The Breakthrough Journal
thebreakthrough.org · Group blog · on HN since 2009
The Breakthrough Journal, from the Breakthrough Institute, publishes essays on energy, nuclear power, agriculture, and technology's effect on the environment.
What HN saysCommenters cite it for data on nuclear construction costs and for pro-technology environmental arguments about land use and energy intensity.
74HN people shared it
38linked it in comments
49stories submitted
451story points
5 months agolast shared
2009people per year2026
Most-shared posts
- 1Livestock dont contribute 14 5 of global greenhouse gas emissions6 people · first shared 2023
- 2The Return of Nature: How Technology Liberates the Environment4 people · 76 points · first shared 2015 · 17 comments on HN
- 3Chinas impressive rate of nuclear construction4 people · first shared 2025
- 4More nuclear energy means less mining2 people · 50 points · first shared 2024 · 93 comments on HN
- 5CA is closing down its last nuclear plant with no plan for alternatives ready2 people · 16 points · first shared 2021 · 2 comments on HN
- 6Achieving Peak Pasture2 people · 14 points · first shared 2019 · 3 comments on HN
- 7The True Face of the Anti-Nuclear Movement2 people · 11 points · first shared 2021 · 4 comments on HN
- 8The Passion of Alvin Weinberg: the man behind China's thorium push2 people · 7 points · first shared 2014 · discussion on HN
- 9Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors2 people · first shared 2021
- 10Ammonia Is the Everest Base Camp for Clean Energy1 people · 68 points · first shared 2016 · 24 comments on HN
- 11Nuclear Energy Is Climate Justice1 people · 60 points · first shared 2020 · 44 comments on HN
- 12On the Nature of Wine1 people · 57 points · first shared 2018 · 36 comments on HN
- 13How human mobility has changed over time, distance and energy use1 people · 35 points · first shared 2014 · 6 comments on HN
- 14The Left vs. the Climate1 people · 5 points · first shared 2014 · discussion on HN
- 15We Need Both Nuclear and Renewables to Protect the Climate1 people · 4 points · first shared 2020 · 2 comments on HN
What HN people wrote when they linked it
martythemaniak · 2018-08-16
The numbers are increasing, but leveling off. High fertility rates only exist in a few regions of the world (Africa, South Asia) and even there they are falling rapidly.
The "solution" broadly speaking is higher intensity - of energy, land, everything. If you have compact energy sources (nuclear) powering compact food production (high-yield agriculture, some vertical farming) feeding people living in compact cities (higher density, more ridesharing), then it's doable. You can already see lots of signs of this in the developed countries.
This will still require lots of adjustment from people, but asking them to live in duplexes, share rides and eat less meat is much more doable than asking them no you know, not exist.
The Breakthrough does lots of great research on this topic: https://thebreakthrough.org/
trashtester · 2022-05-22
From what I've been reading lately, South Korea is currently the country with the best expertise in building cost-efficient nuclear plants. Maybe Finland should switch vendor.
[1]. https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction-costs-of-…
hodgesrm · 2015-12-12
That's a great point. Harry Saunders et al. showed this effect clearly a few years ago with their work on economics of lighting. The thing that screws up green economics is the indirect energy that goes into products like efficient LEDs. [1]
(Which I installed in abundance in my house, incidentally. It decreased our electric bills as theory predicted but we also bought more lights and replaced a number of switches and transformers.)
[1] http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/why_energy_efficiency_does_not
markmassie · 2014-09-24
It's great that you take such a pragmatic approach!
I recommend this article [0] by Mark Lynas [1] that explains the arguments that convinced him to go from a vocal anti-GMO activist to, what he calls, a pro-science environmentalist. (I think the hip term now is "eco-modernist"). From the article:
What happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.
[0] http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-develop…
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas
pas · 2023-12-28
On nuclear construction cost increases, from Crowley and Griffith 1982, “US construction cost rise threatens nuclear option” (via @whatisnuclear):
""" Ironically, some of the decisions that have been made in the name of improving safety margins for low probability events, may have reduced the safety margins for high probability events. The UE&C piping study uncovered numerous areas where the tolerances requested in the piping design documents might be appropriate for a machine shop oriented manufacturing operation, but are totally unrealistic for field construction. """
via https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15
The whole quote is worth reading/skimming.
More importantly this zero risk approach has to be considered relative to all the other risks arising from building other types of power plants.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
(and of course a bit more on the problems with the process at the NRC https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regulatory-com… )
mpweiher · 2026-06-18
While Wyoming is a demonstration plant, it is a demonstration plant of exactly the reactor they plan to build in series.
And they have received NRC approval.
https://thebreakthrough.org/press/release-the-nrc-issues-construction-…
So not sure what additional regulatory hurdles you see. Can you enlighten us?
shadow28 · 2026-05-07
Yep, it's a low sulfur, lower volatility gasoline blend (https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/how-california-regulated-its… which apparently cuts harmful exhaust emissions like carbon monoxide and NOx.
troupo · 2026-03-10
Oh yes. That too. It's one problem after another in quite a few countries: ignore/neglect, make processes, regulations and subsidies opaque, all of this leads to huge construction times and corruption, declare nuclear non-viable.
China: "Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less." [1] Building over 40 reactors since 2005
[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-rate-of-nu…
solarengineer · 2025-12-12
I am a small-time investor in renewable energy businesses, but I am also a believer in nuclear energy.
Consider a city like Mumbai that needs about 3.8 GW per day. One would need lots of windmills and large solar farms that would need to be positioned in a different state having more sunlight throughout the year. Mumbai often experiences cloudy weather and intermittent wind. I cannot imagine only wind and solar supporting the needs of Mumbai.
There are countries other than the US who do not take 20 years to build a reactor. Out-dated regulations, punitive paperwork, and perhaps poor project management are the reasons for the oft-cited delays in the US. Other countries complete their builds in 6 to 7 years. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-rate-of-nu…
curtisf · 2025-12-12
Livestock emits between 10% to 20% of global greenhouse gases (in carbon equivalent/100y-GWP) [1]
In contrast, all data centers (not just AI) currently use less than 1.5% of all electricity, making up less than 0.3% of global emissions [2]. Although recent increases in data center electricity usage is lamentable, even in the short term future, much of this can and more importantly _will_ be low-carbon energy, and the ratio should continue to improve with time.
A 1% reduction in livestock emissions is therefore about the same as a 50% reduction in data center emissions.
[1]: https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livest…
[2]: https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/understanding-the-carbon-footpr…
wizzwizz4 · 2025-12-06
Those both require cattle farming, which is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (at least 10%, perhaps as high as 19.6%, per https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livest… Stick with papyrus or wax, please.
mellosouls · 2025-11-18
Press release:
Los Alamos National Laboratory and Valar Atomics Announce Project NOVA Criticality Milestone in Nevada
https://www.valaratomics.com/docs/Project-Nova
Non-paywall coverage:
https://thebreakthrough.org/press/valar-atomics-achieves-first-critica…
Ps. More Tolkien company names...
yawaramin · 2025-11-17
> If you can find someone unsophisticated to invest in a fission reactor that takes billions of dollars and 10-15 years to build
Unsophisticated investors like the Chinese government? 'Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less.'
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-rate-of-nu…
toomuchtodo · 2025-10-07
Because the land cost and amount needed is immaterial. Solar and wind actually contribute to the tax base where it is colocated, tax revenue that would otherwise not be provided (depending on jurisdiction). People overvalue land for some reason, most of the world is not Manhattan or Hong Kong. The US farms 60 million acres for corn and soybean for biofuels alone, for example, and of course that land is much more efficiently used if solar PV is installed for energy.
https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-land-power-us-solar/
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/10/solar-panels-half-the-world-ro…
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/is-uti…
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/california-first-canal-arra…
specialist · 2025-04-29
Soil science continues to march forward. Noob me trusts we'll invent ways to mitigate metals and metalloids (and toxins in general).
It could prove to be as easy as novel fertilizers and soil amendments.
Much like how Zeke Hausfather is researching how to leverage agriculture to accelerate carbon capture.
"What's the deal with enhanced rock weathering to store CO2?" [2025-02-07]
https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-enhanced-rock
https://thebreakthrough.org/people/zeke-hausfather
Surely there's (economical) ways to neutralize toxins in place. Storing them in compounds which are no longer bio-available.
IIRC the term of art is bio-remediation.
slaw · 2025-03-28
China, India and Korea can build nuclear power plants without delays and cost overruns.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-rate-of-nu…
shlant · 2025-03-20
> I don't see what's unsustainable about it
You think 11-20% of GHG emissions[1] coming from livestock and the insanely high water footprint of meat[2] is sustainable?
[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livest…
[2] https://waterfootprint.org/resources/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalPr…
kasperni · 2024-07-01
Livestock accounts for somewhere between 10-20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That is roughly in the same order as emission from transport.
[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livest…
Timon3 · 2023-09-11
Studies seem to indicate that the cattle industry produces somewhere between 11% and 17% of global greenhouse emissions: https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livest…
How do you get from that to less than 0.1%?
pdonis · 2023-07-19
Worldwide, ten to twenty times as many deaths are caused by excessive cold as are caused by excessive heat.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-co…
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat…
fsflover · 2023-06-15
ntonozzi · 2023-04-03
Nuclear waste from power plants is not a legitimate issue: https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/the-boring-truth-about-nucle… https://zionlights.substack.com/p/everything-i-believed-about-waste-wa…
mistrial9 · 2023-03-08
background on political action in the USA and elsewhere
https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/the-death-of-environmentalism
brutusborn · 2022-02-10
I think you're mistaken about the government involvement in fracking. Sure, the basic technique may have been developed by private companies, but government supported research expanded it to oil and gas applications.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/us-government-role-in-shale-…
sien · 2021-11-02
South Korea had reducing nuclear construction costs.
https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction-costs-of-…
estreeper · 2020-09-24
Manure and synthetic fertilizer both have similarly severe, but somewhat different, environmental impacts. Synthetic fertilizer requires large amounts of energy to produce, but manure generally needs to be applied much more inefficiently to achieve the same effect because of its relatively low nitrogen content and the inability to control its release. It also has transportation issues [1].
However, these types of impacts are trivial in comparison to the 1.9% energy efficiency for beef. Regardless of the fertilizer used, we would use just under 1/50th of it if we consumed the plants directly, along with the same savings in land and water.
[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/to-cut-nitrogen-pollution-move-pa…
aaron695 · 2020-04-21
This is crap, it's extensive farming that's the problem.
How could you think a 'factory' where all variable are measured and industrialised is worse than small hold farmers who run animals over large areas mixed with wildlife?
Could you image small hold farmers being able to do random testing at appropriate intervals compared to a factory with $100 million on the line.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food/zoonosis
mikeyouse · 2019-03-11
Looks like they changed the link along the way:
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food/vertical-farms-raise-yields-bu…
wruza · 2017-09-18
Most is not a number.
Upd: for more specific details:
https://thebreakthrough.org/generation_archive/effectiveness_of_cctv_s…
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2011.650481
Just few of dozens with proper citation and research, for those who need it.
This one is for UK known as very serious in police regard, afaik: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39183003
And finally, this one is world-wide. Scrolling through 2016 on mobile may be pretty enlightening or frightening, depending on your views: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thwarted_Islamist_terrorist_at…
dreamcompiler · 2017-08-14
> Grid-scale battery banks, that's something you would think was perfected back in the fifties or so.
Until very recently (and maybe even now) the electric utilities spent less on R&D than the dog food industry [0]. Because they didn't need to. There was virtually no need for storage before PV became cheap and fossil fuel became expensive and the regulated monopolies had to start thinking about competition from renewables. Although most of them still haven't recognized this.
[0] https://thebreakthrough.org/archive/dog_food_beats_energy