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

Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

thebulletin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#71

Post by chillacy »

paulchen wrote: post #19

The fact that we are discussing thorium here and in many other places suddenly, proves the successful mission accomplished by Andrew Yang. Federal bureaucrats and their aides are forced to do their homework to seriously consider the option and answer intelligently.

Actually I'm sort of excited about the reverse: there are many interesting topics I've heard about on HN that are going "mainstream" through Yang: Universal Basic Income, ranked choice voting, next-gen nuclear, a lot of musings on incentive structures and their problems, data ownership, etc.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#72

Post by chillacy »

RivieraKid wrote: post #23
erentz wrote: post #5

Yang is to be credited for stating he is open to all possible solutions to the climate crisis, and rightly pointing out that with a crisis of this magnitude no solutions should be taken off the table at this point. Something other candidates are reluctant to do when it comes to the topic of nuclear energy. He shouldn’t be expected to be an expert in the nuances of the technology or fuels. This should always be left t…

I like that he mentions geo-engineering. To me, the most promising is stratospheric aerosol injection. I don't understand why there's not more talk about it given the cost / value ratio. If it turns out that there are no serious side effects or risk and governments agree to do it, we have solved climate change.

Absolutely, we've already been geo-engineering for the past 150 years by burning fossil fuels. The tricky part will be how to deal with different governments... what if a project to increase rainfall in the Gobi desert decreases rainfall in California?

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#73

Post by heisenbit »

erentz wrote: post #5

Yang is to be credited for stating he is open to all possible solutions to the climate crisis, and rightly pointing out that with a crisis of this magnitude no solutions should be taken off the table at this point. Something other candidates are reluctant to do when it comes to the topic of nuclear energy. He shouldn’t be expected to be an expert in the nuances of the technology or fuels. This should always be left t…

You are right on him not needing to be an expert. However these are not nuances - the idea of Thorium reactors has been around for decades and the key reasons it is hard to make it work and safe have not changed. If he has not an expert at hand now who can tell him that Thorium reactors are unlikely that calls into question his ability to find and select advisors. Jumping on solutions that are looking good and convenient is not a qualification for the job.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#74

Post by Baeocystin »

fsh wrote: post #52
Baeocystin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a reason we call MRI machines MRIs, and not NMRIs. Rebranding around public perception matters, whether we like it or not.

I don't buy it. For example in Germany MRI is usually called "Kernspintomographie" ("nuclear spin tomography") and nobody has any issue with that.

It was genuinely a problem here in the US.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4a3e/c44df38873b8bf1e79a30e...

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#75

Post by roenxi »

Klinky wrote: post #41
juped wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I hate most in nuclear advocacy is the trope of "the new, exciting, safe and economical nuclear reactor based on new, exciting miracle tech!". We have amazing, safe, economical, etc. nuclear reactors. They're called nuclear reactors, and don't need any miracle tech conjured up in some magazine columnist's imagination.

What is an economical reactor model available to be built today? Practically every commercial reactor built seems to be a multi-billion dollar project that takes years to complete, with cost overruns common.

> ... with cost overruns common.

Presumably that is going to be consistent with any large industrially planned operation though. The overruns aren't going to be technology-specific, they are going to be related to the tendering process.

If the planners are incentivised for accuracy there will be one, maybe two overrun projects then the assumptions get adjusted. So if it is routine that suggests that there is some sort of incentive problem.

An industry planner will have little difficulty estimating an accurate cost of the technical parts of a project. Using historic averages or model + 20% contingency usually gets most of the way there. If the estimates are consistently wrong there are political issues at play.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#76

Post by AnnoyingSwede »

I wish there was this much backlash against Donald Trumps fictional claim that the sound of wind-turbines caused cancer, but i am assuming that this bulletin was commissioned by someone that rather nitpick on Yang for opening a door, than the current presidents attempt to slam working doors shut. Not to make this political, but Yang brings a lot to the table that others ignore afraid of being scrutinized.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#78

Post by fsh »

AnnoyingSwede wrote: post #76

I wish there was this much backlash against Donald Trumps fictional claim that the sound of wind-turbines caused cancer, but i am assuming that this bulletin was commissioned by someone that rather nitpick on Yang for opening a door, than the current presidents attempt to slam working doors shut. Not to make this political, but Yang brings a lot to the table that others ignore afraid of being scrutinized.

This is just whataboutism. Trump's insanity doesn't justify giving other politicians a free pass for saying incorrect things.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#79

Post by sjwright »

redis_mlc wrote: post #53
sjwright wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's important to remember that the Fukushima nuclear disaster has caused one confirmed death so far. I'm not saying that it wasn't a horrific disaster, but it's like comparing one dramatic aeroplane accident to the totality of road vehicle deaths worldwide—one plane is newsworthy; whereas the vehicle death toll is normalised and ignored. Worldwide, around 50 to 500 people die in planes each year. Worldwide, over…

> And it's important to remember that the Fukushima nuclear disaster has caused one confirmed death so far. I wish nuclear apologists with an agenda would stop repeating this. 250,000 residents were displaced, many spending their final days in gyms and other camps as rufugees in their own country. An entire army will spend decades and likely trillions of dollars trying to do something with the shattered remains of th…

Calling people who disagree with you "apologists with an agenda" isn't really within the spirit of Hacker News, nor is it conducive to healthy discussion.

The disaster that hit Fukushima was a tsunami. Only a very small section of the prefecture is still affected by the fallout and most of that area is for an abundance of caution. Most of the leaked radioactive material went in the best possible place for it—dispersed into ocean water. Ocean water already contains naturally occurring radioactive material, in quantities many orders of magnitude greater than humans could ever hope to disperse "by accident".

Meanwhile, the disaster being faced now could have been similar or ever massively worse if the tsunami had hit and damaged chemical storage plants instead.

Re: Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang

#80

Post by AnnoyingSwede »

fsh wrote: post #78
AnnoyingSwede wrote: post #76

I wish there was this much backlash against Donald Trumps fictional claim that the sound of wind-turbines caused cancer, but i am assuming that this bulletin was commissioned by someone that rather nitpick on Yang for opening a door, than the current presidents attempt to slam working doors shut. Not to make this political, but Yang brings a lot to the table that others ignore afraid of being scrutinized.

This is just whataboutism. Trump's insanity doesn't justify giving other politicians a free pass for saying incorrect things.

Agree, that's what it is.
Post reply on HN