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

461–470 of 489 posts

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

#461

Post by pfisch »

magicalhippo wrote: post #428
pfisch wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Chernobyl almost make a huge swath of Europe uninhabitable? Wasn't that the takeaway from the miniseries? That a lot of people gave their lives to prevent an unfathomable disaster?

That's a stretch. The Exclusion Zone[1] is about 2600km^2 (1000 sq mi) but it's only declared uninhabitable, there are people living there (though not saying it's a wise move to settle down there). There are some areas outside that which is also deemed dangerous, but that's the order of magnitude we're talking about. For reference, Europe covers an area of about 10 million km^2 (almost 4 million sq mi). Also note tha…

No, I am not talking about what happened. I am talking about what almost happened.

They tunneled under the meltdown to stop it from destroying a huge amount of Europe, and I believe everyone involved in the tunneling died.

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

#462

Post by dredmorbius »

jabl wrote: post #377
dredmorbius wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

200 years / 5 gives about 40 years useful life. Some technologies (thorium MSR) remain unproved, so there's R&D lead time which is likely prohibitive --- we're going to go into this with the designs we have now . Construction and planning still takes 10--20 years, and commercial viability remains dicey. (Illinois is looking to shut down two nuclear plants not for political/public opposition but economic reasons: http…

> 200 years / 5 gives about 40 years useful life. Well, no, it's not that simple. Some advances would require new reactors, such as breeders, but even in a closed system with breeders there would be maybe a 2:1 ratio of traditional burner reactors to breeders (producing fuel for the burners). So even in such a scenario existing LWR's wouldn't be a stranded investment. But even if we forget breeding for a moment, an i…

Main point is that "200 year supply" is not all that impressive. Demand growth can dominate that rapidly.

When coal was first becoming a mainstream fuel in the US, reserves were estimated as sufficient for 1 million years. Current estimates are for about 100-250 years (latter from BP's Annual Statistical Review for 2019). Demand increased somewhat, and consequences emerged. Now 150 years into the million we're phasing out coal as quickly as possible.

Breeders, thorium (a breeder fuel), and uranium seawater extraction are possible but have proved challenging or limited to date. Seawater extraction particularly presents formidable challenges.

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

#463

Post by ant6n »

ergl wrote: post #418
ant6n wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the next next next level of climate change denial. After denying it’s happening, after denying it’s human-made, after denying it’s solvable, we deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.

The linked document has nothing to do with climate change denial, but with climate justice, which was one of the main talking points of the school strikes last year, and also concerns the UN: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/clima... . See also https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/ > We deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments. No matter how you put it, climate change is…

My comment isnt about the linked document, but about briandears attitude, which essentially appears like another step in the moving goal posts of justifying inaction on dealing with climate change.

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

#464

Post by shaftway »

nl wrote: post #403
DangitBobby wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's a claim that molten salt reactors are meltdown free. It's not entirely true (they meltdown, but have a drainage tank which is supposed to provide containment). They remain experimental. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Molten_salt_reactor#...

The use of the term "meltdown" seems disingenuous when discussing a molten reactor. If most of the fuel is already molten, and the shutdown procedure is to cut power (matching a power loss scenario) which means a plug melts to allow the fuel to flow into a safe storage container, then the thing is meant to "meltdown" fairly often.

"Core damage incident" instead of "meltdown"?

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

#465

Post by ergl »

ant6n wrote: post #463
ergl wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked document has nothing to do with climate change denial, but with climate justice, which was one of the main talking points of the school strikes last year, and also concerns the UN: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/clima... . See also https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/ > We deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments. No matter how you put it, climate change is…

My comment isnt about the linked document, but about briandears attitude, which essentially appears like another step in the moving goal posts of justifying inaction on dealing with climate change.

Ah, my bad, I totally misread your comment then. I agree with you, that comment is next-level denial.

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

#466

Post by bigdubs »

ip26 wrote: post #307
erik_seaberg wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also batteries are critical for Solar to be viable generally anyway, but not ideal for sustainability.

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

#467

Post by godelski »

natmaka wrote: post #385
godelski wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the safety record talk always seems disingenuous This is WHY I support nuclear, because of their safety record. All the people in all the nuclear accidents (or usage) ever that have died is far less than the yearly death from coal or oil or natural gas. As a death per TWhr it is even lower than solar[0]. So I'm a bit confused by the safety concerns. Having worked with nuclear materials, the reason it is so safe…

> All the people in all the nuclear accidents (or usage) ever that have died is There is no consensus about it. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

This is more like saying that there's no consensus about climate change. Sure, there are people that disagree, but it is small. And to quote the wiki you posted (from the opening)

> The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences.Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory, and one praising it while noting some shortcomings.

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

#468

Post by _-david-_ »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #370
tarsinge wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you take into account storage? Having zero electricity at night or on cloudy days is not an option. So it’s either batteries or nuclear. On the scale of powering a city, what make more sense?

Wind and water are other sources as well, though maybe not quite as efficient.

You can't guarantee there is going to be enough wind at night.

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

#469

Post by _-david-_ »

criddell wrote: post #311
mceoin wrote: post #44

What is the RNC's stance on nuclear? Does nuclear now enjoy bi-partisan support? Or just the Dems?

If the Democrats are for it, then they are against it.

The Republican Party has been pro nuclear for years...

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

#470

Post by Natsu »

imtringued wrote: post #393
DangitBobby wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

You're supposed to decommission them once you have replacement power.
Post reply on HN