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

After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 489 posts

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

#41

Post by delecti »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #14
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.

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 spr…

I'm not quite sure I follow. Doesn't the "logistical pain to maintain something spread over 10 sq. miles" have a human labor cost too?

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

#42

Post by Ancapistani »

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.

I agree, but the argument is a non-starter here and equally so with the general public.

Reducing regulation is a lot more palatable to people than eliminating it.

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

#43

Post by ghaff »

notJim wrote: post #32
brandonmenc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"scientists’ judgments are just as subject to bias as anyone else’s judgments"

I'm not sure I disagree. (And the Republican and Democratic polling numbers are only about 10 points apart.)

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

#45

Post by cigaaa »

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…

I think you have a point that the drama of evacuating a city sears nuclear disasters into our minds as uniquely damaging.

At the same time, single mining disasters have caused hundreds of deaths many times over the last century. Also, black lung killed 25,000 people in 2013 alone. The death toll from the coal industry, even in very immediate, direct terms, is still higher than nuclear.

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

#46

Post by namuol »

LeegleechN wrote: post #33
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...).

With some qualifiers this is technically correct, but this only makes it feel more disingenuous.

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

#47

Post by morsch »

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…

By far the safest, if you rely on articles written by the nuclear industry; specifically references 31 and 32 which estimate the fatalities from nuclear energy, in the linked articles primary source, https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/full....

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

#49

Post by option »

A general anti-science movement really hurts human progress with these 3 particularly bad: 1) anti vaccines 2) anti GMO 3) anti nuclear

Great to see Dems starting to endorse nuclear after decades of oppositions (see John Kerry’s boneheaded earlier efforts to kill it)

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

#50

Post by tomatotomato37 »

delecti wrote: post #41
tomatotomato37 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spr…

I'm not quite sure I follow. Doesn't the "logistical pain to maintain something spread over 10 sq. miles" have a human labor cost too?

I meant to imply that the pain of such caused those technologies to invest in autonomy to mitigate needless human labor, but I lost the point when revising the comment. I'll fix it.
Post reply on HN