Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New Atomic Age We Need

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 211 posts

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#91

Post by hackaflocka »

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…

You are going to be downvoted.

Silicon Valley billionaire-nerd-emperors don't like to be informed about their absence of clothes.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#92

Post by ommunist »

bro-stick wrote: post #36

Thiel skips the fact that Chernobyl is uninhabitable for thousands of years (save bloggers on motorcycles), all of the dispossessed persons and extra 40k+ cancer deaths. Plus Fukashima. Big PWR/BWR reactors will always be too inherently dangerous because of high pressures and too expensive to build, regulate and insure (in the US, without insurance and NRC approval, there is no project). And the risks of dual-purpose…

Bro, I worked in Gomel for 4 years and spent 2 field seasons in 'Chernobyl radioactive wasteland'. Relax, life is ok there. Just do not eat local apple seeds in the 80+ Ci/sq km zone. Pulp for cider is OK.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#93

Post by ori_b »

mohawk wrote: post #71
pilom wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That analysis uses solar panels with 10% efficiency in its calculations...

10% efficiency is about right for low cost solar cells that have been out in open air for a while. 20% is about right for affordable single crystal cells, and the theoretical maximum efficiency for silicon is 33%.

Getting significantly better than 10% is very expensive. Getting beyond about 25% is currently well beyond feasible for large scale power generation.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#94

Post by oldmanjay »

legulere wrote: post #30
Amorymeltzer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 filter…

is this meant to be performance art where you demonstrate how easy it is to appear to know something but really know less than nothing? literally your entire post is devoid of facts and reason.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#95

Post by jejones3141 »

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…

I didn't know the author of _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ was a robber baron.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#96

Post by ommunist »

chillingeffect wrote: post #67
incepted wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

yes. Go solar and wind. England can trade something for clean energy.

you mean 'financial services', right?

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#97

Post by jessaustin »

ommunist wrote: post #47
selimthegrim wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened to it during the earthquake?

This http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20040168716 . Upd: Oleg died. His son has the know how. Armenian reactor was destroyed during the civil war. See also this http://www.padrak.com/vesperman/HMD_Presentation.ppt

For some reason this reminded me of Anton and Ivan Vanko. Hopefully Tony Stark will stop fomenting regional conflict and just let Ivan get to work. b^)

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#98

Post by merpnderp »

pdonis wrote: post #74
jpdus wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! In my opinion Thiel does not think far enough and doesn't talk about the real question: Is fission even (economically) competitive? In my opinion (and from what I've read on this subject), it is not and won't be in the foreseeable future. I will quote myself [1]: >People always forget about indirect costs when talking about cheap nuclear energy (risk factors aside). Nobody has ever built a profitable nuclear po…

> Is fission even (economically) competitive? Remember that he's talking about a new generation of reactor designs. Also remember that a key driver of the high cost of nuclear energy is lawsuits based on irrational overestimates of the risk of nuclear energy compared to other energy sources. Coal has killed orders of magnitude more people than nuclear, yet nobody ever brings a NIMBY lawsuit to prevent a coal plant fr…

This times one hundred. Nuclear in the West is far more expensive than places like China and Vietnam not because western plants are better or safer but because they face incredible legal and regulatory hurdles designed to appease people's irrational fears.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#99

Post by jessaustin »

vertak wrote: post #90
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 ...

0 people have died in the US as a result nuclear power. Chernobyl failed because its operators turned off the emergency failsafe system in order to do a test of the reactor, which was also botched. Look up the Linear no-threshold model of radiation. There's no statistically significant evidence that radiation exposure of even 1000 millirem (average US dosage is 360 millrem, and 2/3rds of that is from natural radiatio…

0 people have died in the US as a result [sic] nuclear power.

I counter this statement of vast ignorance with a single example who represents many more: my grandfather. The EEOICPA seems to think that he and thousands of others died as a result of it. It's really interesting to juxtapose this smug indifference to cumulative millennia of life lost with the statistical straws grasped at in order to impute some deaths to coal power. It's almost as if no argument is too ridiculous to excavate from an orifice in the service of nuclear power.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#100

Post by Retric »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #78
Retric wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BS, solar is not great in the UK, but your comparing electric generation at 2009 efficiency levels with powering cars, heating using resistance heating etc. (Heat pumps break 100% nominal efficiency by extracting heat from outside air.) It's also perfectly reasonable for the UK to continue to import significant amounts of energy in one form or another and or increase efficiency levels. EX: We can manufacture 40+% eff…

> PS: Photovoltaic panels with 20% efficiency are already close to the theoretical limit (see this chapter’s endnotes Current, world record for concentrated solar is 46%. They are likely referring to the theoretical limit for crystalline silicon based cells (~30% IIRC). This is due to silicon's particular band gap. The record is held by multi-junction cells, which don't suffer from this limitation (which is part of t…

I don't think you need to be overly generous when they suggest the UK needs to be both 100% energy independent and 100% free from fossil fuels, and grow 100% of it's food locally, when the UK imports ~35% of it's electricity in 2013 and ~40% of it's food (1). Let alone fossil fuels. And if we can't meet those goals we need to do X.

1: In 2010, the UK produced 73% of ‘indigenous-type foods’, and is about 60% self-sufficient when exports and local consumption are set against production http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/food/uk-facts.html

Post reply on HN