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

New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

#11

Post by ewzimm »

eloff wrote: post #6
payne92 wrote: post #3

Unpopular opinion (though getting less so): the politicization of nuclear energy in the 1960s and the resulting lack of investment & R&D advances may go down as one of the biggest blunders in human history. Even with some modest ongoing investments, we'd have designs that are FAR safer than systems currently in operation.

People got scared (somewhat legitimately) and we regulated them to death. It became so risky and so expensive to invest in nuclear that nobody, not even the big companies with nuclear divisions like GE did it. People talk about failures of the market all the time, and there are many. This was one of the failures of regulation. I think we're starting to see a small revival here finally, but is it too late? Renewables…

I agree that it seems like a massive wasted opportunity, but the most compelling argument I've heard against nuclear power is that it creates a vulnerability. If a nuclear power plant in New York City had been successfully attacked 18 years ago, what would the damage have been? We may need to focus on the security of existing infrastructure before we begin to build the next generation of power.

Re: New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

#12

Post by nickik »

eloff wrote: post #6
payne92 wrote: post #3

Unpopular opinion (though getting less so): the politicization of nuclear energy in the 1960s and the resulting lack of investment & R&D advances may go down as one of the biggest blunders in human history. Even with some modest ongoing investments, we'd have designs that are FAR safer than systems currently in operation.

People got scared (somewhat legitimately) and we regulated them to death. It became so risky and so expensive to invest in nuclear that nobody, not even the big companies with nuclear divisions like GE did it. People talk about failures of the market all the time, and there are many. This was one of the failures of regulation. I think we're starting to see a small revival here finally, but is it too late? Renewables…

> People got scared (somewhat legitimately)

Not really. The reality is that most fear is based on totally false believes that exist in popular culture.

If people actually understood the real level of dangers they would not nearly be as scared.

Re: New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

#13

Post by ptah »

payne92 wrote: post #3

Unpopular opinion (though getting less so): the politicization of nuclear energy in the 1960s and the resulting lack of investment & R&D advances may go down as one of the biggest blunders in human history. Even with some modest ongoing investments, we'd have designs that are FAR safer than systems currently in operation.

nuclear is not an option for most countries

Re: New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

#15

Post by imiller »

ewzimm wrote: post #11
eloff wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People got scared (somewhat legitimately) and we regulated them to death. It became so risky and so expensive to invest in nuclear that nobody, not even the big companies with nuclear divisions like GE did it. People talk about failures of the market all the time, and there are many. This was one of the failures of regulation. I think we're starting to see a small revival here finally, but is it too late? Renewables…

I agree that it seems like a massive wasted opportunity, but the most compelling argument I've heard against nuclear power is that it creates a vulnerability. If a nuclear power plant in New York City had been successfully attacked 18 years ago, what would the damage have been? We may need to focus on the security of existing infrastructure before we begin to build the next generation of power.

In US anyway, my understanding is that most of our containment structures should be sufficient to survive a plane impact without loss of containment. [1]

[1] https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/PVP/proceedings-abstr...

Re: New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

#16

Post by PhasmaFelis »

fearhugs wrote: post #9
keeganjw wrote: post #2

Nukes makes it sound like they want nuclear missiles but this is about nuclear energy...

Yes... is this an American phrasing? I (from UK) would definitely write this as "renewables and nuclear".

It's not uncommon slang in the US to call nuclear power plants "nuke plants." Hell, cooking something in a microwave oven is often called "nuking it," and that's not even the same kind of radiation.

Re: New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

#17

Post by ad404b8a372f2b9 »

melling wrote: post #4
keeganjw wrote: post #2

Nukes makes it sound like they want nuclear missiles but this is about nuclear energy...

It might confuse an AI, but a human would immediately know because the word renewables is first.

Maybe it's a regional way of saying "nuclear" but, given the highly negative context of actual nukes, I expected a fervently anti-nuclear article. It'd be like an article in support of euthanasia being titled: "This state wants both end of life care and murder".

Re: New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

#18

Post by magashna »

eloff wrote: post #6
payne92 wrote: post #3

Unpopular opinion (though getting less so): the politicization of nuclear energy in the 1960s and the resulting lack of investment & R&D advances may go down as one of the biggest blunders in human history. Even with some modest ongoing investments, we'd have designs that are FAR safer than systems currently in operation.

People got scared (somewhat legitimately) and we regulated them to death. It became so risky and so expensive to invest in nuclear that nobody, not even the big companies with nuclear divisions like GE did it. People talk about failures of the market all the time, and there are many. This was one of the failures of regulation. I think we're starting to see a small revival here finally, but is it too late? Renewables…

It doesn't help that we have headlines calling them "nukes" which continues that negative spin.

Re: New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

#19

Post by dTal »

eloff wrote: post #6
payne92 wrote: post #3

Unpopular opinion (though getting less so): the politicization of nuclear energy in the 1960s and the resulting lack of investment & R&D advances may go down as one of the biggest blunders in human history. Even with some modest ongoing investments, we'd have designs that are FAR safer than systems currently in operation.

People got scared (somewhat legitimately) and we regulated them to death. It became so risky and so expensive to invest in nuclear that nobody, not even the big companies with nuclear divisions like GE did it. People talk about failures of the market all the time, and there are many. This was one of the failures of regulation. I think we're starting to see a small revival here finally, but is it too late? Renewables…

I think it was mostly a failure of human psychology. The over-regulation was simply a manifestation of that - democracy working perfectly.

Blunder 1: war. We dropped a nuclear bomb before we ever made a nuclear power plant. Nuclear became inextricably linked with sickness and death instead of power and prosperity.

Blunder 2: broken heuristic risk assessment. Radiation is scary because it's "spooky" - it's undetectable, and it kills you in a nasty, body-horror kind of way - a long time after exposure. (Although many environmental toxins also fit this bill and aren't so "spooky", so I'm not sure what's going on there). Fossil fuels just aren't "spooky" in the same way, even though the numbers show them as far more dangerous. Chernobyl is enough to put people off nuclear entirely, but even a hundred Chernobyls would not be as bad as the environmental damage wrought by the carbon industry. A bold claim? We're in the middle of a global mass extinction. A hundred Chernobyls wouldn't be a blip in Earth's biodiversity. Even Chernobyl itself is practically a wildlife sanctuary now.

Blunder 3: Status quo bias. Sure, fossil fuels are terrible in many ways. But better the devil you know!

Re: New York state wants both renewables and nuclear energy (2016)

#20

Post by bilbo0s »

payne92 wrote: post #3

Unpopular opinion (though getting less so): the politicization of nuclear energy in the 1960s and the resulting lack of investment & R&D advances may go down as one of the biggest blunders in human history. Even with some modest ongoing investments, we'd have designs that are FAR safer than systems currently in operation.

Problem isn't designs, problem is generating power, without subsidies, at a rate competitive with renewables. (Particularly, wind.)

Point is, the problem is financial, not technical. Nuclear, any nuclear design, is just expensive. As opposed to the bunches of a thousand windmills that T Boone Pickens wanted to slap up on whim in place after place. Those windmills start generating revenue a month later. It's just hard to compete with that. Which would you put your money into if you were the greedy energy investor?

Post reply on HN