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

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

#301

Post by ApolloFortyNine » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

tbenst wrote: post #64

I’m continuously baffled by those that claim that nuclear power is safe. Look at Fukushima for example. It seems hard to imagine a nuclear power plant design, even Gen III or IV that would be immune to any possible natural disaster. Analysis of nuclear power should take into account Black Swan events: no matter how well designed, some fraction of plants will cause INES Level 7 disasters. If the resulting cost (ie $10…

>Look at Fukushima for example.

As others have pointed out, this is a 53 year old design. Not exactly the best example for modern nuclear power.

New reactor designs implement passive cooling that allows for 0 interaction for 72 hours. 72 hours is more than enough time for manual intervention to be possible.

>The design is intended to passively remove heat for 72 hours, after which its gravity drain water tank must be topped up for as long as cooling is required [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

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

#302

Post by booboolayla » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 1:40 AM UTC

cbmuser wrote: post #82

rriepe wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Just look at Japan, most of the region around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has actually been reopened to the public already: > https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/20/national/beach-... > https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/05/national/evacue... Looking at the radiation levels, most places are already back to save levels: > https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en02-01... You ha…

Chernobyl (outside of parts of power plant that hosted the uranium core) is only dangerous in the graveyard, and certain apartments/rooms that haven't been opened since the accident.

Radiation is a natural phenomenon, and effects are not as long-term as we were taught.

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

#303

Post by xmprt » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 1:44 AM UTC

M2Ys4U wrote: post #221

csours wrote: post #55

I've been reading "Normal Accidents" by Perrow. I started reading the book expecting an even-keeled explanation of risk, but I was pretty shocked by how prejudiced against Nuclear the tone was. It was also a reminder of how TERRIBLE the industrial design (aka UX) of reactor monitoring and controls were at the time the book was written (1984). So many of the things he seems to have felt were insurmountable could be so…

>Anti-nuclear sentiment seems to be one of those things that became widely fashionable, and Pro-nuclear became demonized. There was a concerted effort to connect all nuclear power with nuclear weapons in the 80's and 90's. The effects of that are still with us.

It's still a thing today. Look at the Iran deal. I don't know enough to comment on whether its a good or bad thing but a lot of people think that Iran purifying Uranium == Iran developing nukes.

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

#304

Post by nl » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 1:51 AM UTC

kazagistar wrote: post #297

nl wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t have deep knowledge in this area, but it’s clear to me that more modern designs have very different risk profiles There are lots of claims of that, but many of those claims sound exactly the same as the ones made about he "safe Japanese nuclear industry" prior to Fukushima. Here's a take by someone who actually has very deep knowledge on the subject: >I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think i…

That sounds like an indictment of the commercial industry and deep corruption of US regulatory bodies. Its not an indictment of nuclear itself. The new designs are fundamentally safer, but i can see the value in the aegument that its not worth trying in as risky and corrupted a regulatory environment as the United States without significant political change first.

Did you read the article?

It's the exact opposite of your claim. In it he points out how the regulator actively worked to enable the nuclear industry in the US.

It's also worth nothing that this didn't appear to be corruption by any conventional definition. It seems more like the regulators believed that nuclear power was beneficial and acted based on that belief rather than a particular commercial motive.

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

#305

Post by zabhi » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 1:54 AM UTC

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…

It most definitely is. But the pace of nuclear development in India slowed to a crawl (no new projects) ever since it started an insurance pool with corporate liability.

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

#306

Post by duckMuppet » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 1:54 AM UTC

It took them a while not to endorse slavery as well.

I'd not look for anything groundbreaking from either party, especially not one where the octogenarian candidate was one of the main persons doing the eulogy for a kkk leader Just last decade.

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

#307

Post by ip26 » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 2:12 AM UTC

erik_seaberg wrote: post #228

ip26 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind blows around the clock and solar runs most of the time we are awake. If renewables are super cheap but storage is not viable, can't we simply overbuild?

Solar drops hours before daily air conditioning demand, but wind might do it. I always thought wind depended heavily on the solar cycle, but apparently Europe found it dips 20% or less at night.

Solar is still delivering 50% of peak as late as 5pm, and peak air conditioning is between 3-7pm. It's not a perfect fit, but mix in some time of use rates and (as previously mentioned) wind and it seems like you could do it. In buildings with decent insulation, cooling load is not hard to time shift.

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

#308

Post by fma » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 2:15 AM UTC

292 comments and no one talks about the Democratic candidate that was most vocal about nuclear, specifically thorium?

"Yang is absolutely right to make these points, and he has gotten some well-deserved attention. But it’s surprising that he hasn’t gotten more, given how much we’re hearing about the crisis nature of climate change. Because if you take climate change seriously, you have to take nuclear power seriously"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democ...

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

#309

Post by briandear » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 2:20 AM UTC

fma wrote: post #308

292 comments and no one talks about the Democratic candidate that was most vocal about nuclear, specifically thorium? "Yang is absolutely right to make these points, and he has gotten some well-deserved attention. But it’s surprising that he hasn’t gotten more, given how much we’re hearing about the crisis nature of climate change. Because if you take climate change seriously, you have to take nuclear power seriously…

It’s not about climate change, it’s about controlling behavior via energy prices. The non-nuclear climate change advocates don’t care about “carbon,” they care about wealth redistribution. That’s why I oppose most “climate” policy. Because it isn’t about climate.

Carbon and wealth redistribution should be separate issues, but activists have made them the same and since I oppose wealth redistribution via government economic control, I can’t get on board with “climate.”

https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-...

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

#310

Post by BurningFrog » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 2:27 AM 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…

I think it's even simpler:

People tie nuclear power to nuclear bombs. They think, consciously or subconsciously, that they're some kind of slowed down nuclear explosions, and one day there will be a mushroom cloud turning the area into glass.

Yeah, the experts say it can't happen, but how do we know they're not arrogant Jurassic Park style fools?