After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by laurent92 » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

StreamBright wrote: post #23

melling wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's move it out from government oversight. Anything gov touches gets super expensive, especially in the US. Best example is the Obamacare website. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare... Imagine how much cheaper you could have built that website with the same functionality. Now apply the same mental process to nuclear power plants.

Yes. The government should only set the safety expectations and procedures, and let the market decide how they do it.

Innovation in nuclear power is broken because of the difficulty to access uranium and use it safely, but if we had innovated, it might have been made safe by now. There has been pilot projects such as a sealed 1m3 cuve, which, by sealing it, solved a lot of problems about safety and human operation.

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

#32

Post by notJim » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

brandonmenc wrote: post #16

sg47 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/part…

To elaborate on the policy part, in the second poll linked, majorities of Republicans are opposed to scientists being involved in making policy.

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

#33

Post by LeegleechN » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

namuol wrote: post #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 le…

First endorsement in the official party platform, which is a specific document released by the parties every 4 years (except this year for Republicans who re-adopted their 2016 platform with no changes...).

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

#34

Post by Green_man » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #27

notRobot wrote: 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…

I'm all for nuclear but the safety record talk always seems disingenuous or at least obtuse to me when the stats focus on day to day operations but the fears are about worst case scenarios. I also feel like the industry would do better if it rallied behind specific new technologies so politicians could rally behind molten salt reactors (or what have you) and placate fears about "old nuclear" designs.

It's important to distinguish current rates and worst case scenario rates, but the worst case scenario rate for fossil fuels is astronomical as well.

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

#35

Post by khuey » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:58 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #28

notRobot wrote: 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…

Partly I think nuclear triggers a cognitive bias where humans will tolerate ongoing low-level shittiness, but really struggle with large catastrophes, even if the catastrophe is far less damaging than the ongoing low-level damage. However, I think the resistance is also because the nature of the catastrophe is different. Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion zone? I know that mining/drillin…

Existing already-operating nuclear plants can barely compete with cheap fracked gas in the United States. Capital investment in new nuclear is never going to pencil for a private operator without carbon taxes or enormous price drops.

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

#36

Post by petersellers » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #28

notRobot wrote: 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…

Partly I think nuclear triggers a cognitive bias where humans will tolerate ongoing low-level shittiness, but really struggle with large catastrophes, even if the catastrophe is far less damaging than the ongoing low-level damage. However, I think the resistance is also because the nature of the catastrophe is different. Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion zone? I know that mining/drillin…

> However, I think the resistance is also because the nature of the catastrophe is different. Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion zone?

Indirectly, yes. I think that rising sea levels due to climate change effectively does the same thing by making once-habitable coastal areas effectively uninhabitable.

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

#37

Post by donarb » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #28

notRobot wrote: 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…

Partly I think nuclear triggers a cognitive bias where humans will tolerate ongoing low-level shittiness, but really struggle with large catastrophes, even if the catastrophe is far less damaging than the ongoing low-level damage. However, I think the resistance is also because the nature of the catastrophe is different. Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion zone? I know that mining/drillin…

Burning coal creates fly ash which needs to be stored somewhere, usually large ponds near the power plant. In Tennessee in 2008 a dike ruptured and released 1.1 billion gallons of coal fly ash slurry that flowed into nearby rivers that drained into the Tennessee River. No-one was injured in the initial spill, but people contracted to clean it up developed cancers from being exposed to the toxic coal ash, 300 people died within 10 years after the accident.

It is considered the largest industrial spill in US history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly...

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

#38

Post by pradn » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #2

That’s great, anti-nuclear energy was definitely one of the anti-science stances standing in the way of progress.

I think many oppose nuclear power because for the same cost, you can build a lot of wind, solar, and hydro instead. I don't know if efficiencies have caught up and all. There's less of a catastrophic risk with these compared to nuclear, at least in people's imaginations. (Hydro dams have been broken in the past though and lead to many deaths.)

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

#39

Post by rectang » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

rriepe wrote: post #29

jayd16 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for nuclear but the safety record talk always seems disingenuous or at least obtuse to me when the stats focus on day to day operations but the fears are about worst case scenarios. I also feel like the industry would do better if it rallied behind specific new technologies so politicians could rally behind molten salt reactors (or what have you) and placate fears about "old nuclear" designs.

I wish one person who mentioned the long game would also mention that nuclear accidents can make a place uninhabitable for thousands of years. If I had a dollar for every time a pro-nuclear person (not that I'm not) ignored that, or peak uranium...

Every time I've seen one of these threads on HN asserting that nuclear is safer than the alternatives and I've looked more closely into the claims, I've wound up unconvinced because of omissions like the one you've identified. It's gotten to the point that I tend to tune out pro-nuclear arguments on HN. :( I'm sure there are good arguments in there somewhere, but I don't have the bandwidth to sort them out from the misleading ones.

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

#40

Post by Ancapistani » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 8:18 PM UTC

khuey wrote: post #35

notJim wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partly I think nuclear triggers a cognitive bias where humans will tolerate ongoing low-level shittiness, but really struggle with large catastrophes, even if the catastrophe is far less damaging than the ongoing low-level damage. However, I think the resistance is also because the nature of the catastrophe is different. Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion zone? I know that mining/drillin…

Existing already-operating nuclear plants can barely compete with cheap fracked gas in the United States. Capital investment in new nuclear is never going to pencil for a private operator without carbon taxes or enormous price drops.

The existing regulatory structure for nuclear power was designed for the previous generation of reactors. I don’t have deep knowledge in this area, but it’s clear to me that more modern designs have very different risk profiles, and the regulatory structure should change to reflect that. This should reduce the compliance cost, which is a very large portion of the initial and operational costs of nuclear power.

In short - nukes are expensive now because they’re an extremely regulated industry. New designs are much safer and new regulation for them should therefore have much lower compliance costs.