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

Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#151

Post by pydry »

Manuel_D wrote: post #87
Krasnol wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still build new homes on that land once it's dry. It's not contaminated with radioactivity. Imagine one of the old French reactors "going nuclear" right in the middle of dense populated Europe. It looks like a derailment and OPs argument still stands, imho. The only thing is that you can add results of radiation throughout generations, where people develop mutations and/or die early. None of those cases are i…

Nuclear contamination can be rehabilitated. In fact, in 2022 all of the Fukushima exclusion zone was lifted as cleanup was completed. Chernobyl wasn't rehabilitated because Pripyat's sole reason for existing was to support the nuclear plant. So rehabilitation would be a waste of money.

The cleanup cost is absurd though. For Fukushima the cost is approaching $1 trillion.

That's why the US government passed the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act - to give nuclear power plants a free pass for any damage done costing over $300 mil so that sophisticated private insurers who can measure the risks wouldn't run a mile.

The real test to new design safety would be to repeal the act and see if sophisticated private insurers will cover them. So far the nuclear industry seems shy about putting extra skin in the game to prove that they're as safe as they claim they are to the general public, though.

They'd rather just pretend the act/subsidy doesn't exist.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#152

Post by pydry »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43
wolverine876 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China has built four, one in just four years, in two roughly-parallel series. So the anti-nukes’ too-slow argument is bunk. But the pro-nuke team needs a learning curve barely demonstrated in another country to continue. We have much more evidence of contruction being too slow (if that's what you mean); why is one example from the other side more convincing? Also, China is not directly comparable, being able to und…

> why is one example from the other side more convincing Because it’s a Gen III+ design. > the last sentence seems to agree that the evidence is weak It’s a new design. > people who just care about getting the best outcome, aren't on a team that has drawn a predetermined conclusion, and are working with the data Very few people who have done this conclude we should go all in on a single solution. Nuclear, natural gas…

>Because it’s a Gen III+ design.

That doesn't exist yet.

>It’s a new design.

Which doesn't exist yet.

Vaporware is always cheaper.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#153

Post by mpweiher »

Krasnol wrote: post #133
Manuel_D wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.

So this is it now? Some virtual public you made up is supposed to be your scapegoat to cover up the fact that nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? This must be a joke...and just like nuclear: I'm out here.

> nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year?

Nobody even remotely sane wants to die in a car crash either. Yet we drive cars.

Nobody even remotely sane wants to get poisoned by arsenic. Yet we make semiconductors, including solar panels.

Nobody even remotely sane wants superfund sites that have long term cleanup requirements. Yet we have them.

etc.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#154

Post by Krasnol »

mpweiher wrote: post #122
pfdietz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The renewables end up cheaper though, especially as you project established experience curves for renewables, batteries, and electrolyzers into the future. The case for nuclear is built on an every expanding foundation of wishful and magical thinking. All contrary evidence is waved away by conspiracy theoretic dismissal involving regulators and all powerful greens.

No they do not. The case for renewables is built on wishful thinking. You wrote so yourself: projections into the future of past exponentials, plus needed magical solutions to problems that currently have no reasonable solution. For a closer look at what happens when wishful thinking and reliance on future magic hits cold harsh reality, look no further than Germany: Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-pe…

Parroting opposition and right wing German Angst scenarios won't bring nuclear back. Its capacity has been replaced years ago. The "deindustrialization"-meme has been created when BASF started crying for subsidies because they didn't bother to diversify and relied heavily on Russian gas. No nuclear reactor will ever be able to fix that.

Despite all that, Germany came out pretty good and no fearmongering will create any of those scenarios: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wirtschaft/deindustrialisierun...

https://www.fr.de/meinung/deutschland-wirtschaft-konkunktur-...

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#155

Post by Krasnol »

mpweiher wrote: post #150
Krasnol wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ok, please explain what you mean by "results of radiation throughout generations". https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ > Or how nuclear power in France can go wrong if you didn't have either a Chernobyl scenario in mind or I'm no nuclear scientists, but even they were unable to prevent the accidents which happened. So what's your point? Or didn't you get mine?

> https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ LOL. Just tried a browser that goes through their illegal consent page without giving consent and it's actually worse than I had imagined. It's all about orphans in Belarus, which for some reasons becomes "the Chernobyl region". No connection to radiation or the nuclear accident whatsoever. Certainly no "results of radiation throughout generations" Oh, one claimed connection…

Wow, didn't expect this to get so ugly. What you people do to protect this dying technology is quite disgusting.

This is not the only charity, and seriously? You didn't know why Belarus? You are not aware of damages to the genome? Why do you even participate in a discussion around this topic? WTF are you doing here? Do you get money for this?

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#156

Post by Krasnol »

mpweiher wrote: post #145
Krasnol wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. This "assessment" is base upon a single image which is being handed up and down the nuclear astro-turf, and it's ignorant and disrespectful. There are still victims of Chernobyl out there, and there will be for generations. You can give them som…

> "assessment" is base upon a single image Incorrect. This assessment is based on the actual data. > https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ A "charity" that's a .com domain and has an illegal "consent" form. (Not all consent forms are illegal, but that one clearly is). Yeah, sure what more reliable source could there possibly be? I actually went through the reports by the WHO. The official reports they did every 10…

This is just the first charity I got from google. There are a dozen more. It's ridiculous that the freaking consent form of a website is your argument now. How are you not ashamed, posting this?

And no I didn't go through the WHO report (just like you didn't....you didn't even know why Belarus is a topic here so stop lying!), I know people PERSONALLY who are affected by that. Now what? What graphic will you pull out now?

In my previous comment, I brought up several sources to support my arguments. You have nothing here. Nothing besides the disgusting attitude you bring up towards those who suffer the technology you worship.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#158

Post by mpweiher »

Krasnol wrote: post #155
mpweiher wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ LOL. Just tried a browser that goes through their illegal consent page without giving consent and it's actually worse than I had imagined. It's all about orphans in Belarus, which for some reasons becomes "the Chernobyl region". No connection to radiation or the nuclear accident whatsoever. Certainly no "results of radiation throughout generations" Oh, one claimed connection…

Wow, didn't expect this to get so ugly. What you people do to protect this dying technology is quite disgusting. This is not the only charity, and seriously? You didn't know why Belarus? You are not aware of damages to the genome? Why do you even participate in a discussion around this topic? WTF are you doing here? Do you get money for this?

What people do to denigrate this technology is and continues to be disgusting.

Lying about "generational radiation damage", for example.

Citing sources that in no way support those claims.

Where does this unconstrained hatred come from?

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#159

Post by pfdietz »

Krasnol wrote: post #154
mpweiher wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they do not. The case for renewables is built on wishful thinking. You wrote so yourself: projections into the future of past exponentials, plus needed magical solutions to problems that currently have no reasonable solution. For a closer look at what happens when wishful thinking and reliance on future magic hits cold harsh reality, look no further than Germany: Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-pe…

Parroting opposition and right wing German Angst scenarios won't bring nuclear back. Its capacity has been replaced years ago. The "deindustrialization"-meme has been created when BASF started crying for subsidies because they didn't bother to diversify and relied heavily on Russian gas. No nuclear reactor will ever be able to fix that. Despite all that, Germany came out pretty good and no fearmongering will create a…

Deindustrialization is not a complaint about nuclear, it's a complaint about not being able to continue to use fossil fuels. It's a rejection of climate change itself, and you see this stacked with climate change denial.

It's true that Germany is not in a good place to compete in a post-fossil fuel world. Renewable energy is going to be more expensive in Europe than in, say, India. But nuclear can't help without short of near miraculous cost reductions.

Re: Nuclear power gets new push in U.S., winning converts (2022)

#160

Post by peterfirefly »

Krasnol wrote: post #141
peterfirefly wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, please explain what you mean by "results of radiation throughout generations". Or how nuclear power in France can go wrong if you didn't have either a Chernobyl scenario in mind or a "tsunami hits the right bank of the Seine". If what you did wasn't a reference to Chernobyl or Fukushima then, pray tell, what was it?

> Ok, please explain what you mean by "results of radiation throughout generations". https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ > Or how nuclear power in France can go wrong if you didn't have either a Chernobyl scenario in mind or I'm no nuclear scientists, but even they were unable to prevent the accidents which happened. So what's your point? Or didn't you get mine?

So you both want to claim Chernobyl as an argument AND you want to claim that you don't?

You know why Chernobyl was a disaster.

You know fully well why it has got nothing to do with the safety of current Western reactors, older Western reactors (except for some of the very first test reactors from the 40's and maybe early 50's), or even older Soviet reactors. It was a completely f*cked up design that nobody in the West would have allowed.

You know fully well that it is an argument designed to mislead.

You know fully well that you are the one misleading people here.

Post reply on HN