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

You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 139 posts

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#11

Post by jhayward »

viburnum wrote: post #6

Placing some bets on nuclear make sense (France gets 80% of electric generation from nuclear) but counting on nuclear is risky because nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore. America should probably keep trying on a small scale and if they can figure it, then ramp up. The big problem is that nuclear is essentially a big government project, and America is very bad at those.

France is in the process of phasing out 35% of their nuclear fleet, and the remaining fleet will need to be retired within a few decades.

With one exception (Flammanville, 11 years over schedule and 400% over budget) no new plants are planned.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#13

Post by The_rationalist »

viburnum wrote: post #6

Placing some bets on nuclear make sense (France gets 80% of electric generation from nuclear) but counting on nuclear is risky because nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore. America should probably keep trying on a small scale and if they can figure it, then ramp up. The big problem is that nuclear is essentially a big government project, and America is very bad at those.

"nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore." Wrong, China and South Korea does,some private enterprises too.

Unlike most technologies nuclear power plant building cost has increased over time (5 times) Mostly among other things (e.g lack of standardization except France), the huge current cost is because of irrational, overengeenered safety specifications. America could trivially build cheap power plants like in 70s and it would still make statistically less deaths than wind or solar and be the most cost effective energy source on earth.

Even taking into account modern occidental power plants, they are still mostly competitive with fossil and destroy other clean energy sources. Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-a...

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#14

Post by hollerith »

AstralStorm wrote: post #3

Carbon neutral is a fancy way of saying "let's pollute the same as we do now". Generally achieved via fake offsets, as we do not have the technology to offset something like US pollution. Even EU ETS (the most developed offset system) is much too slow to cause major dent in the problem. Where most climate predictions require us to stop altogether to avoid most painful results of climate change.

>Carbon neutral is a fancy way of saying "let's pollute the same as we do now".

"Carbon neutral" has a precise definition, and that's definitely not it.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#15

Post by lstodd »

Jill_the_Pill wrote: post #7
SubiculumCode wrote: post #4

I have met with quite unreasonable (to my mind) fears about nuclear waste's supposed deleterious effects on people and nature, even if stored in a remote underground facility. Whenever people have gut reactions without evidence, the conversation quickly becomes non-productive.

Someone's "remote" is always someone else's backyard.

Just dump it on the South Pole.

It'll get frozen under hundreds of meters of ice (very good radiation absorber, plus a natural heat sink) and begin a hundred million year voyage to the sea. At which point it won't be radioactive any more and will get transported and dumped into deep ocean by the icebergs.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#16

Post by Luc »

PeterStuer wrote: post #9
AstralStorm wrote: post #3

Carbon neutral is a fancy way of saying "let's pollute the same as we do now". Generally achieved via fake offsets, as we do not have the technology to offset something like US pollution. Even EU ETS (the most developed offset system) is much too slow to cause major dent in the problem. Where most climate predictions require us to stop altogether to avoid most painful results of climate change.

Context: very small western EU country. Over here we are: - cutting down the very few square kilometers of forest we have because the EU declared that everyone has to be carbon neutral or pay fines, and 'wood pellets' are considered 'renewable' energy sources by the administration. The cabinet minister in charge has admitted to the absurdity but stated he is not going to stop the practice as this would lead to being…

I suppose you didn't mention the country in an attempt to not get criticized?

Because if you're talking about Belgium, half of what you said is plainly wrong.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#17

Post by pjc50 »

Roritharr wrote: post #8
murftown wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right? As an aside, I was surprised by the repeated use of "climate hawk" throughout the article as an identity that we might be interested in taking on. Could they have said e.g. "people concerned about climate change"? I may just not know the term's history.

I find this focus on identity politics so toxic it's starting to make life miserable. I'm currently driving a VW SUV company car in a german suburb and the amount of hate I receive because of it is ramping up daily. Even from people driving similar polluting cars, like high-powered station wagons. The other day my wife was breastfeeding our child in our car while I was quickly grabbing something from a store when it…

That's not based on identity, that's based on action. Running a stationary car is basically a form of littering.

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#18

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #10

This is bad writing for a lot of reason. First the author tells us that if we consider ourselves pro or anti nuclear we can't possibly have thought through the pros and cons of nuclear power. It must be because we identify ourselves as left or right. Or green or not. Then he tells us that if we _do_ have a policy position, we are probably wrong because "its complicated". All of which I find mildly insulting. Then he…

The Onion got Vox down to a T: https://youtu.be/RpkQEq75y18

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#19

Post by all2 »

Jill_the_Pill wrote: post #7
SubiculumCode wrote: post #4

I have met with quite unreasonable (to my mind) fears about nuclear waste's supposed deleterious effects on people and nature, even if stored in a remote underground facility. Whenever people have gut reactions without evidence, the conversation quickly becomes non-productive.

Someone's "remote" is always someone else's backyard.

There have been a few [0][1] proposed storage facilities in the United States that have been stalled because of local NIMBY votes.

[0] https://strangesounds.org/2014/06/us-nuclear-waste-storage-m...

[1] https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/s...

Re: You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

#20

Post by petschge »

lstodd wrote: post #15
Jill_the_Pill wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone's "remote" is always someone else's backyard.

Just dump it on the South Pole. It'll get frozen under hundreds of meters of ice (very good radiation absorber, plus a natural heat sink) and begin a hundred million year voyage to the sea. At which point it won't be radioactive any more and will get transported and dumped into deep ocean by the icebergs.

Water is a very good neutron reflector and moderator so it is exactly what you do NOT want around your nuclear waste. Also metal containers tend to rust when there is water around. The low temperature in the ice will slow that down a bit, but will not prevent it.

Remember: while there are problems that are solve after smart people have stared at the problem for decades, there are many more occasions where all you can come up with is ideas that have been considered and found impracticable all long time ago and you just don't know enough about the problem to see why your idea wont work.

Post reply on HN