I’m quite disappointed by Yang’s false claims. I’ve come to accept him as the truth and logic driven candidate who thinks things through. He could have advocated his position without these statements. He should focus on Gen4.
Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
31–40 of 97 posts
Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
#32im not sure it's useful to hold yang accountable for such technical minutae. i generally believe that nuclear has an important role to play in our mitigation of climate change, but that our bias to remember flash-point events like chernobyl and fukushima will overshadow the far more deadly and ubiquitous proliferation of CO2 and methane that lacks the same "pizazz"
And it's important to remember that the Fukushima nuclear disaster has caused one confirmed death so far. I'm not saying that it wasn't a horrific disaster, but it's like comparing one dramatic aeroplane accident to the totality of road vehicle deaths worldwide—one plane is newsworthy; whereas the vehicle death toll is normalised and ignored. Worldwide, around 50 to 500 people die in planes each year. Worldwide, over…
Do you remember what else happend that day at Fukushima? 15k people died from the tsunami. Yet people could not tell you anything about the tsunami except that it caused problems at the reactor.
Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
#33The fact that we are discussing thorium here and in many other places suddenly, proves the successful mission accomplished by Andrew Yang. Federal bureaucrats and their aides are forced to do their homework to seriously consider the option and answer intelligently.
I don't think that's necessarily true, most of us on HN were probably aware of it as an option for a while considering that the main audience of the site is fairly "tech crazed". I wouldn't necessarily take that to mean he's succeeded in bringing this sort of thing to the attention of the masses.
Particularly since any of the other people who pretend to care about the climate haven't revised their weird "no nuclear" policy despite it all.
Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing I hate most in nuclear advocacy is the trope of "the new, exciting, safe and economical nuclear reactor based on new, exciting miracle tech!". We have amazing, safe, economical, etc. nuclear reactors. They're called nuclear reactors, and don't need any miracle tech conjured up in some magazine columnist's imagination.
Today's Thorium "hype" was started by a NASA tech named Kirk Sorensen. He outwardly said nuclear needed a rebrand as early as 2008 and has kind of doubled down on it. Like: "Hey all those problems with nuclear are solved if you split this nucleus instead of that one". I agree with you and don't think this is necessary. We should just try to help people see context in the things they don't like about nuclear. The reac…
There's a reason we call MRI machines MRIs, and not NMRIs. Rebranding around public perception matters, whether we like it or not.
Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
#35Yang is to be credited for stating he is open to all possible solutions to the climate crisis, and rightly pointing out that with a crisis of this magnitude no solutions should be taken off the table at this point. Something other candidates are reluctant to do when it comes to the topic of nuclear energy. He shouldn’t be expected to be an expert in the nuances of the technology or fuels. This should always be left t…
I like that he mentions geo-engineering. To me, the most promising is stratospheric aerosol injection. I don't understand why there's not more talk about it given the cost / value ratio. If it turns out that there are no serious side effects or risk and governments agree to do it, we have solved climate change.
Dimming sunlight will reduce plant growth. CO2 extraction is more expensive but less worrying than any deflection-based technology in terms of side effects IMO.
You could cover the desert with aluminum foil I guess. Might confuse the birds.
Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
#36> Nuclear energy is already very safe Wat
It's really sad that this is still news to people. If anything will kill us in the next century, it'll be misinformed decisions based on people that can hold the best speeches and appeal to emotions the most.
To answer your question, acidburnNSA already linked something that I trust without clicking based on his other comments in this thread. Definitely check that out and compare the data to fearmongering you've been fed in the past by peers, the media, politics, everything (this is possibly the only topic where I think the media really failed to check the facts over and over again to get to where we are now). I've read other sources in the past that corroborate his comment about it being safe. As far as I read (iirc some sources were seen as self-referencing research and removed from Wikipedia, but never contradicted), it's equally or more safe than every other type of energy we have.
Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
#37My primary concern with any for of nuclear reactors is that they make for very juicey targets.
Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today's Thorium "hype" was started by a NASA tech named Kirk Sorensen. He outwardly said nuclear needed a rebrand as early as 2008 and has kind of doubled down on it. Like: "Hey all those problems with nuclear are solved if you split this nucleus instead of that one". I agree with you and don't think this is necessary. We should just try to help people see context in the things they don't like about nuclear. The reac…
There's a reason we call MRI machines MRIs, and not NMRIs. Rebranding around public perception matters, whether we like it or not.
Yeah, but I think just calling nuclear energy thorium or quantum energy or whatever is too shallow. The nuclear element of nMRI is kind of peripheral, but I don't think anyone will let you do that with mass-to-energy conversion power plants.
With airplanes, everyone knows they're really safe. Everyone says they're safer than cars. People are still afraid of airplanes but they're reassured. It'd be nice if nuclear fission could get to this level in the public zeitgeist.
Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
#39My primary concern with any for of nuclear reactors is that they make for very juicey targets.
Even with all that aircraft-impact resistant, highly reinforced containment, crazy off-grid redundant safety systems, and paramilitary guard force a few hundred strong? Honestly I can see how they might be intriguing at first, but after quick consideration I think most attackers would quickly find something easier to hit.
Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang
#40An important point is being missed here and in all discussions (and the world-wide hysteria, really) having to do with "let's to climate change".
What's the point?
We can't do a thing about it.
This is academically simple to derive through analysis of 800,000 years of ice core sample data. Actually, all you need to do is look at the graph. When you do, measure and calculate the average time it took for CO2 to come down by 100 ppm.
That number is somewhere around 50,000 years. In other words, 500 CENTURIES for a CO2 drop of 100 ppm.
How is this related to my initial claim?
Simple: This was the historical rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration reduction WITHOUT HUMANITY ON THE PLANET.
Anyone --ANYONE-- claiming that we are going to do to climate change had to answer a very simple question:
How is better than NO HUMANITY ON THE PLANET?
If isn't better than no humanity on the planet the rate of change CANNOT BE BETTER than ~50,000 year for a 100 ppm drop.
The sooner we start discussing this based on real science the sooner we might be able to decide how to handle reality rather than allowing ignorant politicians and activist from driving the narrative. We are wasting valuable time with nonsense.