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

Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

thebulletin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#41

Post by Klinky »

juped wrote: post #21
acidburnNSA wrote: post #6

I'm involved in a public education nuclear website. We get tons of questions about thorium so we made a few pages to handle stuff like this. For instance, we have one on molten salt reactors specifically (which aren't always fueled with thorium) [1]. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/msr.html And then we have our most popular, the Thorium Myths page [2]. [2] https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html I love that Yang i…

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.

What is an economical reactor model available to be built today? Practically every commercial reactor built seems to be a multi-billion dollar project that takes years to complete, with cost overruns common.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#42

Post by mikekchar »

remontoire wrote: post #32
sjwright wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, to be fair, people in Japan mostly remember the tsunami. In the town where I live beach front property is half the price of property on top of the hill these days.

People are also concerned about nuclear reactor safety. I live about 6 km from a nuclear reactor and there are repeated calls to dismantle it. I frequently get visits from PR people from the power company to try to convince me that the nuclear reactor is necessary. It's a short conversation: I'm very much more inclined to welcome the nuclear power plant than more natural gas! However, this particular power plant has been closed down for almost 15 years. Note this is significantly longer than the time period since the Tohoku earthquake. To be frank, the power company was not able to pass safety checks for years prior to the tsunami. Although it has been significantly upgraded, I'm not surprised that people in the area are afraid.

Even with this, I can tell you that the land literally next door to the power plant is significantly higher priced than the land next to one of the nicest stretches of white sand beach in this part of Japan. People here have a pretty good handle on what's more dangerous.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#43

Post by Reedx »

erentz wrote: post #5

Yang 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…

Yeah, I really appreciate that he has the courage to say things that need to be said, even though he knows it's currently unpopular. The adult in the room.

Which indicates he's genuinely interested in solving problems. Politics and focus groups be damned. As such it seems likely he'd update his priors via field experts.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#44

Post by theptip »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #24
juped wrote: post #21

Earlier 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…

If it’s a PR issue, then wouldn’t a re-branding (I.e. “thorium isn’t the uranium nuclear you know and fear”) be an appropriate solution? At least, assuming thorium isn’t so much worse than current reactor designs?

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#45

Post by thebean11 »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #24
juped wrote: post #21

Earlier 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…

Nuclear accidents have unique and sometimes unpredictable environment impact, like Fukushima continuing to pollute the ocean with radioactive material to this day.

Not saying that's a good reason to swear ourselves off nuclear, but it's more complicated than low carbon emissions.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#46

Post by acidburnNSA »

thebean11 wrote: post #45
acidburnNSA wrote: post #24

Earlier 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…

Nuclear accidents have unique and sometimes unpredictable environment impact, like Fukushima continuing to pollute the ocean with radioactive material to this day. Not saying that's a good reason to swear ourselves off nuclear, but it's more complicated than low carbon emissions.

I agree that it's complicated.

Radiological hazards are indeed pretty unique in the human experience. I disagree that any given release has unpredictable impact though. Top scientists around the world have studied the effects of radiation on living things and the environment in elaborate detail for 80 years. We have vast amounts of good data. This really became political around 1953 as the radioactive fallout from the big atmospheric thermonuclear weapons became extremely serious. The entire environmentalist movement itself was born out of protests against radiological hazards from weapons testing.

Where climate science has the IPCC, heath effects of radiation has UNSCEAR [1], a UN-organized international group of top scientists.

[1] https://www.unscear.org/

The number one argument for nuclear is that it dramatically reduces air pollution deaths by displacing fossil fuel. The carbon-free nature you mention is argument number 2 in my mind. Number 3 is that it can run 24/7 and be deployed in a wide variety of geographies.

As for polluting the ocean at Fukushima, I recommend seeing what Jim Conca has to say on it [2]. He's one of the world experts in nuclear waste.

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-reall...

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#47

Post by nine_k »

Klinky wrote: post #41
juped wrote: post #21

Earlier 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.

What is an economical reactor model available to be built today? Practically every commercial reactor built seems to be a multi-billion dollar project that takes years to complete, with cost overruns common.

Fear and doubt -> rare and unique reactors -> no economy of scale -> poor economic results -> more fear and doubt :(

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#48

Post by birdyrooster »

scythe wrote: post #35
RivieraKid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also dimming might also have some effects on the fauna too. I know it’s a small change but on a global scale I bet there would be some pathology for humans and other animals.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#49

Post by fsh »

erentz wrote: post #5

Yang 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…

Him not being an expert is not an excuse for spreading incorrect information. He could have asked one. I am truly amazed how easy people tend to let their favorite politicians off the hook for saying dumb things in public.
Post reply on HN