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

21–30 of 139 posts

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

#21

Post by willis936 »

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.

One thing to note about America’s “small scale nuclear” is that it produces more energy than France’s “large scale nuclear”.

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

#22

Post by all2 »

all2 wrote: post #19
Jill_the_Pill wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

To be clear, I'm not attempting to pass judgement on people who vote this way. I would also vote "no" if someone wanted to store nuclear waste near my home. I'm only pointing out that storage is hard.

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

#23

Post by all2 »

pjc50 wrote: post #17
Roritharr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's like saying "cooling a stationary house is littering". Operating a device for the comfort of the user is precisely why we make things like AC, whether it's in a car, a boat, or a house.

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

#24

Post by wutbrodo »

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…

Interesting, I often hear this described as a peculiarly (or at least mostly) American phenomenon, but that's well beyond the type of thing I'd imagine happening in even the hyper-sensitive US city I live in. I know I'm being a little reductive here, but your story is a pretty substantial outlier relative to what I'm used to.

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

#25

Post by m0zg »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #12

If it's really the case that the only way to make nuclear viable is to deregulate the industry , then Bernie is absolutely right that we need to end reliance on nuclear power.

You can't have the real, workable New Green Deal without nuclear power. Anyone who says we're heading towards a climate catastrophe and is against 4th gen nuclear (thorium) at the same time is a hypocrite. Here we have something both sides of the aisle will support, irrespective even of their views on climate change, let's get to work and if there are safety concerns, let's mount an effort to address those. Once those are conclusively addressed, it will be easier to deregulate the industry and make it cheaper to build nuclear power plants. Thorium is abundant. There are now reactors that can utilize "nuclear waste" as well, so that problem could be solved too, I'm pretty sure.

I would be willing to bet that it will be dramatically cheaper than $10T "deals" floated so far. Shit, getting fusion to work with net energy gain will likely cost less than $1T all in all (although it'll take time).

If done properly, we could finally end up with electricity that's "too cheap to meter", and massively reduce the need for coal, oil, and gas, all without having to hobble the entire domestic industries and force them to burn coal in China instead.

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

#26

Post by Spooky23 »

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.

When these conversations take place in the policy space, everyone agrees to do nothing, and you end up with situations where power plants with Living in New York, all of the nuclear facilities will be decommissioned in my lifetime, and the ratepayers or taxpayers will be paying for upkeep of the storage components for decades or centuries. We already have to provide direct subsidy just to keep them operating as they aren’t financially viable.

That’s why nuclear doesn’t get built today.

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

#27

Post by wazoox »

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.

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

#29

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

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.

Yup. Plus, with nuclear, even if we do everything as safely as possible, there's always a tail risk of a VERY negative event due to causes outside our control.

I'm yet to understand why this part of the argument is often so readily dismissed.

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

#30

Post by blondin »

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…

omg wow, didn't know people would go to such extent...
Post reply on HN