Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

161–165 of 165 posts

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

#161

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…

On cue, the "it's all right wing propaganda" dodge.

Bloomberg is not part of the German "right wing", and also not known for disseminating propaganda. Furthermore, the "right" is just as responsible for the mess as the "left". The current applicable laws were passed during a grand-coalition under Merkel. This is not a party-political issue, but a German issue.

And Pro Tip: if you can't actually counter the facts, trying to denounce is not helpful. Because, as you can't counter the facts, you are admitting that "the right wing" actually has the facts correct.

From the piece you cited as a counter: "Einige Industriebetriebe denken mangels Billig-Gas darüber nach, ihre Werke ins Ausland zu verlagern, zumal der Strom hierzulande auch nicht günstig ist. Es geht um energieintensive Branchen wie Chemie, Papier, Glas oder Baustoffe."

Hmm...companies that need energy are thinking of moving their production elsewhere, because electricity is also not cheap in Germany. Not sure how that makes your point that renewables are "cheaper", when German electricity is more expensive than in other countries. Which it is.

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

#162

Public support for nuclear is a pure function of time since last disaster. The last one was in 2011 so in the public's mind we are back in "probably will never happen again" territory. However, we will still see more Fukushimas in the future (according to [1]). A 100X improvement in safety would really help the cause. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961... .

Or maybe better communication? Nuclear is, depending on what stats you use, either among the safest or actually the safest energy source. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (And the top 3 are so close that differences are essentially noise)

I think meta analysis aren't very compelling to a lot of people. Few death certificates read "killed by coal" for example. If true, I think communicating that modern reactors (for example) no longer produce weapons grade materials this could be helpful.

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

#163
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> doesn't exist yet

Yes, it does. Per the original comment. AP1000s have been built and are generating power.

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

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I can't believe that you seriously displayed one more time your ignorance about the role of Belarus in the Chernobyl fallout. Don't you have any shame? How can this happen? How can't you get any doubt and at least spend a few seconds googling? A picture would suffice.

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

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I can't believe that you seriously displayed one more time your ignorance about the role of Belarus in the Chernobyl fallout. Don't you have any shame? How can this happen? How can't you get any doubt and at least spend a few seconds googling? A picture would suffice.

It is very clear now who is ignorant and who is not.
Post reply on HN