The New Atomic Age We Need • Hacker News Board

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#21

Post by incepted » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:55 PM UTC

squozzer wrote: post #6

Forgive my skepticism, but Mr. Thiel did not offer to live near a reactor. For someone with his obvious intelligence, his oversight could not have been accidental. Does he fear the radiation or the decline in property value? When a robber baron like Dale Carnegie wanted people to believe in his steel bridges, he staked his life and reputation and walked across the damned bridge. Another major risk not mentioned by Mr…

> Forgive my skepticism, but Mr. Thiel did not offer to live near a reactor.

Living next to a coal plant is even more dangerous than a nuclear plant, are you suggesting we should ban both plants based on these considerations?

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#22

Post by bjacobel » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:55 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #19

Why not simply outlaw nonrenewable energy sources over ten years or so? Problem solved. EDIT: Would someone care to point out why that is not an valid option? Lack of technological viability? Lack of energy storage technology or capacity? Ideological resentment against a political over an economical driving force for the change?

> simply

Browse the FEC website for contributions from oil & coal companies to 2016 candidates. That's why it won't be simple.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#23

Post by ommunist » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:58 PM UTC

Currently only France, US, and Russia can build reactors for energy, but these are using U or Pu in different flavours. This fuel is hard to get. China can't afford that kind of fuel in quanities it will need. This is why China backs breakthrough research in Th fission, delivered by Norway. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the future.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#24

Post by Zigurd » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 4:02 PM UTC

After reading this, I still have mixed feelings about nuclear. On the one hand, we have an overhang of old-tech nuclear power that is dangerously obsolete, poorly run, and insanely expensive to build, run, and clean up after.

On the other hand, new-tech nuclear looks very attractive. The argument gets circular, because new-tech nuclear is speculative. Lots of old-tech nuclear should get shut before we get another Fukushima. So despite the theoretical ability to scale up faster, does nuclear really have an advantage over renewables?

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#25

Post by ommunist » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 4:03 PM UTC

pilom wrote: post #13

T-A wrote: post #8

> We already know that today’s energy sources cannot sustain a future we want to live in. Is this really true? In Lazard's 2014 comparison of total cost per MWh, both wind and solar beat coal and nuclear [1]. Costs have fallen so much that it's becoming hard to justify continued subsidies [2]. [1] http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-ene... [2] http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/us-energy-…

The problem is scale. Here is a really good analysis of renewable resources in the UK: http://www.withouthotair.com/ Conclusion: The UK doesn't receive enough sunlight or have enough wind/waves/tidal pools/land to grow food, power cars (of any kind) and meet other energy needs. The UK can never get all of their energy carbon free without nuclear or importing power. The US is in a better place because of solar in the…

The UK relatively recently backed full cycle of Uranium fuel production in Kazakhstan. Tony Blair became personal advisor to Nazarbayev. And I ve heard, the UK is going to build new nuclear plants. Its supply is secured and the know how will be both French and USSR (Kazakhstan). Those interested can ask themselves, what Atomic Kitten was doing in Astana in 2010?

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#26

Post by Zigurd » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 4:05 PM UTC

cft wrote: post #3

I am afraid that the real goal of at least 50% of climate change activists is not clean energy, but the disruption of current elite and wealth redistribution by taxation vs value creation. It is because of these 50% the realistic proposals like Peter's will not fly politically.

Says the man taking a Straussian at face value.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#27

Post by wstrange » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 4:07 PM UTC

etaty wrote: post #16

I like how Thiel writes his sentences about safety, to avoid saying anything wrong. I invite him to spend the rest of his life in Chernobyl or Fukushima. Personally nuclear energy is dangerous because when it goes wrong the result is really bad. And the source of error is infinite, human, software, design, terrorists, war, civil plane, drone ...

Hydro Dams cause immense catastrophe when they fail. They have killed far more people than Nuclear power. According to Wikipedia, the failure of a single Dam in China caused:

26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless

All forms of power generation have risks and tradeoffs. We should use the best available science to evaluate those risks - not emotion and fear. The future of our planet depends on it.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#28

Post by danbruc » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 4:11 PM UTC

bjacobel wrote: post #22

danbruc wrote: post #19

Why not simply outlaw nonrenewable energy sources over ten years or so? Problem solved. EDIT: Would someone care to point out why that is not an valid option? Lack of technological viability? Lack of energy storage technology or capacity? Ideological resentment against a political over an economical driving force for the change?

> simply Browse the FEC website for contributions from oil & coal companies to 2016 candidates. That's why it won't be simple.

I am presupposing that you really want to get rid of fossil fuels. If the people making the decisions prefer to keep oil and coal in business for whatever reasons than the discussion is pretty pointless to begin with, no matter what alternative you are discussing.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#29

Post by lumberjack » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 4:11 PM UTC

Nuclear Fission is not a plug and play solution either. Unlike other possible solutions like a breakthrough in mass energy storage, we know that fission could satisfy our needs. But it will still require some 30 years of investment to figure out the new breed of reactors and where to source the fuel from.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#30

Post by legulere » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 4:12 PM UTC

Amorymeltzer wrote: post #4

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

The key problem in my mind is the failure of project management in building reactors. If they said it was going to take 2 years and 1 billion dollars and it stretched out to 3 years and $1.5 billion that is one thing. Back in the 1970s it was more like 2 years stretches to 9 years and $15 billion and you could blame union workers who never did nuclear work before, the no nukes, high interest rates, etc. The industry…

Absolutely, but don't discount the FUD. Much as people fear an airplane crash more than a car crash, the prospect of nuclear power is far more terrifying to most than just another coal plant. It's not enough that the coal plant is orders of magnitude more deadly, it's the perception. Even the image the NYT used will convey to many a disregard for life, pumping harmful radiation into our environment, rather than merel…

I think the big fear of nuclear power is because we don't know how to handle catastrophic risks.

With coal power you will have a few dead mine workers. It's only mine workers that are affected and they have a definite risk in front of their eyes. You can rise the worker protection regulations for making this safer. You have the problem of air pollution through fine particles and sulfur. You can solve this with filters. The CO2 Problem isn't caused by one coal plant alone, so that problem is ignored.

With nuclear on the other hand you have a history of failures that were tried to be covered up, while being told that nuclear is 100% safe. The failures were unforeseen and led to a few catastrophes we weren't prepared to handle. We're more scared of the things we don't know than of the things we do know. And then the effects were very far reaching. The area around Chernobyl still isn't habitable today, more than half of the boars caught in Bavaria still aren't deemed safe for consumption because of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl. Fukushima and Chernobyl had a huge effect on the people living around them and both were in relatively low populated areas, so effects at a catastrophe in a nuclear power plant more near to a big city would be far greater.

I'm not saying that nuclear power is creating more damage than coal power, I just want to show why people fear nuclear power more.