3 ms·

I really think it is a tragedy that nuclear power got such bad PR. In the U.S., outside of military applications, we really only got 20 or so years of refineme

by douche 11y ago

I really think it is a tragedy that nuclear power got such bad PR. In the U.S., outside of military applications, we really only got 20 or so years of refinements on the technology, before the greens and Three-Mile Island made nuclear power, well, nuclear. Imagine how much safer and more efficient the technology could have been with forty years more of large-scale investment and attention. 20 odd years in aviation only brought us from the Wright Flyer to the Spirit of Saint Louis. 20 odd years of automobiles brought us from the original Benz to the Model T. 20 odd years of computing only brought us from the ENIAC to the Intel 4004.

tajen 11y ago
On the one hand, the last 20 years of study on politic science didn't bring much improvement, so only certain things have room for development. On the other, an old article on HN criticized the fact than garage science/fablabs in nuclear area became forbidden since the war, which prevents disruptive young tinklers from stumbling upon a revolutionnary discoveries.
pstuart 11y ago
Agreed. We traded "no nukes" for the potential heat death of the planet.
- Theodores 11y ago
  Does anyone here have the actual statistics to back this up? In terms of Joules of energy, what is the cost of a nucular power plant? Equally, in terms of joules of energy (rather than some fiat petro-dollar debt money with compound interest), what is the price for any competing power source, be it a coal plant or a farm of wind turbines? It seems we can do the maths for this easily to dismiss solar and wind, but, when it comes to nucular we are in denial. It takes a lot of energy to dig up Canada/Australia/wherever to get the U308 stuff, then a whole lot more to process it. Then there is the building of the nucular plant plus the decommissioning. Oh, and the waste disposal along the way, not cheap in raw energy terms. Some costs such as the brains of the boffins needed to build these things may not have a raw energy price, that you might have to measure in pobble beads and pence, but, I just want a simple energy in -> energy out ratio. Do nucular power plants actually work out as cheap as the proponents imagine? This I do not think is clear because there are so many other reasons nucular power plants get built. In the UK we ended up with so many nucular power plants because of the Cold War 'requirement' to have the bomb, and to create the bomb grade material needed for the U.S. (where there never were things like 'fast breeder' reactors). France lost out when the oil reserves were carved up by Churchill and Roosevelt after WW2 so nucular became quite a thing in France. Their power is cheaper than what there is in the UK and most of the rest of Europe. So nucular is cheap, the French proven it so? Again, not really. They had their own reasons, e.g. also desiring nucular weapons, a seat at the UN and some (non-fossil) power. Sure, economics came into it but there were these other imperatives. There is also the matter of 'Lockheed Martin' accounting. Bribes, billion dollar cost over runs, project delays, pork barrel politics and vested interests. We don't seem to have that in Denmark where the wind turbines seem to come from these days but nucular is mired in 'Lockheed Martin' accounting issues.
  - ak217 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#The_carbon_footprint_of_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#The_carbon_fo...
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ -- this book (available for free on-line) goes into very detailed energy-math-based comparison of all major power sources, focusing especially on various forms of wind, hydro and solar. It might be especially relevant to your concerns because it focuses on various ways of combining the above to make the UK run fully on sustainable energy. RE various problems of costs you've mentioned, I do think we're applying a double-standard here, but it's a double-standard against nuclear. I rarely see people talking just about how much solar is subsidized (two or three years ago AFAIR it was government subsidies that made PV installations make any economical sense for anyone, though I've heard it might have changed recently), or how much bribery is going on with those infrastructure projects.

by douche 11y ago

tajen 11y ago

On the one hand, the last 20 years of study on politic science didn't bring much improvement, so only certain things have room for development. On the other, an old article on HN criticized the fact than garage science/fablabs in nuclear area became forbidden since the war, which prevents disruptive young tinklers from stumbling upon a revolutionnary discoveries.

pstuart 11y ago

Agreed. We traded "no nukes" for the potential heat death of the planet.

Theodores 11y ago
Does anyone here have the actual statistics to back this up? In terms of Joules of energy, what is the cost of a nucular power plant? Equally, in terms of joules of energy (rather than some fiat petro-dollar debt money with compound interest), what is the price for any competing power source, be it a coal plant or a farm of wind turbines? It seems we can do the maths for this easily to dismiss solar and wind, but, when it comes to nucular we are in denial. It takes a lot of energy to dig up Canada/Australia/wherever to get the U308 stuff, then a whole lot more to process it. Then there is the building of the nucular plant plus the decommissioning. Oh, and the waste disposal along the way, not cheap in raw energy terms. Some costs such as the brains of the boffins needed to build these things may not have a raw energy price, that you might have to measure in pobble beads and pence, but, I just want a simple energy in -> energy out ratio. Do nucular power plants actually work out as cheap as the proponents imagine? This I do not think is clear because there are so many other reasons nucular power plants get built. In the UK we ended up with so many nucular power plants because of the Cold War 'requirement' to have the bomb, and to create the bomb grade material needed for the U.S. (where there never were things like 'fast breeder' reactors). France lost out when the oil reserves were carved up by Churchill and Roosevelt after WW2 so nucular became quite a thing in France. Their power is cheaper than what there is in the UK and most of the rest of Europe. So nucular is cheap, the French proven it so? Again, not really. They had their own reasons, e.g. also desiring nucular weapons, a seat at the UN and some (non-fossil) power. Sure, economics came into it but there were these other imperatives. There is also the matter of 'Lockheed Martin' accounting. Bribes, billion dollar cost over runs, project delays, pork barrel politics and vested interests. We don't seem to have that in Denmark where the wind turbines seem to come from these days but nucular is mired in 'Lockheed Martin' accounting issues.
- ak217 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#The_carbon_footprint_of_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#The_carbon_fo...
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ -- this book (available for free on-line) goes into very detailed energy-math-based comparison of all major power sources, focusing especially on various forms of wind, hydro and solar. It might be especially relevant to your concerns because it focuses on various ways of combining the above to make the UK run fully on sustainable energy. RE various problems of costs you've mentioned, I do think we're applying a double-standard here, but it's a double-standard against nuclear. I rarely see people talking just about how much solar is subsidized (two or three years ago AFAIR it was government subsidies that made PV installations make any economical sense for anyone, though I've heard it might have changed recently), or how much bribery is going on with those infrastructure projects.