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

Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 130 posts

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#71

Post by nickik »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #68
clarkmoody wrote: post #26

Nuclear power presents the perfect storm for negative public image: - Environmental movement went anti-nuclear in the '70s for no particular reason. - Fear Sells in the media. Nothing strikes fear like the invisible killer of radiation. Nuclear disasters get media attention like nothing else. - Nuclear weapons are scary, and rightfully so. And they share a word in common with "nuclear power," so there you go. Being t…

> Environmental movement went anti-nuclear in the '70s for no particular reason. NO particular reason? > Nothing strikes fear like the invisible killer of radiation. Nuclear disasters get media attention like nothing else. Other than that, maybe.

People wildly overestimate how dangerous radiation is and how dangerous civilian nuclear power is.

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#72

Post by [deleted] »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #32
clarkmoody wrote: post #26

Nuclear power presents the perfect storm for negative public image: - Environmental movement went anti-nuclear in the '70s for no particular reason. - Fear Sells in the media. Nothing strikes fear like the invisible killer of radiation. Nuclear disasters get media attention like nothing else. - Nuclear weapons are scary, and rightfully so. And they share a word in common with "nuclear power," so there you go. Being t…

> for no particular reason I don't think that's quite accurate. It may be more accurate to say they were misinformed or miscalculated. The reasons were that they believed, and many people still do, that nuclear was bad for the environment because: 1) It required mining to extract the resources necessary, and mining isn't exactly a green activity. 2) Nuclear disasters are unquestionably bad for the environment, and ba…

[deleted]

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#73

Post by AnthonyMouse »

chelical wrote: post #70
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also chose Australia on purpose, because the energy market there is pretty messed up and the result is high energy prices, i.e. higher profits than the same system would see somewhere else. For battery storage to be cost effective in general it has to be quite a bit cheaper than it currently is. The cost has been declining, but people who expect exponential curves to continue forever are generally disappointed.…

To be fair, nuclear power plants can also take a decade or more to build.

> To be fair, nuclear power plants can also take a decade or more to build.

That's kind of the point. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

And even if batteries become cost effective in a decade or more, that's when people start installing them at scale. It's not as if you could replace the entire grid with them overnight either.

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#74

Post by pjc50 »

clarkmoody wrote: post #26

Nuclear power presents the perfect storm for negative public image: - Environmental movement went anti-nuclear in the '70s for no particular reason. - Fear Sells in the media. Nothing strikes fear like the invisible killer of radiation. Nuclear disasters get media attention like nothing else. - Nuclear weapons are scary, and rightfully so. And they share a word in common with "nuclear power," so there you go. Being t…

The environmental movement went anti-nuclear over two very real things: the dumping of waste at sea, and nuclear testing - both because of the threat and the waste products ending up in the atmosphere. This was the era of direct action, culminating in the French government carrying out a state-sponsored terrorist attack that sunk the Rainbow Warrior and killed a photographer who was on board.

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#75

Post by ekimekim »

bilbo0s wrote: post #50
nickelcitymario wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't disagree with anything you said here, however: > and they have the old coal plants to fill in the gaps ...this is the problem with solar and most renewables. They have gaps. The question, it seems to me, is are we in a fight for the survival of our species, or not? If we are, then we should pull all the stops. I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to have a liveable planet. I'll pay the bloody premium…

> If we are, then we should pull all the stops... But is coal not one of the stops? I guess you should help me understand. Why should we use nuclear instead of coal to fill the gaps? They both pollute. With wind providing the lion's share of the energy, the use of coal is drawn down considerably in any case. And coal is far less expensive than nuclear, even with the onerous regulations that have been slapped on it re…

> They both pollute.

In this "pulling out all the stops" scenario to stop climate change, only one of them pollute in ways that matter.

Unless you mean the CO2 emissions resulting from construction, etc. I admittedly don't know the numbers there, and I'd imagine a nuclear plant uses a LOT of concrete - but it's also very long lived, which means it should amortize and come out ahead of coal which produces CO2 in operation even if it produces more upfront.

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#76

Post by Qwertystop »

bilbo0s wrote: post #50
nickelcitymario wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't disagree with anything you said here, however: > and they have the old coal plants to fill in the gaps ...this is the problem with solar and most renewables. They have gaps. The question, it seems to me, is are we in a fight for the survival of our species, or not? If we are, then we should pull all the stops. I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to have a liveable planet. I'll pay the bloody premium…

> If we are, then we should pull all the stops... But is coal not one of the stops? I guess you should help me understand. Why should we use nuclear instead of coal to fill the gaps? They both pollute. With wind providing the lion's share of the energy, the use of coal is drawn down considerably in any case. And coal is far less expensive than nuclear, even with the onerous regulations that have been slapped on it re…

To my understanding, while nuclear and coal do both pollute, nuclear pollutes in a less environmentally harmful and more containable way - pollutants that stay in boxes instead of going up in smoke.

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#77

Post by nickelcitymario »

ekimekim wrote: post #75
bilbo0s wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we are, then we should pull all the stops... But is coal not one of the stops? I guess you should help me understand. Why should we use nuclear instead of coal to fill the gaps? They both pollute. With wind providing the lion's share of the energy, the use of coal is drawn down considerably in any case. And coal is far less expensive than nuclear, even with the onerous regulations that have been slapped on it re…

> They both pollute. In this "pulling out all the stops" scenario to stop climate change, only one of them pollute in ways that matter. Unless you mean the CO2 emissions resulting from construction, etc. I admittedly don't know the numbers there, and I'd imagine a nuclear plant uses a LOT of concrete - but it's also very long lived, which means it should amortize and come out ahead of coal which produces CO2 in opera…

^this. This was going to be my response.

All energy production creates pollution in construction. Nuclear is the only source I know of that can produce consistent and reliable energy without creating any emissions from operation.

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#78

Post by wnewman »

clarkmoody wrote: post #26

Nuclear power presents the perfect storm for negative public image: - Environmental movement went anti-nuclear in the '70s for no particular reason. - Fear Sells in the media. Nothing strikes fear like the invisible killer of radiation. Nuclear disasters get media attention like nothing else. - Nuclear weapons are scary, and rightfully so. And they share a word in common with "nuclear power," so there you go. Being t…

"For no particular reason" may not be quite right. One candidate for a particular reason is the same grouchiness about orthodox[] technology that shows up in many double standards. E.g., chemicals that fail the Ames Test are alarmingly sinister if they are synthetic pesticides, vs. so perfectly fine that only a pedant would ever consider the issue if they are pesticidal toxins present at elevated levels in pest-resistant breeds of crops. Any given number of people killed in a coal mine or nuclear accident is a very big deal compared to the same number killed by bacterial infection related to organic farming. Low-tech paintlike or gluelike goo and gunk is not generally subject to witch hunt standards for sinister toxicity when used to caulk or paint charming fishing boats, but is fair game when used in fracking a formation which contains oil. Microquakes are so irrelevant that only a pedant would ask about them when the facility in question is geothermal, but scary as hell for an oil fracking facility. Bird kills are absolutely intolerable ecological atrocities for oil spills, irrelevant pedantry for wind farms.

[] I don't know a word for the distinction I'm trying to get at here with "orthodox". I mean the way that various important technological niches seem to get a pass: e.g. optics (eyeglasses, cameras), and selective breeding of crop species. It's hard for me to imagine persistent enthusiasm for rumors that eyeglasses cause brain cancer in the way that rumors about low-intensity low-frequency EM radiation (from power lines to cell phones) persist. The distinction seems to be roughly "stuff descended from the early Industrial Revolution, the Scottish Enlightenment, and/or sufficiently hardcore scientific method that the Royal Society would be respectfully impressed."

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#79

Post by nickelcitymario »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #52
nickelcitymario wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't disagree with anything you said here, however: > and they have the old coal plants to fill in the gaps ...this is the problem with solar and most renewables. They have gaps. The question, it seems to me, is are we in a fight for the survival of our species, or not? If we are, then we should pull all the stops. I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to have a liveable planet. I'll pay the bloody premium…

Get more hydro then as it's faster at adapting to changing loads than nuclear.

Hydro is damaging to the local ecosystem and has a long history of fucking over small communities, in particular indigenous communities who somehow never factor into these decisions.

Show me a powerful river than can be dammed with minimal to no impact to the ecology or the communities up- or down-stream of it, and you will have my support.

Re: Greed and corruption blew up South Korea’s nuclear industry

#80

Post by ourlordcaffeine »

rayiner wrote: post #51
bilbo0s wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because you still have all those coal, gas, and nuclear plants providing baseload power... That's right. So why would you not decommission all of that incredibly expensive nuclear, and draw down your use of the coal plants to fill in the gaps? That's how most dispatch stacks work. It's just common sense. Consumers want to save money. Utilities want to make enough money. There's just no way you use nuclear in any sc…

Coal can't dispatch fast enough, and most coal plants are at the end of their lifecycle and need to be replaced. So you have to build new baseload capacity, usually gas. (And really, you still need a bunch of batteries to handle short-term fluctuations in renewables output.) The problem, then, is that you have all new coal or gas plants, which are expensive capital assets, that you're basically using for standby powe…

>And really, you still need a bunch of batteries to handle short-term fluctuations in renewables output.

Not really the case. Renewable output does not fluctuate fast enough to require the fast response of batteries.

Fast responding storage, in the case of the UK pumped hydro, is usually needed due to thermal plants tripping and causing the grid frequency to suddenly nosedive.

Post reply on HN