46 ms·

Agreed on the absurd downvotes! I think nuclear is quite bad, we've got to transport / process / store nuclear waste for thousands of years. We should probably

by gehsty 8y ago

Agreed on the absurd downvotes! I think nuclear is quite bad, we've got to transport / process / store nuclear waste for thousands of years. We should probably do anything we can to avoid producing this stuff. I grew up near where a lot of the worlds nuclear waste is processed and while it does make for lots of good jobs, that last many many lifetimes, I just can't get onboard with new nuclear when it is cheaper to build interconnected grids + renewables (in the UK at least).

ThomPete 8y ago
said in all sincerity. I would urge you to spend a little more time looking into nuclear you would be quite surprised of how wrong your view of it is. New reactors can use used uranium which makes the problem even smaller. On top of that, the actual footprint needed to store it is absurdly small if we even had to do that. In other words Nuclear is the safest greenest form of energy we have (greener than wind or solar etc) Here is a good primer on some of the myths you probably believe in. But don't take my word or even the artcles word for it. Investigate and I am pretty sure you will soon see that your belief about nuclear is misguided. https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs-reality/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs...
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  When some options interfere with each other, we often find ourselves facing a trade-off "You can't eat your cake and have it, too," Whenever this happens some people would prefer one benefit at the expense of the other, while others prefer the other benefit at the expense of the first. At this point the choice the group will make becomes a political point of contention. No matter which benefit you prefer your preference is political. A lot of people want to see a more decentralized world (this does not imply a world without law and order), and they prefer society moves in the direction of decentralization, cryptocurrencies are one such facet. [Off-topic, while most cryptocurrencies today are based on energy intensive PoW, this need not be the case at all, see for example the papers on Algorand, which has not yet been implemented/deployed] On November 10, 1972 the passenger plane Southern Airlines Flight 49 was hijacked, and the hijackers at one point threatened to fly the plane in the Oak Ridge (experimental) nuclear reactor unless their demand for $10 million in cash was met. [luckily, they did not do this even after picking up the less-than-demanded amount (according to the authorities!)] They fled to Cuba, hoping Fidel Castro would allow entry, but he rejected their entry. They landed in the US again to refuel, then fled back to land in Havana, where they were arrested at gun point. Please note that with cryptocurrencies the hijackers don't need to land at all. One can question if the hijackers really intend to crash the plane if they demand money, but that money could flow to a political organization if the hijackers are terrorists. I assume neither of us would want to see: 1) crypto banned 2) passenger planes shot out of the sky This presents a conflict between nuclear power and cryptocurrencies. Which would you pick? That is automatically political indeed.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Thats not the discussion. The discussion is if opposing views are allowed to exist or whether you get shamed for thinking and proposing something that is as politically valid (human flourishing).
    - DoctorOetker 8y ago
      Obviously opposing views are allowed to exist. I don't know how shaming can even be measured objectively. What makes you feel shamed? The fact that someone downvoted you? Thats merely the expression of someone's opposing views... (I did not downvote your comments btw) There is no "the" discussion. There is a discussion consisting of commenter beliefs, and then responses challenging beliefs. You classified some beliefs as political as opposed to technical. Lets define 'technical' as relating to matters of fact. Lets define 'political' as relating to selection of options. i.e. technical statements are positive statements, and political statements are normative statements. Every technical discussion contains tradeoffs. Tradeoffs are the source of political disagreement: when the family needs a new car, the tradeoff could be price, performance, appearance,... and the husband and wife will not in general agree. The technical tradeofff generates the political difference. In the example I gave, some people prefer cryptocurrencies, other people prefer nuclear energy, there is no objective technologically superior future. There is only the choice among viable futures. In democracy politics should belong to us all. Nobody is censoring you (nor me!) If I were forced to define shaming, it would be something like: a behaviour where the perpetrator(s) make an appeal to a groups supposed definitions of virtues/sins, to change the groups perception of the victim(s). In order to identify any such thing in this thread, I first need to identify the group: hacker news users. From reading your comments I think you (wrongly) believe the cliche "we come here for technology, we dislike politics" Then I read your posts where you identify anti-nuclear ideas as political vs pro-nuclear technologies as technological. So it seems you are the one who is shaming anti-nuclear ideas. I am not appealing to any group virtues or sins here, and if I did I would not classify "politics" as the sin, since I regularly see people discuss tradeoffs and how they feel about it. Btw, I am not against nuclear energy in any absolute way: we may need nuclear power for space travel, why burn it up here and now? [no, its not in nature decaying at the same rate as we use it up, in a reactor we promote radioactive decays] research reactors are extremely important to have for scientific progress, and cryptocurrencies are very promising for humanity too, perhaps governments should simply have a clear public policy promising to neutralize any plane [passengers or not] coming too close to a reactor or surface-storage of radioactive materials: this would decrease the probability of attempted hijackings. I think we can both agree that nuclear reactors would ideally be aneutronic, from a waste perspective, can we not focus on that instead? If we ignore the waste threat there is still the centralized dependency threat: irrespective if it is downtime, sabotage by employees, accidents, vulnerability during war, ... With all this on top, I think it is not crystal clear to all of us that alternative energy sources are more expensive.
- gehsty 8y ago
  I guess we just see things differently, you think that we need nuclear power to meet demand, I think we will be able to meet that demand with renewables + interconnected grids. I appreciate that nuclear waste is not what it once was, but I think it is still right not to pursue nuclear when renewables are cheaper, and an interconnected grid can provide the base supply requirement by shipping power long distances.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Problem is that there is nothing even in potential future technology that allow solar and wind to cover our need. Furthermore they pollute way more. So not sure exactly what it is you think we are seeing differently. The facts are the facts no? So not sure why you are so adement about those inferior technologies.

by gehsty 8y ago

ThomPete 8y ago

said in all sincerity. I would urge you to spend a little more time looking into nuclear you would be quite surprised of how wrong your view of it is. New reactors can use used uranium which makes the problem even smaller. On top of that, the actual footprint needed to store it is absurdly small if we even had to do that. In other words Nuclear is the safest greenest form of energy we have (greener than wind or solar etc) Here is a good primer on some of the myths you probably believe in. But don't take my word or even the artcles word for it. Investigate and I am pretty sure you will soon see that your belief about nuclear is misguided. https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs-reality/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs...

DoctorOetker 8y ago
When some options interfere with each other, we often find ourselves facing a trade-off "You can't eat your cake and have it, too," Whenever this happens some people would prefer one benefit at the expense of the other, while others prefer the other benefit at the expense of the first. At this point the choice the group will make becomes a political point of contention. No matter which benefit you prefer your preference is political. A lot of people want to see a more decentralized world (this does not imply a world without law and order), and they prefer society moves in the direction of decentralization, cryptocurrencies are one such facet. [Off-topic, while most cryptocurrencies today are based on energy intensive PoW, this need not be the case at all, see for example the papers on Algorand, which has not yet been implemented/deployed] On November 10, 1972 the passenger plane Southern Airlines Flight 49 was hijacked, and the hijackers at one point threatened to fly the plane in the Oak Ridge (experimental) nuclear reactor unless their demand for $10 million in cash was met. [luckily, they did not do this even after picking up the less-than-demanded amount (according to the authorities!)] They fled to Cuba, hoping Fidel Castro would allow entry, but he rejected their entry. They landed in the US again to refuel, then fled back to land in Havana, where they were arrested at gun point. Please note that with cryptocurrencies the hijackers don't need to land at all. One can question if the hijackers really intend to crash the plane if they demand money, but that money could flow to a political organization if the hijackers are terrorists. I assume neither of us would want to see: 1) crypto banned 2) passenger planes shot out of the sky This presents a conflict between nuclear power and cryptocurrencies. Which would you pick? That is automatically political indeed.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Thats not the discussion. The discussion is if opposing views are allowed to exist or whether you get shamed for thinking and proposing something that is as politically valid (human flourishing).
  - DoctorOetker 8y ago
    Obviously opposing views are allowed to exist. I don't know how shaming can even be measured objectively. What makes you feel shamed? The fact that someone downvoted you? Thats merely the expression of someone's opposing views... (I did not downvote your comments btw) There is no "the" discussion. There is a discussion consisting of commenter beliefs, and then responses challenging beliefs. You classified some beliefs as political as opposed to technical. Lets define 'technical' as relating to matters of fact. Lets define 'political' as relating to selection of options. i.e. technical statements are positive statements, and political statements are normative statements. Every technical discussion contains tradeoffs. Tradeoffs are the source of political disagreement: when the family needs a new car, the tradeoff could be price, performance, appearance,... and the husband and wife will not in general agree. The technical tradeofff generates the political difference. In the example I gave, some people prefer cryptocurrencies, other people prefer nuclear energy, there is no objective technologically superior future. There is only the choice among viable futures. In democracy politics should belong to us all. Nobody is censoring you (nor me!) If I were forced to define shaming, it would be something like: a behaviour where the perpetrator(s) make an appeal to a groups supposed definitions of virtues/sins, to change the groups perception of the victim(s). In order to identify any such thing in this thread, I first need to identify the group: hacker news users. From reading your comments I think you (wrongly) believe the cliche "we come here for technology, we dislike politics" Then I read your posts where you identify anti-nuclear ideas as political vs pro-nuclear technologies as technological. So it seems you are the one who is shaming anti-nuclear ideas. I am not appealing to any group virtues or sins here, and if I did I would not classify "politics" as the sin, since I regularly see people discuss tradeoffs and how they feel about it. Btw, I am not against nuclear energy in any absolute way: we may need nuclear power for space travel, why burn it up here and now? [no, its not in nature decaying at the same rate as we use it up, in a reactor we promote radioactive decays] research reactors are extremely important to have for scientific progress, and cryptocurrencies are very promising for humanity too, perhaps governments should simply have a clear public policy promising to neutralize any plane [passengers or not] coming too close to a reactor or surface-storage of radioactive materials: this would decrease the probability of attempted hijackings. I think we can both agree that nuclear reactors would ideally be aneutronic, from a waste perspective, can we not focus on that instead? If we ignore the waste threat there is still the centralized dependency threat: irrespective if it is downtime, sabotage by employees, accidents, vulnerability during war, ... With all this on top, I think it is not crystal clear to all of us that alternative energy sources are more expensive.
gehsty 8y ago
I guess we just see things differently, you think that we need nuclear power to meet demand, I think we will be able to meet that demand with renewables + interconnected grids. I appreciate that nuclear waste is not what it once was, but I think it is still right not to pursue nuclear when renewables are cheaper, and an interconnected grid can provide the base supply requirement by shipping power long distances.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Problem is that there is nothing even in potential future technology that allow solar and wind to cover our need. Furthermore they pollute way more. So not sure exactly what it is you think we are seeing differently. The facts are the facts no? So not sure why you are so adement about those inferior technologies.