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

321–330 of 489 posts

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

#321

Post by zajio1am »

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…

> Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion zone?

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

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

#322

Post by dvsfish »

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…

> 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.

Much like how low level corruption can be absolutely devastating to a democracy over time versus a high profile scandal or two which can be dealt with with urgency and clearer solutions.

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

#323

Post by Green_man »

DangitBobby wrote: post #259
Green_man wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not just worst case scenario "rates", but the scenarios themselves. What is the worst case scenario from a completely unmitigated core meltdown versus whatever the most extreme failure mode of, say, a coal plant?

The worst case scenario from fossil fuels is not failure at a coal power plant. Even mining coal is more dangerous, and deaths directly from coal pollution dwarf mining accidents. But the worst case scenario is climate change that strongly affects hundreds of millions to billions of lives. Depending on location, it would take many "unmitigated core meltdowns" at nuclear power plants to have a similar effect.

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

#324

Post by mixedCase »

kingaillas wrote: post #296
mobilefriendly wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that this power plant was run by an arm of the United States government.

In 2013, an ammonium nitrate storage facility exploded (1). In 2014, a leaky storage container poisoned a river in West Virginia (2). It's instructive to consider some thought experiments/scenarios: What if... a) Both were run by the government. In this case you'd have people of certain political parties screaming about government incompetence, and how the best solution would be to eliminate regulations and privatize…

Your biases are showing. Issues in private businesses drives regulation all the time around the world.

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

#325

Post by brownbat »

Aerroon wrote: post #233
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…

> 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. How come hydroelectric dams don't get treated this way? In 2019 a dam in Brazil had a catastrophic failure that cost the lives of 270 people. In 2019! In 1975 a dam failed in China and th…

I've wondered about this for years, crossing off theories like you just did with powerful counterexamples.

All I see left is technophobia.

There's a deep human bias. Things we don't understand seem scarier than things we do.

People get how a dam works, the basics anyway. They understand how a car crashes or why it's bad when the pump in your chest stops beating.

They do not like radiation at all. They do not like strange chemicals. They do not like robots driving cars.

They want dangers they can understand, even if that increases the risk substantially.

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

#326

Post by Green_man »

DangitBobby wrote: post #299
yongjik wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pollution from coal power kills about a million per year, and that's not counting accidents. I don't know why you'd want a "completely unmitigated meltdown," but even if terrorists rent a 747, hoist an active reactor, and drop it onto the middle of Manhattan, it will kill less than the non-failure mode of coal plants during the same year.

[citation needed]

from the very biased "endcoal.org":

"Coal is responsible for over 800,000 premature deaths per year globally and many millions more serious and minor illnesses."

https://endcoal.org/health/#:~:text=Coal%20is%20responsible%....

from the less biased (depending on the metallicity of your hat) World Health Organization:

"Ambient (outdoor) air pollution in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide per year in 2016; this mortality is due to exposure to small particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), which cause cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and cancers.

People living in low- and middle-income countries disproportionately experience the burden of outdoor air pollution with 91% (of the 4.2 million premature deaths) occurring in low- and middle-income countries, and the greatest burden in the WHO South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions. The latest burden estimates reflect the very significant role air pollution plays in cardiovascular illness and death. More and more, evidence demonstrating the linkages between ambient air pollution and the cardiovascular disease risk is becoming available, including studies from highly polluted areas.

WHO estimates that in 2016, some 58% of outdoor air pollution-related premature deaths were due to ischaemic heart disease and strokes, while 18% of deaths were due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute lower respiratory infections respectively, and 6% of deaths were due to lung cancer.

Some deaths may be attributed to more than one risk factor at the same time. For example, both smoking and ambient air pollution affect lung cancer. Some lung cancer deaths could have been averted by improving ambient air quality, or by reducing tobacco smoking."

...

"In addition to outdoor air pollution, indoor smoke from household air pollution is a serious health risk for some 3 billion people who cook and heat their homes with biomass fuels and coal. Some 3.8 million premature deaths were attributable to household air pollution in 2016. Almost all of the burden was in low-middle-income countries. Household air pollution is also a major source of outdoor air pollution in both urban and rural areas."

https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-...

a few notes: Coal has two atmospheric externalities: particulates and C02 emissions. As the WHO notes, it can be difficult to attribute deaths to particulate pollution, and it can be even harder to then attribute that death to some source of particulates (they could be released by coal, or diesel engines, or any number of chemical reactions, though coal is particularly dirty when compared to other modern fuels). Climate change will affect lives, but it may be even more difficult to accurately attribute as a cause of death. Did rising temperatures play a role in recent middle eastern conflicts? Probably. Does this mean that climate change has already killed people in Syria and Yemen? That's a difficult question, at least to me.

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

#327

Post by DangitBobby »

Green_man wrote: post #326
DangitBobby wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

from the very biased "endcoal.org": "Coal is responsible for over 800,000 premature deaths per year globally and many millions more serious and minor illnesses." https://endcoal.org/health/#:~:text=Coal%20is%20responsible%... . from the less biased (depending on the metallicity of your hat) World Health Organization: "Ambient (outdoor) air pollution in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 4.2 million pr…

No, I was able to find stats about fossil fuels. What I question is that it would be less harmful to drop a reactor right into the middle of a city. Remember, my question was about worst case scenario for nuclear, which the very pro-nuclear crowd here has so far been unable to describe on the many occasions that nuclear is hailed here as our saving grace. They instead point to Fukushima and Chernobyl and say "see, there's nothing to worry about."

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

#328

Post by thehappypm »

Lazare wrote: post #182
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…

> I’m continuously baffled by those that claim that nuclear power is safe. Nuclear power is relatively safe. Nothing is 100% safe. Rooftop solar actually has a surprisingly high fatality rate from installers falling off of roofs ! Fossil fuels release horrible byproducts into the atmosphere, hydro sometimes causes floods...everything has drawbacks. > Analysis of nuclear power should take into account Black Swan event…

The roof-falling problem is by far the more palatable one for me.

The people directly working in the industry are suffering the casualties.

There are no completely unrelated deaths or injuries.

And it’s fundamentally easier to make solar roofing safer than it is to make nuclear reactions safer.

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

#329

Post by thehappypm »

orangecat wrote: post #201
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. Yes, do that. And you'll find that the meltdown and evacuations killed fewer people than did shutting down all of Japan's nuclear plants afterward (PDF: http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf ). In other words, nuclear power comes out ahead even if you assume there will be a Fukushima-class disaster every 10 years, which is absurdly pessimistic.

Any time I hear that “Fukushima wasn’t that bad!” it just makes nuclear that much further out of reach.

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

#330

Post by vlovich123 »

cure wrote: post #100
mensetmanusman wrote: post #2

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 negative real-world externalities of oil production aren't priced in, from explicit subsidies to global warming. Why does nuclear have to ascribe to such an unrealistic goal? That cripples the industry unfairly.

We already know and have well-studied the negative externalities of nuclear. They are significantly lower than fossil fuels where, for example, coal kills far more people with radiation than nuclear power plants do (even including Fukushima & Chernobyl). Yes, nuclear is dangerous and should be handled with caution. The only standard should be if it's better or worse than existing technologies where it's a resounding yes.

Post reply on HN