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

391–400 of 489 posts

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

#391

Post by imtringued »

sudosysgen wrote: post #341
hehebbssjj wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Big disasters are unpredictable and hard to understand. One of those could end the world at any time. In the context of nuclear reactors, Fukushima and Chernobyl are pretty much the worst case scenario. A large nuclear disaster is very disruptive to the immediate area but it would not "end the world" in any sense.

Global warming, however, can.

I'm pessimistic but the only way that can end the world is if we really want to. It would be very similar to a nuclear war. At some point you have caused so much damage there is no point in further fighting. The only reason why the world would end at that point is that the remaining people want it to end at all costs.

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

#392

Post by nl »

spfzero wrote: post #350
nl wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe the 1% number is accurate, but it's a lot higher than people might believe. From 2016: our range of models suggests that there is presently a 50% chance that (i) a Fukushima event (or larger) occurs every 60–150 years, and (ii) that a Three Mile Island event (or larger) occurs every 10–20 years. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/risa.12587 Summary: https://mtec.ethz.ch/news/d-mtec-news/…

So, an event that kills zero people could happen every 10-20 years, and another event that kills zero people could happen every 60-150 years? That is certainly alarming.

They are rating the financial costs (which are pretty significant).

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

#393

Post by imtringued »

DangitBobby wrote: post #263
Natsu wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nuclear accidents can make a place uninhabitable for thousands of years. Ignoring the fact that meltdown is not even possible in modern designs, even in a Fukushima total power loss scenario, note that the Bikini atoll is safe to visit at this point and it was the site of repeated nuclear testing. It's hard to see how nuclear power plants, which are designed to avoid any possibility of having a critical mass, could…

I would like to hear more about "nuclear meltdowns not even possible." You mean on designs that people are actually talking about implenting, or just the state-of-the-art stuff that we are nowhere close to implementing, especially in poorer nations?

I'm also thinking what happens after you built the new thing. Ok, now we have this super advanced nuclear power plant it's super safe. So safe that it would be irresponsible to operate anything else. You know what happens? Old plants can still melt down. Fukushima was one of them and it was older than the Chernobyl plant. It is entirely possible that a new design won't increase safety because the unsafe models keep running.

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

#394

Post by paulintrognon »

ragebol wrote: post #387
foxrob92 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The table linked lists the following lifecycle emissions (min/median/max) * Hydropower: 1.0/24/2200 * Concentrated solar: 8.8/27/63 * Rooftop Solar PV: 26/41/60 * Utility Solar PV: 18/48/180 * Wind Onshore: 7.0/11/56 * Wind Offshore: 8.0/12/35 * Nuclear: 3.7/12/110 I've gotta say, Nuclear/Utility Solar/Hydro all have massive ranges in their lifecycle emissions. If you're basing "which tech has the lowest lifecycle em…

What units are we talking here? Joules? Bananas? Pears? My physics teacher would say...

gCO2eq/kWh :-)

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

#395

Post by nl »

readams wrote: post #337
nl wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish nuclear advocates would stop selectively quoting to try to hide things. Almost no one wants to continue with fossil fuels, and instead the competition is renewable. "This comparison" mentioned in that quote doesn't include renewables (it was from 2007) but from the very same page , in the very next section : > Modern renewables are about as safe as nuclear energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-en…

But you cannot use 100% renewable energy without some storage technology not currently known. Nuclear is the only carbon free energy source we have that can supply power reliably.

This just isn't true.

With geographical redundancy, pump storage and some batteries (or alternatives) you can get the reliability of the current grid. In 2015 (before the introduction of large scale battery storage) they studied this in Texas and showed how little was required for grid stability. In this case they used natural gas (which remain an option), but nowadays there are completely renewable solutions. Note that this covers more than 10% of the entire electricity generation capacity of Texas.

> In a study commissioned by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, General Electric calculated how much new reserve capacity will be required as Texas increases the amount of wind energy installed. The report found that an additional 15,000 megawatts of installed wind energy only requires an additional 18 megawatts of new flexible reserve capacity to maintain the stability of the grid. In other words, the spare capacity of one fast-ramping natural gas power plant can compensate for the variability introduced by 5,000 new average-sized wind turbines.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-en...

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

#396

Post by paulintrognon »

zik wrote: post #342
8bitsrule wrote: post #339

Renewable energy sources have zero fuel costs. Their potential for life-threatening disasters - on the scale of Fukushima, Chernobyl, coal ash floods, etc. - is zero. Just as with coal mines, uranium mines and oilfields, there's a large upfront cost ... but a much lower cost to the environment. Furthermore, anyone can create solar-powered electricity, anywhere. There will be no wars over access to sunlight. Sunlight…

The crazy part is that all over the world nuclear is being phased out as it's uneconomic compared with renewable energy. I wonder why they chose now as the time to endorse it, just when it's no longer relevant. So strange.

It's not one or the other. Renewables on their own can't work. They need to be paired with another energy source. This is where Nuclear (or coal or else) comes useful.

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

#397

Post by rimliu »

andi999 wrote: post #379
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 do not know the current data, but previously the catastrophy rate was by design below 1 in 10000 years. But this is per plant, we have about 400 plants, so 1 catastrophy per 25 years on average; this values agrees with experiment. About your statistics: that it is safer was pure luck. In the fukushima incident there were depending on the season two prevalent wind direction either towards the ocean or towards Tokyo.…

Another look at Fukushima can be that the incident was pure bad luck.

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

#398

Post by imtringued »

bob29 wrote: post #109
cbmuser wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear waste is actually the best kind of waste because of its very high density and the fact that it's solid. The density is so high that the US has accumulated just 83,000 tons over several decades operating nuclear power plants: > https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... That may sound a lot but compared to coal or, in fact, any other type of power generating plant, the amount is absolutely…

> compared to coal or, in fact, any other type of power generating plant so nuclear creates less nuclear waste than PV, wind, or geothermal?

I'm not sure what the point of your question is. PV, wind and geothermal don't produce nuclear waste and they only turn into waste after EOL but this applies to any construction.

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

#399

Post by imtringued »

manfredo wrote: post #237
eecc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still haven't heard a convincing protocol for long term storage of spent fuel. That's even worse than a remotely possible nuclear disaster: because unless a solution is found, it's a certainty.

Bury nuclear waste underground in an area with no aquifer. The scenarios where this results in contamination are borderline hyperbole, usually entailing the loss of all records of the waste's locations due to some sort of societal collapse followed by a future civilization digging up the waste for an inexplicable reason. By comparison, what is the long term storage plan for fossil fuel emissions?

What prevents nuclear waste from being brought to were it came from? Can't you just grind up the nuclear waste and mix it up with the excess rock to obtain a material mixture that has background radiation than the mine it came from?

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

#400

Post by pvaldes »

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…

Nuclear power is not safe and never will be. This ship sailed with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

They are repeating that nuclear plants are safe now. "Safe" of course if some conditions meet. If your car is a parking your probability of dying in a car crash is really low, this is obvious. What really counts is their behaviour in hard times. "If all go well, and we have luck, and everybody behaves, nuclear is safe" is not enough.

A natural disaster, a war, terrorism, another lunatic, sadistic, mentally ill or a psycho reaching power (look around)... and your rainbow-safe-dream will explode into a thousand pieces. And then, what?

Talk me about what is your plan B in THAT conditions.

Hide under the rug and deny all as in the last 50 years?

Post reply on HN