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

441–450 of 489 posts

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

#441

Post by emiliobumachar »

pvaldes wrote: post #430
notRobot wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even read my comment or click on the source I cited? Nuclear energy is the safest form of energy we have. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nuclear weapons dropped on them. I'm talking about power plants. The same material can be used in two very different ways to achieve two very different results.

You nailed it. Is the same material. The same that killed hundred thousands of people in a second in our recent past. Is unsafe stuff by nature. The stupidity of people at charge to see the problem or to invest serious money into fixing weak points, makes it even more dangerous, but the main problem remains: They never were able to fix their s*t, and "but, but, more people die by cars" and "we destined one whole page…

Is your argument that nuclear energy makes nuclear weapons more likely? If so, could you please elaborate? Decline of U.S. nuclear energy did not affect its capacity for building nuclear weapons, has it? Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties, with not a thought dedicated to "but how will they be built?", right?

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

#442

Post by sizzle »

imtringued wrote: post #415
sizzle wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't we create a nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert like area 51 type of setup so if there is a meltdown it can be contained. Could we safely store the energy somehow and transport it or make some sort of long-distance hookup to our grids? Also anyone know why the nuclear site in San Onofre by San Diego failed?

Because nuclear power is still just thermal power. You need access to coolant. Ever wondered why a tsunami prone island like Japan decided to place a nuclear plant near the ocean? Doesn't that sound like a very stupid decision? Well, the reality is that this a necessary requirement for monolithic nuclear power plants. Rivers vary in their flow rates depending on the season. If the flow rate is too low there is less c…

So what if we build it in the middle of the ocean?

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

#443

Post by r00fus »

matwood wrote: post #80
etrautmann wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and even when you consider those costs, it pales in comparison to the lives lost and negative externalities of coal, oil, and gas usage. These include climate change, particulate pollution, environmental release of mercury, devastation of vast swaths of the environment worldwide, and other factors that may be hard to quantify but negatively impactful.

There was a post on HN the other day that talked about how hard it is for humans to see beyond direct first order effects. Once you get to indirect or N order effects, it's nearly impossible for humans to fully appreciate. People see nuclear and it's easy to draw a straight line accident -> damage. People know about mercury is seafood, but they can't seem to attach fossil fuel burning to that problem even when told.…

It helped that there was a whole campaign propped up by the fossil fuel companies to demonize nuclear.

Don't get me wrong - I think there are issues with nuclear - primarily the waste heat - generally ruins the rivers or other local bodies of water even assuming radioactive waste is contained.

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

#444

Post by pvaldes »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #441
pvaldes wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You nailed it. Is the same material. The same that killed hundred thousands of people in a second in our recent past. Is unsafe stuff by nature. The stupidity of people at charge to see the problem or to invest serious money into fixing weak points, makes it even more dangerous, but the main problem remains: They never were able to fix their s*t, and "but, but, more people die by cars" and "we destined one whole page…

Is your argument that nuclear energy makes nuclear weapons more likely? If so, could you please elaborate? Decline of U.S. nuclear energy did not affect its capacity for building nuclear weapons, has it? Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties, with not a thought dedicated to "but how will they be built?", right?

> Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties

How many international treaties, carved in marble, has broken US in just the last 3 years? Think about it.

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

#445

Post by emiliobumachar »

pvaldes wrote: post #444
emiliobumachar wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your argument that nuclear energy makes nuclear weapons more likely? If so, could you please elaborate? Decline of U.S. nuclear energy did not affect its capacity for building nuclear weapons, has it? Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties, with not a thought dedicated to "but how will they be built?", right?

> Nuclear bomb decline was caused by treaties How many international treaties, carved in marble, has broken US in just the last 3 years? Think about it.

If the US backs down from the treaties forbidding increasing its nuclear weapon arsenal, and decides to in fact increase it, how big of a problem will it be to effectively build the new nukes?

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

#446

Post by emiliobumachar »

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…

Excuse my pedantry, but hydro is renewable, you have replies counting it as renewable, and a hydro dam failure long ago in china is the record holder of energy disaster casualties.

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

#447

Post by emiliobumachar »

Karunamon wrote: post #333
thehappypm wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think a lot of people have yet to internalize this fact: Humans aren't Vulcans, and pure rationality does not now, and never will in the future, drive public policy. Humans are emotional beings, and failing to account for and appeal to that will always result in failure.

That's a great reason to predict nuclear power will not be built, but a terrible reason to e.g. vote against it.

We could shut down a technology on a single fatality if we focused hard enough on the victim and their family.

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

#448

Post by emiliobumachar »

SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #405
Akronymus wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it feels good is my guess. Over here in europe, Germany basically did the same thing. They now have higher cost AND pollution per kwh than france, who has MUCH more nuclear. Oh and germany often has to sell the energy for very cheap when the renewables are having a peak, and buy pretty expensively when they are having a drought.

Did you account for the footprint of building the plant (all that concrete manufacturing produces lots of CO2)? And the footprint of the waste storage (again concrete, potential for leaks)? Footprint of mining? Lots of Uranium produced in the the developing countries (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine) which have poor safety standards. The problem with peaks is not a defect of renewables, it is a temporary problem, whi…

International power grid? Do you mean intercontinental? Solar exposure is definitely correlated across nearby countries, and I assume so is wind.

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

#449

Post by Natsu »

rriepe wrote: post #198
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…

Did you just slippery-slope all the way to entropy ? I agree with you and I'm "on your side" in the inane political sense. Just acknowledging the drawbacks.

Entropy is inevitable. I don't see that as a slippery slope but more of another way of saying "in the long run, we're all dead."

So we have to have some time horizon for making our decisions, because decisions that are perfect now and forever isn't an actual option for us here and now.

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

#450

Post by Natsu »

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?

See -

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

Post reply on HN