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

71–80 of 139 posts

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

#71

Post by nickik »

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.

That is simply factually untrue. You can get cost effective nuclear plants from China or South Korea right now.

The core problem with nuclear has always been that if every reactor is a bespoke thing, it will be expensive. Mass production helps with nuclear as with everything else, that has been true whenever we saw a large expansion of nuclear power.

Trying GenIV reactors on a 'small' scale is simply not possible.

> The big problem is that nuclear is essentially a big government project, and America is very bad at those.

Then go to South Korea and order 50 reactors, give them access to US labor and let them build it.

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

#72

Post by jakeogh »

Whatarethese wrote: post #48
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.

Conventional media promotes strong opinions in the consumer about stuff they havent checked themselves. Those dogmas are then factionalized along and pre-judged with.

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

#73

Post by makomk »

purple_ducks wrote: post #65
littlestymaar wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah, it's worth remembering that Russia still operates RBMK nuclear reactors and plans to do so for as long as they can keep them working. The safety levels of their nuclear power program do not exactly match Western standards to put it lightly.

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

#74

Post by _ph_ »

all2 wrote: post #23
pjc50 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not based on identity, that's based on action. Running a stationary car is basically a form of littering.

That's like saying "cooling a stationary house is littering". Operating a device for the comfort of the user is precisely why we make things like AC, whether it's in a car, a boat, or a house.

No, there is a huge difference. In a house, the AC is powered efficiently by electric power from the grid or even your solar cells. With the car, you keep a combustion engine , that could output 100kW or more running purely to power a 1kW AC unit. This is one of many advantages of electric or hybrid cars, that you can keep AC running.

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

#75

Post by nickik »

Whatarethese wrote: post #48
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.

It simply means the process of politicians or normal people identifying with a specific group (other then the nation as a whole) and making that groups interest its primary concern rather then the nation or humanity as whole.

Or even simple the process of making policy turns into what are you and what are you not, rather then what are your actions or lack their off.

I the simply fact that you are born gay, straight, polish or any other identifiable group is what defines you and therefore defines your life.

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

#76

Post by nickik »

makomk wrote: post #59
Knufen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An absurd strawman, the guy you are responding to said building a plant whereas you are talking about finding leaks.

It's not a strawman, this was how the US built nuclear plants in the 70s. The folks looking for leaks were construction workers building Unit 3 of the nuclear plant, using a candle to test the newly-installed seal on the reactor building for leaks. Units 1 and 2 were already live. The fire spread through the cable ducts into the wiring for the in-use reactors, taking out both redundant sets of control and monitoring…

Its still a absurd strawman. Nobody advocates for doing things like we did in the 70s. And complaining about harmful regulations now does not mean going back to that.

Everybody who works on these regulations realizes how absurd they are. They were driven by political rationals and not technical once.

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

#77

Post by CaptainMarvel »

makomk wrote: post #73
purple_ducks wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to answer to their citizens if things go awry. Plenty of opportunity for cost cutting.

Yeah, it's worth remembering that Russia still operates RBMK nuclear reactors and plans to do so for as long as they can keep them working. The safety levels of their nuclear power program do not exactly match Western standards to put it lightly.

Context: The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw which resulted in Chernobyl. Source: the recent TV show of the same name.

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

#78

Post by nickik »

wutbrodo wrote: post #24
Roritharr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this focus on identity politics so toxic it's starting to make life miserable. I'm currently driving a VW SUV company car in a german suburb and the amount of hate I receive because of it is ramping up daily. Even from people driving similar polluting cars, like high-powered station wagons. The other day my wife was breastfeeding our child in our car while I was quickly grabbing something from a store when it…

Interesting, I often hear this described as a peculiarly (or at least mostly) American phenomenon, but that's well beyond the type of thing I'd imagine happening in even the hyper-sensitive US city I live in. I know I'm being a little reductive here, but your story is a pretty substantial outlier relative to what I'm used to.

I know in Switzerland there was a story about some of the young left party going around putting stickers on SUV saying "I also am a tank" and they got a lot of flack for this 'property destruction'.

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

#79

Post by ajross »

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

Nobody ever could! Nuclear power generation, from its infancy, has been outrageously subsidized, both directly (i.e. DoE grants, government funding of waste disposal) and indirectly (industrial-scale refining of fuel as a side effect of the weapons industry). Once those sources dried up it just plain stopped making sense.

At the end of the day it needs to stand on its own to make sense, and it can't, especially when compared to its green (and largely unsubsidized!) competitors. People who really want this to happen need to solve the technical problems and then come back with a plan.

To riff on the title: it's not "anti nuclear" to be anti-pro-nuclear. Make it work first before shouting about it on the internet.

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

#80

Post by jhayward »

littlestymaar wrote: post #60
jhayward wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France is in the process of phasing out 35% of their nuclear fleet, and the remaining fleet will need to be retired within a few decades. With one exception (Flammanville, 11 years over schedule and 400% over budget) no new plants are planned.

> France is in the process of phasing out 35% of their nuclear fleet No we aren't. The only plant expected to close soon is Fessenheim, but every others are planned to work for at least twenty more years. EDF just started «le grand carénage»[1] which is a big investment plan to make the plants work 10 more years, up to 60. (Which is in twenty years) Source: my wife works at Dampierre en Burly's plant, which is one of…

I'm aware of the refit effort, as well as safety improvements required and under-funded decommissioning costs, which as I understand it requires on the order of 100 billion euros in new financing.

My understanding has been that it (the refit) applies to the remainder of the fleet after drawdown. Has it been funded? Where is EDF obtaining the funds? Isn't EDF itself in need of a bailout from France?

As to the 35% target, this is the first time I've read anyone state categorically that none of the plants will be shut down. It seems strange to have a law passed that everyone agrees to disregard, but maybe that's how things happen.

Can you point us toward anything firm on which to base a belief that no plants other than fessenheim will be closed?

Post reply on HN