Live data from Hacker News

After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

forbes.com

141–150 of 489 posts

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

#141
post #49

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)

You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants. And it’s a bit ridiculous to speak about human progress when talking about GMO in agriculture, when all it’s used for is plants creating their own insecticides and herbicide tolerance for furthering unsustainable monoculture farming.

> You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants

That needs a bit more justification. It certainly hasn't been true for the last 40 odd years and by extension most of the anti-nuclear types probably are also anti-science.

Generally they're the sort of people who'll hold global warming up as a real problem and then argue that Fukushima is an unacceptable risk. It is hard to hold both those positions and be heavy on the science. On the scale that global warming is a risk the risk from a nuclear plant can't even be detected. I've lived next to a coal fired power plant; the science is very, very clear I'd have better life outcomes if I'd lived near a nuclear one.

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

#142
post #49

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)

You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants. And it’s a bit ridiculous to speak about human progress when talking about GMO in agriculture, when all it’s used for is plants creating their own insecticides and herbicide tolerance for furthering unsustainable monoculture farming.

I thought having enough healthy food with as small of environmental impact as possible is good for human progress /s

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

#143
post #49

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)

You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants. And it’s a bit ridiculous to speak about human progress when talking about GMO in agriculture, when all it’s used for is plants creating their own insecticides and herbicide tolerance for furthering unsustainable monoculture farming.

Then those people should be anti-pesticide / anti-monoculture not anti-GMO.

That's like being anti-steel because weapons are being made out of steel.

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

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear also got much, much more expensive than it was in the previous century, making it economically completely unreasonable in the west. Because we stopped building them. Of course costs are going to explode when every time you do it the people on the project are doing it for the first time.

No, the reason is construction costs are rising faster than inflation because construction hard to automate.

You can automate construction a lot (biggest issue is making sure deliveries are ordered the right way, and that you keep QA).

But that requires getting getting the pipelines running instead of doing it once a decade.

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

#145
post #100

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

It's odd to me that anti-nuclear is being labelled anti-science. It's almost like the pro-nuclear people have blinders on. Nuclear is fantastic, in theory. In practice, in the real world, the consequences of accidents are extraordinarily bad and costly. The odds of a bad accident may be very small, but they are not zero (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident... ). And dealing with the waste…

> The odds of a bad accident may be very small but they are not zero

re: Very small

We've had nuclear power less than a century and we've had more than one significant event, and even more near events.

But its not simply the odds, but the impact. We have yet to see a worst case scenario. How much longer can that last?

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

#146
post #28
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 would say that Florida is essentially a Chernobyl style exclusion zone, except that Chernobyl is actually a pretty nice place now.

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

#147
I have preached until I was red in the face that nuclear is the only solution we have currently that will get us to zero emissions on a proper time scale when it comes to global warming. I am all for wind and solar, but you have to be practical as well. We don't have anything that is even close to being able to provide stable 24 hour power like nuclear. Obviously we want a mix, but there are safe nuclear designs out there. And the feds will just have to overrule the NIMBYs on an official site or three for properly controlling the waste.

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

#148
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…

Look, I'm a stan for LFTR and thorium reactors, but the nuclear energy industry is full of old PWR reactors on life support that are dangerous and meltdown prone.

But Fukushima happened, and unfortunately the management attitudes in TEPCO are not unique to that company.

The fact is that solar/wind is currently running away from everything else. I believe new natural gas plants can't compete with solar/wind, and that means installed gas plants are in their crosshairs just like coal plants.

Notice your article leaves out solar/wind.

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

I disagree.

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

#149
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.

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.

I would say it apocalyptic.

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

#150

My uneducated gut feeling is that the only way nuclear is going to be relevant is if they perfect micro-nuclear reactors. I remember reading about these 10 years ago [1], and have seen a few more since. Basically they propose small "nuclear batteries" kin of design - this avoids catastrophic scenarios and benefits greatly from economies of scale. The only issue I see with this approach is political - you would have a…

I think the idea would be to not spread the technology to countries that are deemed risky and to severely punish people who leak the tech.

I wasn't sure if you instead meant the microplants could be terrorist targets but this quote from the wiki seems like it'd be fairly effective at preventing that:

>The actual reactor would be located in a sealed, cylindrical vault 30 m (98 ft) underground,<

Post reply on HN