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.”

#41

Post by dagw » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:35 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

The other main argument I hear all the time is that building a new nuclear power plant today is so expensive that it will never pay for itself at current electricity prices.

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

#42

Post by skrause » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:35 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…

"4th gen nuclear" that could utilize current waste is years or even decades away from commercial availability. If you want to bet everything on a potential future technology that doesn't currently exist why not choose nuclear fusion? That will really solve all your waste and fuel problems...

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

#43

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

BurningFrog wrote: post #39

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.

Which other industry can make an area uninhabitable for many decades?

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

#44

Post by gnopgnip » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:40 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 alternative can be even worse though. Even well maintained coal and natural gas plants pollute more, and are responsible for more deaths than the worst case of nuclear power

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

#45

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #43

BurningFrog wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which other industry can make an area uninhabitable for many decades?

Chemical processing plants? Water management?

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

#46

Post by belorn » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

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.

Talking about cost efficiency in power production is impossible as long as the default option is that we will burn fossil fuel when the power grid request more power than is being produced by other sources.

The most cost efficient way today is to use renewable sources like wind and solar when they produce, and natural gas when they don't. Gas powered generators can on demand easily be turned on or off, and pipe lines makes the import/export very cost effective so it can reach the target market quickly with minimal costs. The combination also allow for partial build up and short time between investment and revenue, while nuclear plants have all the cost up front and take long time to build.

It should not be a major surprise that many new natural gas power plants is currently being built in the US, and in the rest of the world. If I read the articles/numbers correctly it is the most common type of new power plants being built, with the second most common being wind in areas where wind expect to be profitable.

The good news is that natural gas is also replacing coal and oil. The bad news is that they are replacing nuclear. Natural gas is about half as dirty as coal, but half as dirty as coal does not sound that great of a replacement for nuclear.

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

#47

Post by johnisgood » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #43

BurningFrog wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which other industry can make an area uninhabitable for many decades?

Meat industry especially[1][2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_agricu...

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

#48

Post by Whatarethese » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

csours wrote: post #2

Interesting idea: you can opt out of identity politics.

People keep using this term. Is there a simplified no bullshit summary? I don’t want to drown in a ridiculous Wikipedia article.

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

#49

Post by makomk » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

The_rationalist wrote: post #13

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.

"nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore." Wrong, China and South Korea does,some private enterprises too. Unlike most technologies nuclear power plant building cost has increased over time (5 times) Mostly among other things (e.g lack of standardization except France), the huge current cost is because of irrational, overengeenered safety specifications. America could trivially build cheap power plant…

Ah yes, the good old seventies, when nuclear plant construction workers could get away with stuff like using a candle to find air leaks in the highly flammable insulation within an already-live nuclear plant: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureremembering-the-... Let's not go back there. That could've turned out a lot worse than it did.

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

#50

Post by gnusty_gnurc » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

When Bernie/AOC lead with rhetoric like "climate change requires WWII levels of mobilization", it strikes me odd that they think that level of change is feasible, but that the unprecedented mobilization and centralization of efforts can't be applied to nuclear technology. It's bizarre and makes me think that it's a blatant political agenda much more than sensible application of technology to solve problems in the world.