Live data from Hacker News

After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

forbes.com

11–20 of 489 posts

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#11
post #6
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...

I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.

Unfortunately you don't seem to stand corrected, as you're still declaring the same assumptions you had in the first place!

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#12
post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

> We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future generations without mass adoption of nuclear power.

I wish we could discuss such topics without the much-abused climate scare argument. Most debatable, technology-related issues have many other implications worth taking into account. Like grid stability, cost of energy etc. in this case.

But if all you've got is a hammer...

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#13
First endorsement in 48 years? I'm pretty sure this qualifies as an endorsement:

> As detailed in the Climate Action Plan, President Obama is committed to using every appropriate tool to combat climate change. Nuclear power, which in 2014 generated about 60 percent of carbon-free electricity in the United States, continues to play a major role in efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector. As America leads the global transition to a low-carbon economy, the continued development of new and advanced nuclear technologies along with support for currently operating nuclear power plants is an important component of our clean energy strategy. Investing in the safe and secure development of nuclear power also helps advance other vital policy objectives in the national interest, such as maintaining economic competitiveness and job creation, as well as enhancing nuclear nonproliferation efforts, nuclear safety and security, and energy security.

>

> The President’s FY 2016 Budget includes more than $900 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) to support the U.S. civilian nuclear energy sector by leading federal research, development, and demonstration efforts in nuclear energy technologies, ranging from power generation, safety, hybrid energy systems, and security technologies, among other things. DOE also supports the deployment of these technologies with $12.5 billion in remaining loan guarantee authority for advanced nuclear projects through Title 17. DOE’s investments in nuclear energy help secure the three strategic objectives that are foundational to our nation’s energy system: energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental responsibility.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/1...

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#14
post #7
post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

Now we just need to make it affordable. Cost overruns seem to be a big problem in the industry. The US recently canceled 2 plants, and we’re struggling to finish the other 2.

I also haven't really seen anyone discuss the cost of nuclear in human labor costs. No matter what method or design you use you still need educated workers to babysit both the reactor and the standard turbine infrastructure, whose salary dwarfs whatever costs come from fuel or safety countermeasures.

In contrast, solar and wind tend to be very manpower efficient due to the logistical pain of maintaining something spread over 10 sq. miles forcing investments in reliability and autonomy.

Edit: Messed up wording

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#15
post #6
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...

I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.

[deleted]

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#16
post #6
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...

I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.

Plenty of Republicans "believe in science." You're probably confusing science with policy.

You may be surprised that:

- Republicans are only like "20% more religious" than Democrats

- Over half of Republicans believe the scientific method produces accurate conclusions

- Nearly a third of Democrats don't believe the scientific method produces accurate conclusions

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-aff...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/09/democrats-a...

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#17
post #6
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...

I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.

You may need to get to know more Republicans. Yes, they host a fair bit of anti-climate science sentiment. Democrats host a fair bit of homeopathic sentiment. Both persuasions include competent scientists. Republicans are no more unidimensional than Democrats. In my observation, the conversations between them are far more tribal fueding than epistemological clarification: epistemology is just a prop. It seems to me that when we allow ourselves to be distracted by the category conflicts, we are distracted from the fight between those trying to maximize our well-being and those happy to throw us all under the bus to optimize for their individual circumstance.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#18
post #6
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...

I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.

It was always elitist leftist “environmentalists” who were anti-nuke.

They were the ones who bought into Malthusian systems that believed that the world would be over populated if nuclear energy ever reached widespread deployment. They pushed this narrative to gullible hippy “environmentalists”, who swayed public opinion and, whoops, accidentally caused us to burn another 50 years worth of coal. Yeah, “fight the man” sure felt good at the time. YEAH!

50 years of improvements to nuclear power has been lost to this nonsense. Everyone today should be absolutely livid over what happened.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#19
post #7
post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

Now we just need to make it affordable. Cost overruns seem to be a big problem in the industry. The US recently canceled 2 plants, and we’re struggling to finish the other 2.

Building it makes it affordable. Giant one-off projects have endemic problems with perverse bidding incentives, cost overruns, and engineering problems. Economy of scale production absolutely dominates most industrial supply chains and engineering.

The US and other modern economies got the political will together to subsidize solar when it rarely made sense on a MW/$ basis and now it's dropped to by far the cheapest source (if you can live with intermittent power).

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#20
post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

There is a difference between safety history and risk.
Post reply on HN