You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.” • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 2:53 AM UTC

Whatarethese wrote: post #48

csours wrote: post #2

Interesting idea: you can opt out of identity politics.

People keep using this term. Is there a simplified no bullshit summary? I don’t want to drown in a ridiculous Wikipedia article.

I think that most people mean "my (or whoever's) identity drives my politics. For example, the idea that I must vote Democrat because I'm black.

If you're black and want to vote Democrat, that's not identity politics. I don't even think that it's identity politics if you vote Democrat because you think everyone on the Republican side is a racist who hates you. It becomes identity politics when you vote Democrat because of course you're going to vote Democrat, because you're black. When it's unthinkable for a black to do anything else, then it's identity politics.

That, I think, is most peoples' definition. I have a different one. To me, identity politics is when politics becomes your identity. It's essentially tribalism. Instead of "I think this is the better policy" or "I like this better", you decide that your identity is Democrat/Republican/liberal/conserative. That's who you are.

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

#112

Post by jay_kyburz » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 4:25 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #109

jay_kyburz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My specific complaint with the article is that it's wrong and dangerous to consider nuclear through a narrow lens and therefore not a balanced and unbiased view.

The title of the article is "A beginner’s guide to the debate over nuclear power and climate change", and is about the various perspectives of the DNC candidates in a specific 'Climate Change' debate. Not sure how it's a problem that he's writing about it from a climate change perspective, and even has a disclaimer that it doesn't have all the details about the pro and anti nuclear debate. >I’m not going to review al…

Oh sorry, I thought that was obvious. It's a problem because you might read the article and start thinking that nuclear energy could be a reasonable solution to our climate change problem, but it can never be, for reasons that the author decided are outside the scope of his article.

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

#113

Post by jay_kyburz » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 5:10 AM UTC

The_rationalist wrote: post #92

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of every Vox article is to justify the existence of Matthew Yglesias-style centrist neoliberal wonks. "All problems are too complicated for the average American to understand! The answer is always somewhere in the middle! Go to sleep and let the adults in the room handle this!"

While I can't agree with all of your strawman, yes indeed many problems are too complex/needs too much knowledge for most people to understand them. Humans brains are buggy by default and without cognitive debiasing one is likely to fall in mental trap,especially if we talk about nuclear which evoke fear in most brains and emotions destroy reason.

It's difficult to evaluate nuclear using reason alone, because a large part of the equation is a moral issue, and we all have different morals.

Many of us believe it's immoral to leave behind nuclear waste for future generation to care for. Not only do you have to store it somewhere, you have to secure it so that it can't be misused, for thousands of years.

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

#114

Post by littlestymaar » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 6:37 AM UTC

jhayward wrote: post #80

littlestymaar wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> France is in the process of phasing out 35% of their nuclear fleet No we aren't. The only plant expected to close soon is Fessenheim, but every others are planned to work for at least twenty more years. EDF just started «le grand carénage»[1] which is a big investment plan to make the plants work 10 more years, up to 60. (Which is in twenty years) Source: my wife works at Dampierre en Burly's plant, which is one of…

I'm aware of the refit effort, as well as safety improvements required and under-funded decommissioning costs, which as I understand it requires on the order of 100 billion euros in new financing. My understanding has been that it (the refit) applies to the remainder of the fleet after drawdown. Has it been funded? Where is EDF obtaining the funds? Isn't EDF itself in need of a bailout from France? As to the 35% targ…

> which as I understand it requires on the order of 100 billion euros in new financing.

Between 50 and 100 billions, yes. Which is between 1 and 2 billions per reactor.

> My understanding has been that it (the refit) applies to the remainder of the fleet after drawdown.

As I told you, even the oldest reactor are planned to be part of the plan,and it even started this year on the second oldest plant (Bugey). The oldest one being Fessenheim, which is the only one that will be closed.

> Has it been funded? Where is EDF obtaining the funds? Isn't EDF itself in need of a bailout from France

EDF has no money issue at the moment (because nobody's is counting the decommissioning, which is a different problem…). They earned 15 billion euros last year, so even if the enhancement plan were to cost 100 billions, it would be paid after 6 years, which is way profitable for something allowing you to run 20 more years.

> It seems strange to have a law passed that everyone agrees to disregard, but maybe that's how things happen.

Unfortunately It happens all the time: evrytime you see a law saying “ must be done in 10 years”, it's usually bullshit because the government passing the law won't be in charge at this point, so the next government will just cancel the law…

> Can you point us toward anything firm on which to base a belief that no plants other than fessenheim will be closed?

Do you really think EDF would spend 4 to 8 billions in Bugey if the plant was getting shut down 3 years after the end of the works ?

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

#115

Post by The_rationalist » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 8:58 AM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #113

The_rationalist wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I can't agree with all of your strawman, yes indeed many problems are too complex/needs too much knowledge for most people to understand them. Humans brains are buggy by default and without cognitive debiasing one is likely to fall in mental trap,especially if we talk about nuclear which evoke fear in most brains and emotions destroy reason.

It's difficult to evaluate nuclear using reason alone, because a large part of the equation is a moral issue, and we all have different morals. Many of us believe it's immoral to leave behind nuclear waste for future generation to care for. Not only do you have to store it somewhere, you have to secure it so that it can't be misused, for thousands of years.

Please, just quantify. we all have different morals No we do not, all non irrational humans are utilitarists, and many are without even knowing the "concept".

believe it's immoral to leave behind nuclear waste for future generation to care for. Do you understand that nuclear waste is just a kind of pollution, which should be compared with other pollutions such as C02 emissions. It is estimated that C02 kill 1000000 humans per year Nuclear wastes kill 0 human per year. It has not killed even one human in all nuclear history.

Most people who talk about nuclear waste don't know anything about nuclear wastes... And they don't realize they talk about something they don't know. With recycling technologies such as what France do since decades, nuclear wastes generate useful byproducts (MOX). France only generate a few tons of nuclear waste per year, recycle more than 90% of it. 0.1% of the wastes are "dangerous" which means don't be exposed to them more than a few days if you don't want to increase your ageing. 0.1%.... That's a few kilos per year. The rest stop being radioactive 10 years after production.

Those 0.1% are safely contained since 70s and will never be an issue. Geological containment is only a marketing for pleasing those with the irrational fear described in my last comment.

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

#116

Post by gingabriska » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 9:10 AM UTC

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.

Why not just dedicate a few resilient islands or even one super island where all nuclear power plant will exist and then electricity will sent to all countries in the world through sea water. Sea water is already conductive and we used it as global electricity transfer

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

#117

Post by bjourne » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 9:22 AM UTC

realusername wrote: post #102

bjourne wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.... Main finding is that newly built nuclear power is about twice as expensive as wind and 40% more expensive than solar power. Other studies come to similar conclusions. With the cost of solar and wind expected to decrease due to mass production and technology advancements, their advantage grows even larger. The real nail in the coffin are the huge unce…

> See https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.... . Main finding is that newly built nuclear power is about twice as expensive as wind and 40% more expensive than solar power. Other studies come to similar conclusions. With the cost of solar and wind expected to decrease due to mass production and technology advancements, their advantage grows even larger. I highly doubt they take the unreliabilit…

Modern wind farms are built offshore and with towers 200 meters high or higher. At those altitudes in such locations wind power is quite reliable.

Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If nuclear power megawatts was worth much more than wind power megawatts then why are many new wind farms being built but so few nuclear power plants? It seems to me that those who put their money where their mouth is do not think the superior reliability of nuclear power is enough to make their investments profitable.

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

#118

Post by bjourne » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 9:23 AM UTC

realusername wrote: post #103

bjourne wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is bizarre about it? Not all options are equally good investments - some are clearly preferable over others. Why insist on new nuclear power when so much evidence shows it is not needed?

> Why insist on new nuclear power when so much evidence shows it is not needed? Which evidence? IPCC reports nuclear as being highly needed.

Which IPCC report recommends building new nuclear power plants in the US?

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

#119

Post by bjourne » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 9:30 AM UTC

nickik wrote: post #71

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. That is simply factually untrue. You can get cost effective nuclear plants from China or South Korea right now. The core problem with nuclear has always been that if every reactor is a bespoke thing, it will be expensive. Mass production helps with nuclear as with everything else, that has been true whenever we saw a large expansion of nuclear power. Trying G…

South Korea is not doing so great either: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613325/how-greed-and-corr...

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

#120

Post by littlestymaar » Sun, Sep 08, 2019, 10:39 AM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #107

The_rationalist wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw" The serious flaw was multiple consecutive human errors which could today be prevented by software checklist enforcement.

> "The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw" The serious flaw was multiple consecutive human errors which could today be prevented by software checklist enforcement. This is incorrect. The serious design flaw was that the 'stop the reactor reacting' button rapidly accelerated the reaction briefly, but long enough to cause a massive spike. There were also human errors on the operations side.

There were indeed design flaws (some of which are mitigated now that they changed the enrichment level of the fuel used in the reactor). But Chernobyl cannot be described as «a design problem and also human errors».

Anatoli Diatlov gave INSANE orders that led to the catastrophe. With such a culture were an all powerful chief can send his technicians to gulag if they dare disobeying an accident like this could have happened even with the safest PWR.