After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

Post by pvaldes » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 1:52 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #265

Aerroon wrote: post #233

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. 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…

Hydro disasters have been large, but are tangible/sensible, immediate, and resolve relatively quickly (days for rescue, months for recovery, possibly a few years for rebuilding). Banqiao is now home to 17 million people (after 40 years, largely achieved within a decade or so). Meantime, Chernobyl still hasn't seen complete containment (after 34 years), and Fukushima hasn't begun initial cleanup (after 9 years). The t…

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

hymangrickover wrote: post #115

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…

We have Hyman G. Rickover, Admiral in the US Navy to thank for steering nuclear energy research away from thorium to uranium. He very much wanted the Navy to be in command of nuclear wessels carrying nuclear missiles. If I can remember correctly from research in US energy policy history in college, the US had sunk about 10 years into thorium reactor research when Hyman came along. Seems rather important to not ignore…

Post by pvaldes » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 2:38 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #409

controversy wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop with this. Nuclear is the only way to keep our current level of society. Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. They are hard to recycle and so many are just dumping them. Modern nuclear can meet all our needs and stop global warming. If we pursued nuclear in the last century, we would be facing global warming now.

>Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. "heavy metals" as in leaded solder, something that was banned in 2006?

Post by sigotirandolas » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #250

sigotirandolas wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly nuclear accidents & other externalities were avoided. But would those have been more costly than the costs of fossil fuels (e.g. international conflicts, tens or hundreds of gigatonnes of CO2, many other contaminants, oil spills, etc.)?

We will never know. Stop acting like you know the wrong decision was made because the sports team you bet against made it.

Post by r00fus » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

29athrowaway wrote: post #207

Once I saw a TV show about the challenges of constructing a deposit for nuclear waste that is expected to operate for thousands of years. In this show, they mentioned that they did not want to use skulls to represent danger, because skulls are not seen as dangerous in some cultures (with "Dia de los muertos" as an specific example).