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

Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

geekwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 353 posts

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#291

Post by C_J_H »

stale2002 wrote: post #271
mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an idle plant near San Diego they've been wanting to open for a long time but the residents in surrounding areas fight it tooth and nail. For a changebof scenery, residents in Nagasaki are fighting an ongoing battle (losing but trying) to shut down the plant in the area. I have yet to hear of other cases but so far it seems people living in the vicinity of nuclear plants are not happy.

Ok, so what you are saying is that you would prefer to live next to a dirty coal power plant that is much more likely to cause you to get cancer or other horrible health effects?

I would say that's a false equivalency because coal operators (until recently) were profitable enterprises whereas nuclear lobbyists are generally concerned not just with public tolerance but public funding.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#292

Post by speleding »

pjc50 wrote: post #59

Three serious problems with nuclear, globally: - too slow. Break ground now and you'll be producing energy by 2030. - political instability. Hands up who supports the switch of Iran and Saudi Arabia to nuclear? It would reduce a lot of carbon emissions. Let's not overlook Ukraine either: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurenuclear-plants-i... - budget instability: Wylfa has stopped https://www.independent.co.…

> too slow. Break ground now and you'll be producing energy by 2030

Rosatom will sell you a floating power station for $300 million [0], you can tow it into place and connect it up. The regulatory approval will probably take you longer than getting it here.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#293

Post by DrJaws »

est31 wrote: post #56
noobermin wrote: post #30

I'm pro-nuclear fission (full disclosure, I work on fusion related research, but I don't care about who wins more than I want society to win), but I think talking to any random person in the public who are already skeptical about fusion, to them fission has not had a great track record. Make as many arguments you want to make about fukushima facing a natural disaster, w/e, and how the field has advanced since three-m…

I'm one of those fission sceptics. The main problems I have with fission isn't technological issues, it's human issues. E.g. in Fukushima, people were forced to move back into their homes, without giving them an option to get compensated instead. Furthermore, engineers pointed out that there were issues with the way Fukushima was built but their concerns were discarded. Human issue again. Fission plants should be bui…

It doesn't matter where the issue come if it's still an issue.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#294

Post by strainer »

roenxi wrote: post #240
strainer wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even while you dont include deaths involved in construction and ongoing security required by nuclear plants, those deaths-per-Wh-so-far figures do not represent risk, which is much more complicated. Its not possible to fully insure nuclear plants - because no company can take on board liability for disasters which nuclear is demonstrably capable of but fortunately have avoided to date, with considerable expense on sa…

> because no company can take on board liability for disasters which nuclear is demonstrably capable of but fortunately have avoided to date Recognising that this is a minor portion of a larger post - there are a lot of industrial companies that couldn't possibly cover the damage if something goes badly wrong (eg, explosives supplier flattens a major port, 3rd world mining accident, electrical utility causes wildfire…

> there are a lot of industrial companies that couldn't possibly cover the damage if something goes badly wrong (eg, explosives supplier flattens a major port, 3rd world mining accident, electrical utility causes wildfire, most mid-sized building companies if a skyscraper collapses, etc)

Of course this is why in developed countries they are required to buy insurance. Insurance companies exist which can take on extremely large liabilities for industry, the point is that Nuclear has never been able to afford the size of premiums which would make the full risk of its liabilities profitable to cover.

Fukushima was by no stretch an example of the worst nuclear event liable to occur. A bad accident or attack on any one of the worlds hundreds of nuclear plants CAN seriously irradiate many thousands, even millions of people in some locations, poison water tables and make land unlivable for decades - continuing harm to many creatures even if people are able to avoid it.

After each disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima we don't just have a new "rate of deaths so far" line to work with, that average line is a one dimensional extremely simplistic measurement. Scientists and engineers who have taken it and as a valid summary of hazard should really know better.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#295

Post by ackfoo »

What an idiotic discussion. Energy-efficient buildings can reduce our power demands by 85%. Then we can talk about which nuclear power plants to shut down, instead of arguing about whether we should build more.

The free market prioritizes cheap buildings and profit. One law that requires energy-efficiency for all new structures ends the argument.

No offence, but participating in the nuclear argument makes you a moron.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#296

Post by strainer »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #232
strainer wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even while you dont include deaths involved in construction and ongoing security required by nuclear plants, those deaths-per-Wh-so-far figures do not represent risk, which is much more complicated. Its not possible to fully insure nuclear plants - because no company can take on board liability for disasters which nuclear is demonstrably capable of but fortunately have avoided to date, with considerable expense on sa…

> if "it'll never happen" (because it can't or hasn't happened) is true, then insurance actuaries could establish that and there would be no problem with insuring Calculating an actuarial probability was never the problem. You can't know the lower bound on the probability of something that has never actually happened, but you can calculate an upper bound based on the period of time it hasn't happened, which is all yo…

The annual revenue alone of the worlds ten largest insurance companies is about 20 thousand billion USD [1]. This sector is prepared to cover larger risks than most governments - for a somewhat competitive profitable amount.

> Calculating an actuarial probability was never the problem.

Of course is wasn't - revealing and paying the resultant premiums is the problem, which is why governments make alternative arrangements for nuclear.

[1] - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-insurance-compan...

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#298

Post by darkerside »

ip26 wrote: post #218
darkerside wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps we're trading one devil for another, but the devil we know is not sustainable Trading the devil you know for the one you don't is wisely considered a bad idea

See, this is why we shouldn't have banned trans fats. Sure they were killing people, and sure we knew it, but the devil you know ...

The substitute for trans fats was returning to butter and other natural fats, which we originally left because we thought they were so bad for us that products like margarine must certainly be better!

Thanks for making my point.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#299

Post by marcosdumay »

darkerside wrote: post #195
marcosdumay wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That certainly depends on how devilish are the one you know and a random one. Any advice on that level of generality is useless and better trashed.

The whole point is, you don't know how devilish the random one is. As bad as global warming will be, we know the risks and we can prepare for them. Whether we'll actually do that is another matter..

Getting concrete now, specifically about nuclear power, we know exactly how bad it can be. We have a very large amount of certainty about how the worst case looks like, we know very well how to prepare for some of it, and we know very well what to do to avoid the rest of it. We know those to a much higher certainty than we know the consequences of global warming. It's not a blind choice.

The only thing we don't know well is how much improvement current technology brings. We have an idea, but there are probably flaws on our estimative.

I don't think nuclear will help, mostly because it's too late. But basing decisions on ignorance is crazy.

Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push

#300

Post by Tsubasachan »

Every once in a while the idea to build a nuclear powerplant comes up. Then the accountants start working out how much it will cost, everyone understand that you need to multiply that number by a factor of 2, and wisely nothing happens.

Most countries actually don't even have the expertise to manage a nuclear industry anymore.

Post reply on HN