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.”

#31

Post by blub » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

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.

I'm amazed we've had so few accidents, considering how many nuclear plants are located all around Europe. Recently I was reading about an incident in Ukraine, where workers from a nuclear power plant connected the internal network to the internet to mine bitcoin.

It's a shame there's no avherald for nuclear power, I bet it would be an interesting read. C. Perrow had access to industry journals when documenting the chapter on nuclear in his "Normal accidents" book. The incidents described there were mind-boggling.

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

#32

Post by cure » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

Luc wrote: post #16

PeterStuer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context: very small western EU country. Over here we are: - cutting down the very few square kilometers of forest we have because the EU declared that everyone has to be carbon neutral or pay fines, and 'wood pellets' are considered 'renewable' energy sources by the administration. The cabinet minister in charge has admitted to the absurdity but stated he is not going to stop the practice as this would lead to being…

I suppose you didn't mention the country in an attempt to not get criticized? Because if you're talking about Belgium, half of what you said is plainly wrong.

Which half? Please elaborate.

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

#33

Post by rmrfrmrf » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #25

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 thos…

Deregulation of nuclear cannot and will not ever happen.

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

#34

Post by cm2187 » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

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.

You could say the same thing of a badly maintained dam, or hazardous chemicals factory.

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

#35

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#36

Post by rmrfrmrf » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

all2 wrote: post #23

pjc50 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm guessing it's the VW part people are against since they cheat on their emissions tests.

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

#37

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #31

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.

I'm amazed we've had so few accidents, considering how many nuclear plants are located all around Europe. Recently I was reading about an incident in Ukraine, where workers from a nuclear power plant connected the internal network to the internet to mine bitcoin. It's a shame there's no avherald for nuclear power, I bet it would be an interesting read. C. Perrow had access to industry journals when documenting the ch…

[deleted]

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

#38

Post by chefkoch » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

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.

>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.

No, i think the main arguments against nuclear is the impact of the problem if something goes really wrong and that everybody is cutting corners making a technology more unsafe than it could be.

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

#39

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:31 PM UTC

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.

This, like most anti nuclear arguments, is a standard that is NEVER applied to other industries.

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

#40

Post by rmrfrmrf » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #10

This is bad writing for a lot of reason. First the author tells us that if we consider ourselves pro or anti nuclear we can't possibly have thought through the pros and cons of nuclear power. It must be because we identify ourselves as left or right. Or green or not. Then he tells us that if we _do_ have a policy position, we are probably wrong because "its complicated". All of which I find mildly insulting. Then he…

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!"