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

131–139 of 139 posts

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

#131

Post by icebraining »

rhino369 wrote: post #52
wazoox wrote: post #27

The main argument against nuclear is that it absolutely requires a highly educated, well organized society and workforce. If something really serious disrupts our elaborated, complex societies, then nuclear plants will become really dangerous. With looming climate change, energy crisis, overpopulation and other problems, you can't be sure that we'll be in a stable enough world long enough to be completely safe.

Sure, if suddenly society is disrupted that is a very big issue. But in that sort of sudden collapse, humanity is pretty screwed already. Making the collapse of society a little worse isn't something we should worry about.

Compounding a war with an uncontrolled nuclear meltdown seems something we should definitively worry about.

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

#132

Post by icebraining »

aeternum wrote: post #95
kjar wrote: post #88

Sorry folks give up the ghost nuclear was dead at least 3 decades ago. Solar and wind are the future. We don’t have a decade to build a new nuclear plant, in that plan we’d need a time machine going backa decade to abate climate change that’s now locked in. I’ll spare you all the risks and externalities, it’s just dumb. Again sorry.

You don't think we will need more power than solar and wind can provide in 10 years? Our energy consumption has historically only increased, even with strong conversation campaigns, we should assume this trend will continue.

> Our energy consumption has historically only increased

From what I can tell, energy consumption per capita is lower today than 30 years ago in many developed countries, including the US. While the rest of the world is far from reaching those levels of use, it may point to a cap in the need for more power.

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

#133

Post by nickik »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #123
nickik wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just so much hate how anytime the solution to anything is 'deregulation' its meet with utter horror. Just using the word 'deregulation' is basically a political death sentence. Even when deregulation things like airplanes, logistics and lots and lots of other industry has been very beneficial. I don't think people even realize to what absurd extend the anti-nuclear movement had managed to attack nuclear energy. To…

I mean, regulation was introduced due to the Three Mile Island meltdown. Acting like it's irrational to regulate an industry that has proven itself unable to self-regulate is entirely dogmatic, especially given the disastrous consequences. Furthermore, the Trump administration is already deregulating the nuclear industry, so you're getting your wish.

Again, I never said it was irrational to regulate. And its equally wrong that it was 'self-regulated' before that.

But the amount of regulation interceded was in no relation to the accident that actually happened. But rather the accident gave the political momentum to the anti-nuclear people to essentially make further development of nuclear impossible.

You are just engaging in binary logic, while I try to point out real problems with the current system that need to be addressed on a lot of levels, from development, to building, to licensing and so on

The reality is that you have no interest in even engaging in the actual problems with the current system in order to present some binary choice that you can force on people. Its simply the same old fear tactics, don't engage with the actual subject matter, demonize based on principle.

> Furthermore, the Trump administration is already deregulating the nuclear industry, so you're getting your wish.

No they are not actually. And some general 'deregulation' is not my goal.

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

#134

Post by delinka »

> You don't have to be "pro-X"or "anti-X"

But don't we? We have to be completely polarized on every topic. How else will the binary political system survive?

OK, onward without the sarcasm ... This same kind of critical thinking must be applied to every issue, or we'll just end up in the dark ages again.

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

#135

Post by glogla »

manicdee wrote: post #66
glogla wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA builds small nuclear reactors, on time and with reasonable budget ... but then use to power warships instead of cities.

Is that “reasonable” for someone building a warship similarly “reasonable” for someone competing with wind and solar?

Thats a good question, which is hard to answer without knowing cost of storage and grid upgrades because of intermittency.

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

#136

Post by unethical_ban »

icebraining wrote: post #129
unethical_ban wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At the end of the day it needs to stand on its own to make sense Why? Why does such a critical piece of civilization NEED to make money on a free market? Why is it absurd to expect governments to help fund power generation like they are expected to fund other infrastructure (and healthcare, in most of the developed world)?

Because the point of a subsidy is to benefit the public, not particular industries. If others can stand on their own, why would you waste public money on subsidizing a less efficient one?

The point of government is to serve the public interest. There is a lot of current public-private power generation in the U.S.

I also disagree with your assertion that there are renewable technologies that compete with the reliability of Nuclear.

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

#137

Post by icebraining »

unethical_ban wrote: post #136
icebraining wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the point of a subsidy is to benefit the public, not particular industries. If others can stand on their own, why would you waste public money on subsidizing a less efficient one?

The point of government is to serve the public interest. There is a lot of current public-private power generation in the U.S. I also disagree with your assertion that there are renewable technologies that compete with the reliability of Nuclear.

> The point of government is to serve the public interest. There is a lot of current public-private power generation in the U.S.

Sure, that doesn't go against what I said.

> I also disagree with your assertion that there are renewable technologies that compete with the reliability of Nuclear.

Neither can minicomputers compete with the reliability of mainframes, yet we've seen how that went. Reliability can be worked around with engineering. It'll be a messy mix of power sources, storage technologies and distribution networks, but it'll be cheap. Nuclear will keep existing - at the margins.

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

#138

Post by nickik »

bjourne wrote: post #119
nickik wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

People always hack around at large industries like this. The reality is that they have carbon-free energy deployed faster then pretty much any other nation and it still kills less people then other forms of power.

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

#139

Post by lstodd »

petschge wrote: post #20
lstodd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You sound like it's now forbidden to joke on the internets.

Besides, when one buries some mildly radioactive materials in 20 meters of ice with a median temperature of 230K or something like that, it just doesn't matter what neutron flux they release. And if they heat up, they would just sink deeper.

What matters is that that the neutron flux is adequately dissipated. Which it would be.

Post reply on HN