1M views · Apr 9, 2022 · 22:47 · 2 HN recommenders · 6 mentions · discussed 2022
Sabine Hossenfelder weighs the arguments for and against nuclear power, covering waste, fuel supply and newer reactor designs. She is skeptical that fast breeders and thorium solve the problems.
Why Hacker News points people here: Cited in nuclear energy debates, especially for uranium supply limits and why new reactor types fall short of claims.
“It's quite well researched”HN comment, 2022
“Sabine Hossenfelder explains it very well”
Explains why new reactor types fall short of proponents' claims.
I was curious about new types of nuclear reactors. But, it turns out they still can't deliver what nuclear proponents claim. Sabine Hossenfelder explains it very well: this video
“It's quite well researched”
Well-researched look at why nuclear is not simple free energy.
I would recommend that you watch this video: this video It's quite well researched, and for someone who was also wondering why there is European aversion towards nuclear power, it showed me that it's not that simple. Nuclear power is quite inconvenient and not as magical "free energy" as it seems.
“Sabine Hossenfelder references studies in which we have enough Uranium for 50 years max.”
Cites studies on how long uranium fuel will last.
How long will the fuel last? Sabine Hossenfelder references studies in which we have enough Uranium for 50 years max. 6:08 here: this video
“She address fast-breeders and thorium in the same video”
Covers fast-breeders and thorium as too complex and expensive.
She address fast-breeders and thorium in the same video: this video (concluding that they are too complex and expensive)
“Sabine Hossenfelder's explanation”
Offered as an explanation of nuclear fuel limits.
link Or Sabine Hossenfelder's explanation this video Current reactors use U235 which is less than 1% of all Uranium on the planet. Don't know about reactors that use other uranium isotopes, but if after 70 years they are still at the design stage, it kind of makes my point. It's just too late to turn that around. The article just overlooks this fundamental problem.
“Nuclear is not sustainable because there isn't enough uranium available to extract”
Cited to argue uranium supply is too limited for sustainability.
You said infinitely! I never used sustainability that way. Nuclear is not sustainable because there isn't enough uranium available to extract, certainly not in an environmentally friendly way, in order to meet an expanded demand for more than a few decades this video There is, however, more than enough minerals available to make machines that, once built, will continue to produce and store emission free power for their lifetimes. They are being increasingly made out of recyclable materials and there is other research into lowering their footprint further. In other words, actually sustainable - as in for thousands of years. Renewables aren't there yet, but they will be sooner if a fraction of the cost of new nuclear plants is diverted to the very promising R&D that already exists. Nuclear doesn't have nearly the same interest or rate of advancement into mitigating the serious environmental problems associated with producing and disposing of fuel, something your sources don't consider at all. You write like you've just discovered the life cycle 'true cost' of renewables while holding the unrevealed wisdom that nuclear isn't that dangerous. These things are obvious to anyone who follows this, people who would never make the mistake of calling nuclear sustainable. And I used to be a proponent of nuclear until around 6 months ago when I learned that there aren't enough resources available, and that nuclear won't be able to ramp up in time to lower the atmospheric carbon level increas
