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

331–340 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#331

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

dale_glass wrote: post #135
LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But nuclear has a terrible problem: it's not really economical. Against what honest option? If fossil fuel plants had to charge to cover the deaths from pollution they'd be blistering expensive. It could just as easily be said that nuclear power is the only source we can truly afford. > The business model of nuclear is just broken in modern times. Right, because it's not really a business. Power is infrastructure.

> Against what honest option? If fossil fuel plants had to charge to cover the deaths from pollution they'd be blistering expensive. Solar, wind, natural gas, geothermal, thermal solar, hydro. > Right, because it's not really a business. Power is infrastructure. An infrastructure that underlies way too many things. Say we subsidize nuclear with taxes. But everyone uses electricity. So what does it matter whether the…

> if you go with an expensive power source people and industries will have a reason to move somewhere cheaper.

The other options aren't cheaper, you just aren't being sued for the damages they caused (yet).

Creation and decommissioning of solar and wind are quite polluting, natgas is a byproduct of the dirtier fossil fuels, and geothermal and hydro are only practical in a limited number of areas.

> So what does it matter whether the nuclear plant gets $50 from me from my power bill ...?

Because treating dirty power production as just a business, like a muffin shop, isn't appropriate for society. We're making poor decisions for the group because we make them individually, buying dangerous gasoline today rather than saving to build clean power.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#332

Post by Adraghast »

josephcsible wrote: post #223
Adraghast wrote: post #23

[flagged]

From the guidelines: > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

Don’t care

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#333

Post by denton-scratch »

yCombLinks wrote: post #291
denton-scratch wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Condescension is actually rude, and for that reason not a smart way to persuade people you're right. It gets you upvotes on Twaddle or whatever, but only from people who already agree with you.

Yes, it is rude. That's the point. It's not to convince people that already have their minds made up. It's to convince people that don't have their minds made up. They see they will be treated rudely if they adopt whatever the unwanted behavior is.

You seem to be advocating bullying. I stand against that.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#334

Post by denton-scratch »

Accujack wrote: post #257
denton-scratch wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> conflation of nuclear energy with nuclear weapons "Conflation" means (or at least implies) that one thing has been mistaken for the other. Nuclear reactors have been entwined with nuclear weapons production since the very beginning. The British MAGNOX reactors were designed (and used) to produce warheads as well as energy. Iran is under sanctions partly because it's feared they'll use any reactor they build to make…

>"Conflation" means (or at least implies) that one thing has been mistaken for the other. Yes, and the word is being used correctly here. >Nuclear reactors have been entwined with nuclear weapons production since the very beginning. No, they have not. While it's possible to get civilian power plants to produce (breed) nuclear materials, they aren't designed for it. Almost all weapons production at places like Savanna…

> Almost all weapons production at places like Savannah River and Hanford was done with purpose specific plants that created plutonium and U-235 by design.

That's as may be. But Wikipedia says that the "civilian" Magnox reactors were indeed used to manufacture Plutonium:

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

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#335

Post by Adraghast »

fernandotakai wrote: post #112
Adraghast wrote: post #23

[flagged]

can you explain why?

Author went from Extinction Rebellion (deeply suspicious in its own right, but neither here nor there) to working for Michael Shellenberger, a lifelong PR flack for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries. Now is the public face of a “group” called Emergency Reactor — spend twenty seconds looking at its website and Twitter and it’s clear the entire purpose is to derail renewables — spun up by Daniel Aegerter, who through his private VC fund, Armada AG, is invested in a number of nuclear startups including Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Last Energy, and Oklo.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#336

Post by geysersam »

xyzzyz wrote: post #324
geysersam wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much wrong with this comment I'm not sure where to begin. 0. Nuclear is not forbidden. 1. Nuclear power is exceedingly common in many countries. 2. Electricity production is not (by far) the only source of carbon emissions. Why have we also not seen any major action to reduce emissions from other sources? Or did the treehuggers also force people to fly, eat meat and drive large cars? 3. > Last best hope.…

> But sure, go ahead and blame environmentalists for the destruction profit driven market capitalism caused. The alternative economic systems are even worse on environmental grounds, and their only saving grace is their ineptness and inefficiency, which limits the amount of damage they cause. Like, have you heard about environmental disaster of Aral Sea? About how Soviet Union explicitly pursued maximizing fossil ext…

There are alternatives to both extremes

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#337

Post by uoaei »

legitster wrote: post #119
refuse wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people say that new reactor designs will be a game changer but I can't help but wonder how much more benefit they'll provide over plain old solar and wind with hydrogen for storage and transport. After the Ukraine invasion, I think it's also worth considering future political instability in reactor permitting and design. I believe the molten salt reactors negate a lot of the problems we've had to consider wi…

If anything, the Ukraine invasion changed my opinion the other way. Germany had the largest investment in solar and wind anywhere in the world. But their dirty secret was that they were dependent on malicious petrostates to keep the lights on this whole time. Meanwhile, the Nordics and France that when all-in on nuclear are enjoying relative energy independence.

So you have a problem with cronyism and corruption, not with solar and wind.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#338

Post by geysersam »

ackfoobar wrote: post #293
geysersam wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much wrong with this comment I'm not sure where to begin. 0. Nuclear is not forbidden. 1. Nuclear power is exceedingly common in many countries. 2. Electricity production is not (by far) the only source of carbon emissions. Why have we also not seen any major action to reduce emissions from other sources? Or did the treehuggers also force people to fly, eat meat and drive large cars? 3. > Last best hope.…

> Nuclear is not forbidden. What is this point replying to? Anyway, over-regulation can make nuclear energy commercially unviable. It doesn't take a ban for nuclear to die.

The regulation is there for a purpose. The idea that nuclear was "killed" by regulation is a kind of "stab-in-the-back" conspiracy theory.

If nuclear was truly this obvious answer to aquire abundant clean energy, wouldn't our business friendly leaders embrace it with open arms?

A couple of treehuggers didn't stop them from allowing overfishing the sea, or from extracting fuel from oil sands. Despite those things having very clear negative environmental consequences. And strong popular opposition.

But for Nuclear apparently they went totally in the opposite direction. Deaf to the cries of businessmen they heavily regulated an obviously harmless and extremly profitable energy industry to death?

Occam's razor says there's a simpler explanation.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#340

Post by geysersam »

rayiner wrote: post #306
geysersam wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much wrong with this comment I'm not sure where to begin. 0. Nuclear is not forbidden. 1. Nuclear power is exceedingly common in many countries. 2. Electricity production is not (by far) the only source of carbon emissions. Why have we also not seen any major action to reduce emissions from other sources? Or did the treehuggers also force people to fly, eat meat and drive large cars? 3. > Last best hope.…

> But sure, go ahead and blame environmentalists for the destruction profit driven market capitalism caused. If that soothes your cognitive dissonance This is laughable. I come from a country that’s officially socialist. But even people from there want to come to Texas and drive a big SUV and live in a big house with a pool. Better yet, they want to attain that same standard of living in their own country. If environ…

> they will lose every time.

Then I dearly hope turning down the thermostat, stopping eating meat, and crowding in public transport isn't necessary to prevent climate change.

Because if it is, and if you're right, then we are fucked.

Post reply on HN