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

61–70 of 139 posts

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

#61

Post by belltaco »

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…

I found it good informative reading, compared to biased articles or comments that cover only one side. These articles are written for the masses, not people who have spent dozens of hours studying every nuance and came to an opinion.

If such people do comment on the article, I'd rather hope they comment on specifics rather than just say "writer is a snob, article sux".

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

#62

Post by PeterStuer »

cure wrote: post #32
Luc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm curious as well

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

#63

Post by SubiculumCode »

petschge wrote: post #20
lstodd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just dump it on the South Pole. It'll get frozen under hundreds of meters of ice (very good radiation absorber, plus a natural heat sink) and begin a hundred million year voyage to the sea. At which point it won't be radioactive any more and will get transported and dumped into deep ocean by the icebergs.

Water is a very good neutron reflector and moderator so it is exactly what you do NOT want around your nuclear waste. Also metal containers tend to rust when there is water around. The low temperature in the ice will slow that down a bit, but will not prevent it. Remember: while there are problems that are solve after smart people have stared at the problem for decades, there are many more occasions where all you can…

From my understanding, clay containers are preferred for nuclear waste.

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

#64

Post by glogla »

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.

USA builds small nuclear reactors, on time and with reasonable budget ... but then use to power warships instead of cities.

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

#65

Post by purple_ducks »

littlestymaar wrote: post #51
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. Russia and China disagree with you. The French and American troubles with building new nuclear plants is more linked to the demise of the state-driven industry in those countries than to some inherent difficulties with nuclear itself.

They don't have to answer to their citizens if things go awry.

Plenty of opportunity for cost cutting.

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

#66

Post by manicdee »

glogla wrote: post #64
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.

USA builds small nuclear reactors, on time and with reasonable budget ... but then use to power warships instead of cities.

Is that “reasonable” for someone building a warship similarly “reasonable” for someone competing with wind and solar?

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

#67

Post by dagw »

rhino369 wrote: post #58
dagw wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn't go so far as to say never. But that's generally the reason why nobody in building them in the United States. But countries with high nuclear usage, like France, show that doesn't have to be the case. If the US proclaimed a new Manhattan Project to go nearly full nuclear for new energy production, it could probably standardize designs, implement fall back safety features, and reduce regulatory costs. A lot…

But countries with high nuclear usage, like France, show that doesn't have to be the case.

Except France isn't really building new power plants either, and the one significant project they do have is way over budget and years behind schedule. They're keeping the plants they have running for as long as its reasonable to do so, but as it looks now they're not going to be replaced by new nuclear plants as they get decommissioned.

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

#68

Post by smileysteve »

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #29
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.

That very negative event is less than the expected externalities of coal and in many types of gas exploration

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

#69

Post by bassman9000 »

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

You have to account for the externalities of the only cheaper thing out there (fossil fuels).

And then there's this

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

Unless you're lucky to live next to hydro, or unless you do like China and steamroll over your citizens building massive hydro, there's nothing cheaper, overall, than nuclear.

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

#70

Post by smileysteve »

cm2187 wrote: post #34
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.

In some cases not even badly maintained, the nitrogen buildup along with how that affects the life in a properly maintained reservoir have a large cumulative impact.
Post reply on HN