Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I changed my mind about nuclear waste

zionlights.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#161

Post by ohgodplsno »

wirrbel wrote: post #117
rayiner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

> Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. You would have thought that France would have supplied the European continent with electricity now that Russia cut its gas supply, but it turns out that France received electricity from…

France was strongarmed by Germany and by shitty election related deals to elect Hollande into massive nuclear power closures and reductions, coupled with presidents unable to see more than 5 years ahead means that nuclear plants both do not get renewed and also get closed for absolutely no reason. See Fessenheim.

The issue with construction isn't that it's hard to build a safe power plant, it's that there's been no will from anyone, or active harm from incompetent shitheads.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#162

Post by anonymouskimmer »

whatshisface wrote: post #92
tcmart14 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or more importantly, would the same motivators for the military exist for private industries. My example would not be nuclear, but waste in general. I did 5 years in the Navy. Out at sea, by regulations, we have really strict standards of how certain materials get disposed. Clean metal, like aluminum cans from the galley can go overboard, into the ocean, and so can food waste. Plastic can't, batteries cant, etc. Do b…

So, what you are expressing is one perspective on accidents, and it's true - the one guy who cares about cleaning up a spill is a good guy, the one guy who hoses it into a drain is a bad guy. I would like to offer another one. The water is going to take all of the people who did it right, and all of the people who did it wrong, and average their actions together into a single number, the amount of contamination. On t…

> The water is going to take all of the people who did it right, and all of the people who did it wrong, and average their actions together into a single number, the amount of contamination.

I imagine that batteries, for one, would tend to sink to the bottom of the ocean (if not gulped up by a large animal), and would thus cause highly concentrated local contamination. It would really depend on exactly where the batteries were thrown overboard on how much damage each one caused.

Otherwise I agree with what you're saying.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#163

Post by anigbrowl »

qclibre22 wrote: post #109
stareatgoats wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GWPF The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a British foundation highly critical of the anthropogenic global warming scientific consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foun...

> anthropogenic global warming scientific consensus Isn't there some serious, vigorous debate on this topic?

There's an inverse correlation between the intensity of your coefficients.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#164

Post by anigbrowl »

xyzelement wrote: post #122
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #18

The author, who gives every appearance of being funded by the industry, founded an activist group that claims: > Aim for 50% nuclear at least, as per the science. Which suggests a pretty cavalier attitude to "the science". edit: I take it back, she's in cahoots with Shellenberger and GWPF so it's the fossil fuel industry that she's supporting. I thought the timing was mysteriously exact for both her and Shellenberger…

To point out the perhaps obvious, there's nothing in your post that addresses anything presented in the article on the fact or argument level. "I don't like her and someone she works with" isn't persuasive. On a controversial topic, everyone with a view is going to be disliked by someone - it carries to significance. I suppose your user name checks out...

As does yours.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#165

Post by ALittleLight »

rayiner wrote: post #87
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #18

The author, who gives every appearance of being funded by the industry, founded an activist group that claims: > Aim for 50% nuclear at least, as per the science. Which suggests a pretty cavalier attitude to "the science". edit: I take it back, she's in cahoots with Shellenberger and GWPF so it's the fossil fuel industry that she's supporting. I thought the timing was mysteriously exact for both her and Shellenberger…

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

I don't think so. People in the US have and have had net-positive views on nuclear energy. It's not like public sentiment has turned against nuclear energy because of naked tree hugging protesters. For example, this polling [1] from Pew shows that only 27% of the US public thinks the government should discourage nuclear power with everyone else saying the government should either encourage or be neutral towards it.

Of course some green energy climate tree hugger whatever protesters oppose nuclear energy, but they are powerless and don't change public opinion much and certainly don't influence outcomes. To my knowledge it's government regulations and laws that stifle nuclear energy - not protesters or climate people.

1 - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/americans-c...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#166

Post by gwbas1c »

Last summer, on vacation, I stumbled upon some nuclear waste. I went looking for a visitor's center, but missed it and drove further up the road.

https://goo.gl/maps/8C8uXWXcBxXGjz5Q7

I pulled off the road across the river (Readsboro Rd) to turn around, and low and behold, I was looking straight across the dam at the waste. I always assumed the site would be bigger.)

In hindsight I wish I took a picture with my whole family.

Ironically, the waste has been there almost as long as the plant operated: https://decommissioningcollaborative.org/yankee-rowe/

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#167

Post by sgu999 »

sonofhans wrote: post #159
rayiner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

I can't believe you're blaming "tree huggers" for this, when the clear beneficiary is the global fossil fuel industry, who've been lobbying against nuclear power since the 50s. Shit, many anti-nuclear groups have been funded by fossil fuel industry for decades. At best, their protests were political cover for governments to do what the oil industry paid them to do.

Do you have sources for these claims?

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#168

Post by api »

sonofhans wrote: post #159
rayiner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

I can't believe you're blaming "tree huggers" for this, when the clear beneficiary is the global fossil fuel industry, who've been lobbying against nuclear power since the 50s. Shit, many anti-nuclear groups have been funded by fossil fuel industry for decades. At best, their protests were political cover for governments to do what the oil industry paid them to do.

The rabid anti nukes were more useful idiots. You’re right that the real power is in the fossil fuel industry which was happy to use them.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#169

Post by pydry »

rayiner wrote: post #87
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #18

The author, who gives every appearance of being funded by the industry, founded an activist group that claims: > Aim for 50% nuclear at least, as per the science. Which suggests a pretty cavalier attitude to "the science". edit: I take it back, she's in cahoots with Shellenberger and GWPF so it's the fossil fuel industry that she's supporting. I thought the timing was mysteriously exact for both her and Shellenberger…

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

So, between the sheer 5x higher cost of nuclear power and people who hug trees your consided analysis is that the latter held back nuclear power more?

It's like an Illuminati conspiracy theory except with people who dont use soap...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#170

Post by denton-scratch »

rayiner wrote: post #87
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #18

The author, who gives every appearance of being funded by the industry, founded an activist group that claims: > Aim for 50% nuclear at least, as per the science. Which suggests a pretty cavalier attitude to "the science". edit: I take it back, she's in cahoots with Shellenberger and GWPF so it's the fossil fuel industry that she's supporting. I thought the timing was mysteriously exact for both her and Shellenberger…

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

> which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did

France is often considered to be in "The West".

Post reply on HN