Despite billions in subsidies, nuclear reactors have not become much cheaper to operate in the last 40 years. They have become safer and more efficient, sure. But not cheaper.

Compare what PV has been able to achieve with way less subsidies and it becomes clear that nuclear - from a cost perspective - is a dead end.

So tell me why China and India aren't installing more nuclear power plants than they currently do.

In the US electricity production accounts for ~25% of greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear may be able to help with some of the other ~75% as well, but certainly not nearly all of it. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

You're talking to the wrong person. I'm not spreading doom and gloom while leaving a good option off the table, as you put it

Fair enough, I'm just generally frustrated at the doom and gloom. I don't think putting everyone into a constant state of panic is the right approach at all, we need to be inspired to build and be creative, not fearful and depressed that the world is going to end.

Yeah, it's also not the feeling I'm seeking to convey. More just to convince that, "eh, wake up y'all, we have something important to do". If there's something concrete I can/should change in my wording, feel free to propose

Reply on news.ycombinator.com