5 ms·

It is really a shame that nuclear power was demonized so early in its technological development by the same people and groups that are now advocating drastic re

It is really a shame that nuclear power was demonized so early in its technological development by the same people and groups that are now advocating drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption. It's not like global warming was not understood in 1980. If society had another 40 years of nuclear tech advancement under its belt, I'm sure China and India would be installing massive nuclear power infrastructure instead of a coal burning power plant a week (and India is just getting started).

ghouse 8y ago
I believe your information regarding China and India installing a coal power plant each week is out of date. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-capacity-idUSKBN1880P4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-capacity-idUS... and https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/15634538/china-coal-cleaner https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/1563453...
matt4077 8y ago
It's even worse that, long after nuclear power has lost on economic terms, the tech community still can't get over their infatuation with it. Yes, people sometimes had irrational fears. Yes, probabilities are unfortunately difficult to intuitively grasp. But it's not safety that doomed nuclear power, quite obviously: countries such as Russia and (to a lesser degree) China care little about environmental concerns. Nuclear power is simply too expensive. It's also surprising that the incredible improvements wind, and especially solar power have seen over the last decade or so are largely not the result of far-sighted technologists, but of the universally-despised political class: subsidising solar power production in Germany, as one example, must be among the most efficient government programs in history.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Nobody prices in global warming into their coal plants, that's why they're cheap.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    All of the pollutants for nuclear power is right there on site. Its great. Coal emissions are various and many very toxic. Most are scrubbed out now in the US but not elsewhere. Fish high on the food chain in the oceans are dangerous to eat regularly due to high mercury content from coal burning. People that protest nuclear power while coal is still being burned are just anti-industry. Reading some history about the misery of life without industrial levels of power might give some perspective.
joe_the_user 8y ago
It would seem to me that the groups "advocating drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption" are perhaps "everyone sane." That is especially that wind and solar are quite economically viable. I'm not sure if all them were worried about nukes in the 80s. The thing with nuclear power (or solar now) is that just having a viable alternative isn't enough. Because so much of the costs of oil is discovery and infrastructure, its price per barrel can go incredibly low when a competitor arises - much of the oil that's in ground has bought by someone already and they want to sell it for something. With a situation like this, the only way to stop carbon emissions is regulation. The only way to stop carbon emissions is regulation (in case anyone missed that). Even if nuke were a significant power sources from the 1980s, we would be facing a climate problem if hydrocarbons were not regulated.
epistasis 8y ago
I used to think the same thing, that it was supposedly environmental groups that stopped nuclear. However, after investigating the history more closely, it appears that nuclear construction projects were boondoggles even before Three Mile Island. Economics, not activism, is what killed nuclear in the US. Nuclear has always been marketed under a lie, that its cheap, and perhaps too cheap to meter. In reality, well engineered projects are insanely complex, requiring huge material and labor costs during construction. And then there's maintenance. People always talk about regulations driving up costs for nuclear, but they never talk about inappropriate regulations that drive up costs, meaning that the high costs are necessary. And when you think about the design of the things, there's no reason to think it should be cheap: the nuclear is merely a heat source, which still requires the massive amount of machinery needed for steam turbines. The only part of the thing that's potentially cheaper is fuel, but to handle that fuel you've got to have massively engineering and equipment efforts. This history of nuclear is always glossed over by its boosters. It's really expensive, and if we didn't have better options now, we should build it anyway. And we should have built a lot during the 80s like France did. But today, grid storage is far cheaper than nuclear, and it makes no sense at all to ever build a new nuclear plant. Let's keep existing ones running until they're replaced with other carbon free sources, but for new investment, current nuclear tech is dead. New SMR, maybe maybe some day if it's cheap, but we shall see in a few decades, it's not available today like storage, wind, water, and solar are.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- njarboe 8y ago
  It would be nice to have an improving nuclear power industry(fusion ultimately) for those locations that don't have good solar, wind, and water power sources. That is almost everywhere in the universe. Maybe humanity will just have to wait for a Martian or Asteroid economy before the best minds start working on nuclear power again.
- bjourne 8y ago
  Case in point - the bankruptcy of Westinghouse. Caused by economics not environmentalists.

ghouse 8y ago

I believe your information regarding China and India installing a coal power plant each week is out of date. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-capacity-idUSKBN1880P4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-capacity-idUS... and https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/15634538/china-coal-cleaner https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/1563453...

matt4077 8y ago

It's even worse that, long after nuclear power has lost on economic terms, the tech community still can't get over their infatuation with it. Yes, people sometimes had irrational fears. Yes, probabilities are unfortunately difficult to intuitively grasp. But it's not safety that doomed nuclear power, quite obviously: countries such as Russia and (to a lesser degree) China care little about environmental concerns. Nuclear power is simply too expensive. It's also surprising that the incredible improvements wind, and especially solar power have seen over the last decade or so are largely not the result of far-sighted technologists, but of the universally-despised political class: subsidising solar power production in Germany, as one example, must be among the most efficient government programs in history.

adrianN 8y ago
Nobody prices in global warming into their coal plants, that's why they're cheap.
- njarboe 8y ago
  All of the pollutants for nuclear power is right there on site. Its great. Coal emissions are various and many very toxic. Most are scrubbed out now in the US but not elsewhere. Fish high on the food chain in the oceans are dangerous to eat regularly due to high mercury content from coal burning. People that protest nuclear power while coal is still being burned are just anti-industry. Reading some history about the misery of life without industrial levels of power might give some perspective.

joe_the_user 8y ago

It would seem to me that the groups "advocating drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption" are perhaps "everyone sane." That is especially that wind and solar are quite economically viable. I'm not sure if all them were worried about nukes in the 80s. The thing with nuclear power (or solar now) is that just having a viable alternative isn't enough. Because so much of the costs of oil is discovery and infrastructure, its price per barrel can go incredibly low when a competitor arises - much of the oil that's in ground has bought by someone already and they want to sell it for something. With a situation like this, the only way to stop carbon emissions is regulation. The only way to stop carbon emissions is regulation (in case anyone missed that). Even if nuke were a significant power sources from the 1980s, we would be facing a climate problem if hydrocarbons were not regulated.

epistasis 8y ago

I used to think the same thing, that it was supposedly environmental groups that stopped nuclear. However, after investigating the history more closely, it appears that nuclear construction projects were boondoggles even before Three Mile Island. Economics, not activism, is what killed nuclear in the US. Nuclear has always been marketed under a lie, that its cheap, and perhaps too cheap to meter. In reality, well engineered projects are insanely complex, requiring huge material and labor costs during construction. And then there's maintenance. People always talk about regulations driving up costs for nuclear, but they never talk about inappropriate regulations that drive up costs, meaning that the high costs are necessary. And when you think about the design of the things, there's no reason to think it should be cheap: the nuclear is merely a heat source, which still requires the massive amount of machinery needed for steam turbines. The only part of the thing that's potentially cheaper is fuel, but to handle that fuel you've got to have massively engineering and equipment efforts. This history of nuclear is always glossed over by its boosters. It's really expensive, and if we didn't have better options now, we should build it anyway. And we should have built a lot during the 80s like France did. But today, grid storage is far cheaper than nuclear, and it makes no sense at all to ever build a new nuclear plant. Let's keep existing ones running until they're replaced with other carbon free sources, but for new investment, current nuclear tech is dead. New SMR, maybe maybe some day if it's cheap, but we shall see in a few decades, it's not available today like storage, wind, water, and solar are.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
njarboe 8y ago
It would be nice to have an improving nuclear power industry(fusion ultimately) for those locations that don't have good solar, wind, and water power sources. That is almost everywhere in the universe. Maybe humanity will just have to wait for a Martian or Asteroid economy before the best minds start working on nuclear power again.
bjourne 8y ago
Case in point - the bankruptcy of Westinghouse. Caused by economics not environmentalists.