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

I changed my mind about nuclear waste

zionlights.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#291

Post by yCombLinks »

denton-scratch wrote: post #237
yCombLinks wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The condescension is deserved. The green movement has done more harm than help to clean energy by blocking nuclear power trying to push energy sources that were not economically viable. This was mainly due to emotional backlash against nuclear energy.

Condescension is actually rude, and for that reason not a smart way to persuade people you're right. It gets you upvotes on Twaddle or whatever, but only from people who already agree with you.

Yes, it is rude. That's the point. It's not to convince people that already have their minds made up. It's to convince people that don't have their minds made up. They see they will be treated rudely if they adopt whatever the unwanted behavior is.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#292

Post by connorgutman »

Accujack wrote: post #246
connorgutman wrote: post #240

Call me chicken little but my beef with nuclear has always been about the people not the science. If we paint the Earth with reactors it’s a statistical likelihood that through corruption or incompetence someone will screw up. We can’t even keep 50 year old bridges from collapsing in the U.S and meanwhile every time a republican gets into office they bleed FEMA and the EPA dry. We currently have 55 power plants total…

>If we paint the Earth with reactors No need. About 5,300 1GW reactors would be enough to supply all electric needs world wide. With renewables added in, the number is even smaller. Electricity can be sent over wires, too, so there's no need to put reactors everywhere, we can keep them in secure locations if needed.

5,300 (in my opinion) qualifies as painting the Earth. If even one fails we’re talking about centuries or millennial of damage control.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#293

Post by ackfoobar »

geysersam wrote: post #219
rayiner wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. At least with the oil folks, they were pushing a status quo that was likely to stand until today…

There is so much wrong with this comment I'm not sure where to begin. 0. Nuclear is not forbidden. 1. Nuclear power is exceedingly common in many countries. 2. Electricity production is not (by far) the only source of carbon emissions. Why have we also not seen any major action to reduce emissions from other sources? Or did the treehuggers also force people to fly, eat meat and drive large cars? 3. > Last best hope.…

> Nuclear is not forbidden.

What is this point replying to?

Anyway, over-regulation can make nuclear energy commercially unviable. It doesn't take a ban for nuclear to die.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#294

Post by concordDance »

photochemsyn wrote: post #96

Just on technical grounds, this is just not a very educational article. Any discussion of waste from the nuclear fission process should begin with an image of the periodic table and a chart of the curve of binding energy (whose peak, or trough, sits on Iron, which the most stable nuclei relative to fusion or fission processes). From there we can take a look at thermal fission product yield: https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

> The answer to this is that if every plane crash created a 50-mile diameter exclusion zone that had to be kept off-limits for 50-100 years without extensive decontamination

Thing is, that's genuinely not what's needed.

You can live quite happily within a couple of miles of Chernobyl with a life expectancy difference much smaller than going from middle class to working class.

Fukushima today is even less dangerous, basically negligible danger unless you're on the plant grounds.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#295

Post by strbean »

bborud wrote: post #283
strbean wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right to Repair is incredibly important, but also feels incredibly insufficient in this context. What we really need is Obligation to Repair, or something of that nature. Producers of goods need to be accountable for the lifecycle of those goods.

I don't agree. If we move to goalposts too far down the field the political resistance will guarantee that we accomplish less. We have to focus on making repairing stuff possible and economically feasible first. And I think it will need to happen somewhat gradually so the industry can learn how to design things that can be repaired. We also need to build a robust repair industry. With training for repair personnel as…

Totally agree from a practicality standpoint.

In regards to undue burden on companies:

> I work for a startup. We occasionally have to make hardware.

> What happens if we go tits up?

I think if you go tits up, it's the same situation as when a business goes bankrupt and leaves behind a contaminated site. But goods produced by small businesses and startups are marginal compared to those produced by big businesses. There should be strong incentives for businesses to manage the end of life for their goods, so they will attempt to recover those goods and see that they are recycled. That will also incentivize them to design products that can be recycled, and as profitably as possible.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#296

Post by anonymouskimmer »

erentz wrote: post #215
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That has been working well, stored well and safely without issue. Fukushima Daiichi. In case those two words aren't enough to jog your memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe... > "leading to releases of radioactivity and triggering a 30 km (19 mi) evacuation zone surrounding the plant" > "the Japanese government approved the dumping of radioactive water of this power plant into the Pac…

> Fukushima Daiichi. In case those two words aren't enough to jog your memory: Yes, I get that nuclear power scares people, which is why we should put aside our emotions on the subject and just deal with the facts. We've had decades of empirical evidence about nuclear safety at this point. Zero radio-logical related deaths from Fukushima. And zero deaths in all history from all other civilian nuclear waste. > "the Ja…

The comment I was responding to was "WITHOUT ISSUE". A 30 km exclusion zone, even if temporary, is AN ISSUE.

> And zero deaths in all history from all other civilian nuclear waste.

It's rare, but happens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accid...

> September 30, 1999 Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan

> Two of these workers died.

"Inadequately trained part-time workers prepared a uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg (37 lb) of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable limit.[39][40][41][36]"

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#297

Post by MikePlacid »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #191
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. I've always hoped they're secretly funded/friends with the oil lobby, because otherwise that's just pure sadness.

Actually just by russia.

Russia is one of the biggest producers of nuclear power plants equipment.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#298

Post by whatshisface »

Accujack wrote: post #236
whatshisface wrote: post #6

> I learned that I had been confusing waste from nuclear energy with waste from nuclear weapons. That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point - it's not that weapons reactors produce fundamentally leakier waste than civilian reactors, it's that the military has a long history of not disposing of dangerous chemicals the right way. It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too and a lot of bases and the…

>That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point - it's not that weapons reactors produce fundamentally leakier waste than civilian reactors, it's that the military has a long history of not disposing of dangerous chemicals the right way. It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too and a lot of bases and the areas around them are contaminated. No, it's a plain statement, not a "tactic". Power plant wast…

>Power plant waste is different from weapons waste, and disposing of power plant waste has never been a real problem.

If power plant waste was handled as badly as weapons waste was historically, it would be a problem. That's all I am saying, really.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#299

Post by aktenlage »

yongjik wrote: post #147
matthewdgreen wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fossil fuel industry is not funding pro-nuclear arguments because they want to see 50% of their business lost to nuclear. They are not worried about losing huge profits to nuclear because from a purely economic perspective nuclear is not cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Hence it doesn’t pose a major threat, absent massive government-subsidized build-outs (which aren’t remotely on the table now.) The fossil fue…

> The fossil fuel industry is funding pro-nuclear PR because they realize that renewables do pose a major economic threat to their business in the short term Last time I heard, it wasn't pro-nuclear France that urgently built a new LNG terminal, it was staunchly anti-nuclear Germany (in 2023!!). So I have doubt about your analysis.

I hope you also heard that Germany exports electricity to France. The natural gas is mostly needed for heating and industrial processes and that cannot be simply replaced by nuclear electricity.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#300

Post by concordDance »

wcerfgba wrote: post #238

> But radiation hasn’t harmed anywhere near as many people as fossil fuels. The implication with both this statement and the map is that we should be comparing the total number of people who died from radiation, and the total from fossil fuels, and see which is bigger, but there are other ways of evaluating (potential) harms. Nuclear power and other radtech is not equally common around the world, and neither are foss…

In deaths per KWh nuclear is king, with a thousandth of the deaths of gas and ten thousandth of coal. Until recently even solar was worse due to installers sometimes falling off roofs!

E.g. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

I really do not understand why almost no one bothers to spend a couple of minutes looking up the actual numbers and analysis that people have been doing for decades... its universal in all subjects, not just nuclear.

Post reply on HN