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

481–489 of 489 posts

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

#481

Post by pfisch »

magicalhippo wrote: post #477
pfisch wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, brain seemed to filter away the crucial "almost". However it goes back to how "intermediate" levels of radiation affects us. Even if the water had caused the remaining cores to blow up as well[1] then it's still not clear just what the impact would be[2]. [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/485190 [2]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-kno...

I might not be remembering correctly, but I thought they had to tunnel under it to stop the core from burning down into the water table which would spread the nuclear disaster far and wide. Not to stop the steam explosion.

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

#482

Post by namuol »

jmull wrote: post #93
namuol wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With some qualifiers this is technically correct, but this only makes it feel more disingenuous.

I think it’s fair to ask people to read past the headline to get the whole story.

Sure. I'm asking people to read between the lines, because they are conspicuously absent of a groundbreaking shift in the politics of nuclear energy.

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

#483

Post by namuol »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #191
namuol wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With some qualifiers this is technically correct, but this only makes it feel more disingenuous.

The Democratic Party platform reflects the position of the party for four years and is voted on and influenced by all delegates (including delegates for candidates that do not win, ex. Bernie's delegates the past two elections). A page on the Obama administration website reflected the personal opinion of the president at the time it was posted, and can be changed at any time. The presidential nominee is not necessari…

Exactly. The party's official platform is equally dismissible as - if not more dismissible than - as the actions taken by the party in recent history, right?

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

#484

Post by eecc »

burfog wrote: post #79
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.

The real answer is mostly "don't do that". Spent fuel rods can't be used anymore because about 5% of the uranium has been converted into elements that slow down the reaction. The remaining uranium is still good. Due to a presidential order by Carter, we waste that uranium. The process for recovering the unused uranium (called "reprocessing") is vaguely similar to the process for making bombs. We'd rather not have lot…

I guess the reprocessing cycle is also pretty delicate. A quick check on Wikipedia report:

1. Fuel has to cool in a pond for years (first opportunity for disaster.) 2. Fuel has to be dissolved (second opportunity for disaster.)

Also, Reagan lifted Carter’s ban, but Corporate didn’t lift a finger because no subsidy was given (as usual...)

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

#485

Post by evilos »

DangitBobby wrote: post #264
stjohnswarts wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that the human race gets to survive and progress, unlike the one where we destroy our planet with a run-away carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

You're missing some. For example, nuclear is implemented on a wide scale, but it's far too late to mitigate catastrophic climate change, and we are unable to prevent meltdowns in the insuing decline, accelerating the decline.

One of the requirements for modern nuclear reactor design is that they are fail safe, ie cannot meltdown due to a loss of power or other malfunction.

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

#486

Post by dredmorbius »

jabl wrote: post #476
dredmorbius wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 phasin…

> Main point is that "200 year supply" is not all that impressive. Demand growth can dominate that rapidly. Sure. But if we keep exponentially increasing energy usage, at some point we'll boil the oceans. And long before that we would have wrecked the earths ecosystem. So I'm assuming that the exponential increase in energy usage will stop at some point. The 120000 year figure I arrived at in my previous post include…

Boiling the oceans would indeed be bad, and I suspect we'll see deviation from long-term growth trends well before that point. But, again, for the third time, readily available fissionable fuels are much less abundant than is commonly understood (or you assert), with a supply very likely much below 200 years at best, and quite possibly only a few decades.

What's changed with regards to coal is not geology or geological knowledge, but consumption. Not mereely increases in existing uses but new applications of the fuel.

Breeders failed commercially for a number of reasons, fuel costs being only one factor:

The story of the fast breeder reactors is a story about a technology embraced by large enthusiasm, which never realized its expectations, at least in the expected time-frame. The reasons for this are many. Partly, it was technical problems, as those with cooling and safety. There were also economical difficulties since the price of uranium did not develop as expected. There were military implications: the problems of handling and transporting plutonium. Also, there were social or ideological complications, since public opposition rose against breeder reactors. The political consequences were that the financial support from the governments disappeared.

https://static.sys.kth.se/itm/wp/cesis/cesiswp186.pdf

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

#487

Post by runeks »

himinlomax wrote: post #73
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. It seems hard to imagine a nuclear power plant design, even Gen III or IV that would be immune to any possible natural disaster. For Fukushima, it seems that the panicked response of the local authorities (evacuating the whole area ...) was what caused the most problems.

> For Fukushima, it seems that the panicked response of the local authorities (evacuating the whole area ...) was what caused the most problems.

Great. In the future let’s just avoid making wrong decisions then. Problem solved.

/s

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

#488

Post by belltaco »

StreamBright wrote: post #23
melling wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now we just need to make it affordable. Cost overruns seem to be a big problem in the industry. The US recently canceled 2 plants, and we’re struggling to finish the other 2.

Let's move it out from government oversight. Anything gov touches gets super expensive, especially in the US. Best example is the Obamacare website. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare... Imagine how much cheaper you could have built that website with the same functionality. Now apply the same mental process to nuclear power plants.

Anything the private sector touches has safety issues. Best example is the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

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

Imagine how much safer it would have been under govt regulations. Now apply the same mental process to nuclear power plants exploding.

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

#489

Post by triceratops »

briandear wrote: post #309
fma wrote: post #308

292 comments and no one talks about the Democratic candidate that was most vocal about nuclear, specifically thorium? "Yang is absolutely right to make these points, and he has gotten some well-deserved attention. But it’s surprising that he hasn’t gotten more, given how much we’re hearing about the crisis nature of climate change. Because if you take climate change seriously, you have to take nuclear power seriously…

It’s not about climate change, it’s about controlling behavior via energy prices. The non-nuclear climate change advocates don’t care about “carbon,” they care about wealth redistribution. That’s why I oppose most “climate” policy. Because it isn’t about climate. Carbon and wealth redistribution should be separate issues, but activists have made them the same and since I oppose wealth redistribution via government ec…

"The world is dying but I think saving it would be tantamount to communism, which is evil because it's killed millions." Excellent logicking.

You'll take basically any excuse to not do anything about climate, right?

Post reply on HN