After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform • Hacker News Board

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#331

Post by NhanH » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:15 AM UTC

thehappypm wrote: post #328

Lazare wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m continuously baffled by those that claim that nuclear power is safe. Nuclear power is relatively safe. Nothing is 100% safe. Rooftop solar actually has a surprisingly high fatality rate from installers falling off of roofs ! Fossil fuels release horrible byproducts into the atmosphere, hydro sometimes causes floods...everything has drawbacks. > Analysis of nuclear power should take into account Black Swan event…

The roof-falling problem is by far the more palatable one for me. The people directly working in the industry are suffering the casualties. There are no completely unrelated deaths or injuries. And it’s fundamentally easier to make solar roofing safer than it is to make nuclear reactions safer.

> And it’s fundamentally easier to make solar roofing safer than it is to make nuclear reactions safer.

I do not agree with this statement. Although I'm still thinking on how to prove this one way or another.

The closest analogy I can think of is between driving vs flying. It's easy to intuit that driving is fundamentally easier to be made safer than making flying safer. This is empirically not true.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#332

Post by devin » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:15 AM UTC

notJim wrote: post #28

notRobot wrote: post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

Partly I think nuclear triggers a cognitive bias where humans will tolerate ongoing low-level shittiness, but really struggle with large catastrophes, even if the catastrophe is far less damaging than the ongoing low-level damage. However, I think the resistance is also because the nature of the catastrophe is different. Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion zone? I know that mining/drillin…

Apparently it's all in the marketing. See: the current US response to Covid-19.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#333

Post by Karunamon » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:26 AM UTC

thehappypm wrote: post #329

orangecat wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at Fukushima for example. Yes, do that. And you'll find that the meltdown and evacuations killed fewer people than did shutting down all of Japan's nuclear plants afterward (PDF: http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf ). In other words, nuclear power comes out ahead even if you assume there will be a Fukushima-class disaster every 10 years, which is absurdly pessimistic.

Any time I hear that “Fukushima wasn’t that bad!” it just makes nuclear that much further out of reach.

I think a lot of people have yet to internalize this fact: Humans aren't Vulcans, and pure rationality does not now, and never will in the future, drive public policy. Humans are emotional beings, and failing to account for and appeal to that will always result in failure.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#334

Post by yongjik » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:30 AM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #327

Green_man wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from the very biased "endcoal.org": "Coal is responsible for over 800,000 premature deaths per year globally and many millions more serious and minor illnesses." https://endcoal.org/health/#:~:text=Coal%20is%20responsible%... . from the less biased (depending on the metallicity of your hat) World Health Organization: "Ambient (outdoor) air pollution in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 4.2 million pr…

No, I was able to find stats about fossil fuels. What I question is that it would be less harmful to drop a reactor right into the middle of a city. Remember, my question was about worst case scenario for nuclear, which the very pro-nuclear crowd here has so far been unable to describe on the many occasions that nuclear is hailed here as our saving grace. They instead point to Fukushima and Chernobyl and say "see, th…

What, you want an accurate physical simulation of a nuclear reactor falling onto Manhattan, Marvel comics style?

Well, considering that an actual nuclear bomb going off on Hiroshima killed "only" <150,000 people, I find it pretty unlikely a falling reactor will kill half of Manhattan. So, there.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#335

Post by readams » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #262

cbmuser wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just look at Japan, most of the region around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has actually been reopened to the public already: > https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/20/national/beach-... > https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/05/national/evacue... Looking at the radiation levels, most places are already back to save levels: > https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en02-01... You ha…

Neither Fukushima nor Chernobyl were worst-case-scenario.

Chernobyl was actually very close to the worst case scenario. And it was an especially unsafe design.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#336

Post by r00fus » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:50 AM UTC

mixedCase wrote: post #324

kingaillas wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2013, an ammonium nitrate storage facility exploded (1). In 2014, a leaky storage container poisoned a river in West Virginia (2). It's instructive to consider some thought experiments/scenarios: What if... a) Both were run by the government. In this case you'd have people of certain political parties screaming about government incompetence, and how the best solution would be to eliminate regulations and privatize…

Your biases are showing. Issues in private businesses drives regulation all the time around the world.

Not in the US. They pony up, hire lobbyists and get off scot free or with acceptable losses to their profits.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#337

Post by readams » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:56 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #276

notRobot wrote: post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

I wish nuclear advocates would stop selectively quoting to try to hide things. Almost no one wants to continue with fossil fuels, and instead the competition is renewable. "This comparison" mentioned in that quote doesn't include renewables (it was from 2007) but from the very same page , in the very next section : > Modern renewables are about as safe as nuclear energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-en…

But you cannot use 100% renewable energy without some storage technology not currently known. Nuclear is the only carbon free energy source we have that can supply power reliably.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#338

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

tbenst wrote: post #64

I’m continuously baffled by those that claim that nuclear power is safe. Look at Fukushima for example. It seems hard to imagine a nuclear power plant design, even Gen III or IV that would be immune to any possible natural disaster. Analysis of nuclear power should take into account Black Swan events: no matter how well designed, some fraction of plants will cause INES Level 7 disasters. If the resulting cost (ie $10…

[deleted]

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#339

Post by 8bitsrule » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

Renewable energy sources have zero fuel costs. Their potential for life-threatening disasters - on the scale of Fukushima, Chernobyl, coal ash floods, etc. - is zero.

Just as with coal mines, uranium mines and oilfields, there's a large upfront cost ... but a much lower cost to the environment.

Furthermore, anyone can create solar-powered electricity, anywhere. There will be no wars over access to sunlight. Sunlight is a democratic power source, which cannot be monopolized by special interests. Nomads in Mongolia make their own electricity. Anyone living near a creek can make their own hydro ... thousands do.

Once renewables are built, apart from maintenance, the cost of the energy and its transport is free, and (apart from recycling costs) pollution-free. It will continue to be free until the generator has to be replaced, some stupid war destroys it, and/or the Sun burns out. Too obvious for some interests.

Attempts to distort these facts, to maintain monopolies and continue to enrich a very few, will persist. It's easy to invent lies and distortions and to spread FUD about renewables. Yep, there's a lot at stake. For a few.

But what's best for the biosphere and its people? For the people of the future, including our kids and grandkids? For all the lifeforms, the water sources, and the atmosphere of the planet? The answer is renewable -- and the technology to support its generation and storage is a superior and long-lasting investment.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#340

Post by sudosysgen » Mon, Aug 31, 2020, 5:00 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #304

kazagistar wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like an indictment of the commercial industry and deep corruption of US regulatory bodies. Its not an indictment of nuclear itself. The new designs are fundamentally safer, but i can see the value in the aegument that its not worth trying in as risky and corrupted a regulatory environment as the United States without significant political change first.

Did you read the article? It's the exact opposite of your claim. In it he points out how the regulator actively worked to enable the nuclear industry in the US. It's also worth nothing that this didn't appear to be corruption by any conventional definition. It seems more like the regulators believed that nuclear power was beneficial and acted based on that belief rather than a particular commercial motive.

Right, so you get regulators that are rational and won't enable the nuclear industry beyond reason.