What I learned at work this year • Hacker News Board

Re: What I learned at work this year

#71

Post by Retric » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

rtx wrote: post #67

> Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. The problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation. So refreshing to see someone with his reach pushing for nuclear.

Though still missing the mark. Nuclear’s biggest issue is cost.

If it was cheap enough companies would have built more and scaled them up and down to meet demand, instead France only got mostly Nuclear by exporting its excess and nobody else really got very close to full nuclear.

The problem today is wind costs less. But, when you add a lot of wind during times of high wind your nuclear becomes useless. This ends up driving up the effective cost of nuclear even higher.

Storage makes this worse as you would then just want ever more wind due to cost.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#72

Post by tough_luck » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

pedroaraujo wrote: post #50

kinkora wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I preface my statement below with a disclaimer that I live in a "developed" or "1st-world" country but have previously lived and experienced other less developed economies. Anyway, it feels to me Gates is fixing a real problem but with very 1st world solutions? > For example, software will be able to notice when you’re feeling down, connect you with your friends, give you personalized tips for sleeping and eating bet…

It feels odd that on an entire post talking about the challenges of treating diseases like Polio, Alzheimer and Malaria, and the reinvention of the toilet too, people are focusing on a single statement that he just posed as a possibility for the future. Maybe it is just the HN mentality of nitpicking to every mention of the word "software".

I'm sure there will be comments on other aspects also. But discussion on this part is important too.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#73

Post by cesnja » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

cyrilllllll wrote: post #62

In the same way that windows is not bug-free, nuclear plants are not safe, at all. And they will never be. Without considering accidents, for only 50 years of comfort, we have shamefully produced deadly waste, that future generations will have to keep confined at all costs for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Unlike CO2, uranium pollutes in the very long term, destroying all bacteria in the environment…

The very basic point you're using here might be incorrect [1]. The difference is that all the nuclear radioactive waste is concentrated while the things coming out of coal plants are significantly diluted and mixed with local air. Therefore I think nuclear is better than coal plants even in the short term.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

Re: What I learned at work this year

#74

Post by SCHiM » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #71

rtx wrote: post #67

> Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. The problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation. So refreshing to see someone with his reach pushing for nuclear.

Though still missing the mark. Nuclear’s biggest issue is cost. If it was cheap enough companies would have built more and scaled them up and down to meet demand, instead France only got mostly Nuclear by exporting its excess and nobody else really got very close to full nuclear. The problem today is wind costs less. But, when you add a lot of wind during times of high wind your nuclear becomes useless. This ends up…

The cost is a political problem. It's easier for the opponents of nuclear to find support for stricter and stricter safety laws for new reactors. Driving up the cost, making them economically nonviable. Meanwhile the older and far more dangerous reactors are rotting away and cannot be replaced (or are replaced with fossil fuels).

It's been pointed out again, again and again. Coal plants pump out more radioactive waste than is ever released by all the accidents to date, catching a plane will irradiate you more than living next to one, etc. etc.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#75

Post by Retric » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

SCHiM wrote: post #74

Retric wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though still missing the mark. Nuclear’s biggest issue is cost. If it was cheap enough companies would have built more and scaled them up and down to meet demand, instead France only got mostly Nuclear by exporting its excess and nobody else really got very close to full nuclear. The problem today is wind costs less. But, when you add a lot of wind during times of high wind your nuclear becomes useless. This ends up…

The cost is a political problem. It's easier for the opponents of nuclear to find support for stricter and stricter safety laws for new reactors. Driving up the cost, making them economically nonviable. Meanwhile the older and far more dangerous reactors are rotting away and cannot be replaced (or are replaced with fossil fuels). It's been pointed out again, again and again. Coal plants pump out more radioactive wast…

If that where true China would happily jump on the nuclear bandwagon. Instead, they use minimal Nuclear because the basic cost of running a nuclear power plant reasonably safely can’t become really cheap.

Nuclear in China is 40.6 GW vs 290GW or so total power production. They are adding 14 GW but these things take time so the ratio will stay about the same. Meanwhile they are ramping up wind and solar extremely quickly with a stated goal of 1,300 GW of peak solar capacity by 2050 which they are on pace to reach. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China

Re: What I learned at work this year

#76

Post by tyu1000 » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #71

rtx wrote: post #67

> Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. The problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation. So refreshing to see someone with his reach pushing for nuclear.

Though still missing the mark. Nuclear’s biggest issue is cost. If it was cheap enough companies would have built more and scaled them up and down to meet demand, instead France only got mostly Nuclear by exporting its excess and nobody else really got very close to full nuclear. The problem today is wind costs less. But, when you add a lot of wind during times of high wind your nuclear becomes useless. This ends up…

Large parts of the U.S., Japan and Canada all have good nuclear. Gates' has always been about pushing research in the area to get better nuclear, which he outlines clearly in this note.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#77

Post by ensiferum » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 3:03 PM UTC

thecanman wrote: post #54

ensiferum wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true. Ultimately the reason is eating unhealthy food that throws the nature's built-in weight control system off balance and allows the accumulation of fat (which is actually not a problem per se, it's symptom of the underlying cause which is far more troublesome, i.e. metabolic syndrome). People however like to blame other things and external factors. I'm X because of Y. It's time to take the pi…

I or others shouldn't have to pay more for sugar because of others inability to limit themselves. There's already several other "taxes" we have to pay. No one wants to add another thing on that list.

But as a tax payer you will pay for the enormous cost on the (public) health care system created by this epidemic of high sugar consumption. Personally I'm not sure why I should have to pay for the type II diabetes bills for the people who ruined their health with bad choices.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#78

Post by sjroot » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 3:06 PM UTC

lnsru wrote: post #25

ensiferum wrote: post #19

"We still need a lot of innovation to solve problems like malaria or obesity ..." There's really no innovation needed for the latter. Just educate people and when that fails implement better controls, i.e. sugar taxes on sodas and food. Fundamentally the goal should be get rid of refined sugars in foods, especially high fructose corn syrup.

You have no idea about obesity...

Either bring more to the discussion or abstain from commenting. What exactly are you trying to say?

Re: What I learned at work this year

#79

Post by irq-1 » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #71

rtx wrote: post #67

> Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. The problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation. So refreshing to see someone with his reach pushing for nuclear.

Though still missing the mark. Nuclear’s biggest issue is cost. If it was cheap enough companies would have built more and scaled them up and down to meet demand, instead France only got mostly Nuclear by exporting its excess and nobody else really got very close to full nuclear. The problem today is wind costs less. But, when you add a lot of wind during times of high wind your nuclear becomes useless. This ends up…

Nationalize any nuclear plant that has an "accident". Investors would have a financial justification to spend on safety.

Re: What I learned at work this year

#80

Post by Retric » Wed, Jan 02, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

tyu1000 wrote: post #76

Retric wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though still missing the mark. Nuclear’s biggest issue is cost. If it was cheap enough companies would have built more and scaled them up and down to meet demand, instead France only got mostly Nuclear by exporting its excess and nobody else really got very close to full nuclear. The problem today is wind costs less. But, when you add a lot of wind during times of high wind your nuclear becomes useless. This ends up…

Large parts of the U.S., Japan and Canada all have good nuclear. Gates' has always been about pushing research in the area to get better nuclear, which he outlines clearly in this note.

It’s also subsidized in those areas. As I said in another post, counties like China don’t use a lot of Nuclear power even with minimal political issues because of core economic issues.

Saudi Arabia for example is aiming for 15% nuclear by 2040. They have plenty of money etc, it’s just not a great solution to scale. Further, any advances you make today take a long time to put into production meaning we can’t wait for ‘better tech’.