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

To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 666 posts

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#631

Post by mason240 »

btian wrote: post #494
mason240 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.

You're comparing two different things. If your house explodes, fix the source and rebuild the house. Maybe it's time for a major remodel anyway. If there's a nuclear incident, what are you going to do?

The scenarios are the same.

Gas explosion: house destroyed, possessions gone, death if I am home, move to a new home.

Nuclear incident: house is uninhabitable, possessions gone, possibility of shortened lifespan if I receive excessive radiation, move to a new home

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#632

Post by Retra »

smallnamespace wrote: post #137
Retra wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet if you don't want to have sex, you don't have to, despite any evolutionary pressure to do so. So evolution is not a consideration when trying to determine whether you want to have sex.

Evolution certainly is relevant if you explicitly think about your own evolutionary origins and what strategies worked out for your ancestors, when deciding what to do yourself.

Most of your ancestors were nothing like human.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#633

Post by kbenson »

mason240 wrote: post #631
btian wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing two different things. If your house explodes, fix the source and rebuild the house. Maybe it's time for a major remodel anyway. If there's a nuclear incident, what are you going to do?

The scenarios are the same. Gas explosion: house destroyed, possessions gone, death if I am home, move to a new home. Nuclear incident: house is uninhabitable, possessions gone, possibility of shortened lifespan if I receive excessive radiation, move to a new home

Gas explosion: House destroyed, you still own the land, you can rebuild on the land. Even if you move to a new home, you can sell the land for the going rate in the are (which will likely drop because more land is coming on the market, but perhaps not too much).

Nuclear incident: You own irradiated land. Good luck, maybe the government will buy it off you, or the power company if stipulated as some penalty.

One destroys some of your local property, the other destroys the value of all your local property.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#634

Post by pvaldes »

kashkhan wrote: post #159
JacksonGariety wrote: post #157

Please, HN: read more about fukushima. This could be the end of it all. All of human history could go out in the blink of an eye.

Fukushima was badly built, badly protected, and badly operated. First few decades airplanes were deadly. Now not so much. All tech can be tamed if you put in the effort.

All tech can be tamed, the problem is "tamed by who and for doing what against who?". As any sirian children could teach us, airplanes are deadlier than ever.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#635

Post by [deleted] »

Retra wrote: post #632
smallnamespace wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution certainly is relevant if you explicitly think about your own evolutionary origins and what strategies worked out for your ancestors, when deciding what to do yourself.

Most of your ancestors were nothing like human.

[deleted]

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#636

Post by [deleted] »

Retra wrote: post #632
smallnamespace wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution certainly is relevant if you explicitly think about your own evolutionary origins and what strategies worked out for your ancestors, when deciding what to do yourself.

Most of your ancestors were nothing like human.

[deleted]

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#637

Post by mirimir »

natch wrote: post #493
mirimir wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be OK with nuclear power if they could get adequate insurance on the open market, accepting all risk. It's my understanding that nuclear power plants are not insurable, unless government assumes risk, agrees to handle waste, etc.

Most of us would not be willing put a price on the lives or health of, say, our children. Any price. I'm not so ok with it, but not just for safety reasons. New designs may be safer but they are still part of a globally destructive system of dirty mining, byproducts that go to weapons, and still non-zero risk of inflicting lifelong and community-wide damage in catastrophic situations. Also it bugs me that nuclear is…

I'm sympathetic to all of that, and agree fully with most of it. But my point is that nuclear power plants, in order to be insurable on the open market, with no government involvement, would necessarily be safe enough to address your safety concerns. Regarding decentralization, we'll need some substantial breakthroughs in fabbing. Either that, or some substantial reduction in technology level.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#638

Post by pesfandiar »

ared38 wrote: post #563
afterburner wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage to go massively over budget with the initial co…

Honest question: I thought the big problem with solar and wind is what to do on windless nights. AFAIK battery technology is nowhere near good or cheap enough. Nuclear seems like a solution to that gap. What are others?

You don't necessarily need batteries to store energy. For instance, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit....

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#639

Post by tripzilch »

roryisok wrote: post #520
tripzilch wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fukushima scale disasters? They're not very deadly. except for the people that literally had to give up their lives in order to save the situation and not let it grow many times worse. knowing they were stepping into the radiation that would kill them in a few hours (if they were lucky). hey if it's not very deadly, why don't you volunteer for being one of those heroes the next disaster also Fukushima is not yet do…

> now it's kinda too late I know we've passed the 400ppm threshold, it's too late to prevent that, but its not "too late" to switch the planet to renewable energy. It can never be too late for that. We can't stop the catastrophic effects of climate change that we'll likely see in our lifetimes, but we can hopefully stop it from being even worse

thanks for saying that. I can get real gloomy about this sort of thing.

Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)

#640

Post by calibration263 »

lamontcg wrote: post #600
DennisP wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima is not a "newer reactor." It was built in the 70s.

Yeah, and I still remember when Chernobyl happened in 1986 and they told us that it was all due to shitty Russian design and that it could never happen to a reactor like Fukushima. Those goal posts keep conveniently moving. Today's brand new reactors eventually become the 30 or 40 year old reactors that are allowed to have meltdowns that "could never happen with new reactor design".

Fukushima was commissioned in 1971, Chernobyl was commissioned in 1977. That said Fukushima was a better design, and as a result was a much less significant event. Reactors built today will be 30-40 years old one day, but we also have 30 years more knowledge about nuclear power than when either of those reactors were built.
Post reply on HN