12 ms·

I'm pro-nuclear fission (full disclosure, I work on fusion related research, but I don't care about who wins more than I want society to win), but I think talki

I'm pro-nuclear fission (full disclosure, I work on fusion related research, but I don't care about who wins more than I want society to win), but I think talking to any random person in the public who are already skeptical about fusion, to them fission has not had a great track record. Make as many arguments you want to make about fukushima facing a natural disaster, w/e, and how the field has advanced since three-mile island and chernobyl, but the fact remains the public is skeptical regarding fission for good reason: history has not been kind to the kind of disasters fission reactors have wrought. If you want to convince the public you're going to do it right this time without creating mini fallout zones, you have to do a good damn job of that instead of just wagging your finger at people and calling them dumb. They aren't dumb, they just know rightly that engineers can't foresee the everything in the future and are understandably skeptical.

arduanika 8y ago
How kind has history been to the "safe" renewables? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
ianai 8y ago
The public opinion isn’t skeptical of nuclear. They assume nuclear is some white hole of cancer that’s going to kill them and everyone around the plant or uses its power. It kills people, makes them turn green, and grow a third eye/flippers. It’s prejudice.
- bonesss 8y ago
  It's also a prejudice not shared by people who live near reactors, who tend to be better informed and have much more positive opinions.
foobarbazetc 8y ago
Isn’t there also a cost argument here? Both time to ROI and decommissioning costs are enormous? Or have things changed?
- zokier 8y ago
  I'm pro nuclear in principle (it sure beats fossils), but I do get the feeling that the era we are in is not right for such big monolithic infrastructure projects. The costs tend to balloon and the private companies behind them have difficulties in delivering and meeting the stringent quality standards that nuclear requires (for good reasons). See for example the utter failure that has been Olkiluoto 3[1] or the recent bankruptcy of Westinghouse[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13987046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13987046
  - javagram 8y ago
    It’s puzzling how 50 years later, with much better technology, we can’t build plants on the scale of what was built in the 60s. The US navy uses nuclear reactors for their aircraft carriers and they don’t seem to have the same problems getting them built and installed that commercial power operators do now. I wonder what makes the difference, I tried googling but couldn’t find a good comparison. Perhaps it is just not commercially viable but works on a military scale budget?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
      - zokier 8y ago
        Military equipment is constructed by private civilian companies, by normal civilian employees, not by members of armed services. See for example https://fluormarinepropulsion.com/ https://fluormarinepropulsion.com/ https://www.bechtel.com/services/defense-nuclear-security/us-naval-programs/ https://www.bechtel.com/services/defense-nuclear-security/us... https://www.bwxt.com/what-we-do/naval-nuclear-propulsion https://www.bwxt.com/what-we-do/naval-nuclear-propulsion Welcome to the military-industrial complex
    - hoaw 8y ago
      To succeed with large project you generally have to develop competence in-house first to know what you are doing. Today it is quite unpopular, at least in western countries, for the government to do that. When things become more accessible, it doesn't necessarily mean they become simpler. In fact there is often added complexity. It isn't just nuclear power plants, but all kinds of infrastructure.
justin66 8y ago
> the fact remains the public is skeptical regarding fission for good reason: history has not been kind to the kind of disasters fission reactors have wrought It's a problem even if you assume the public and the public's view is a bit more sophisticated. If we are precise, the problem was not the disasters the reactors wrought, it's the problem people - operators, corporations, regulators, etc. - wrought with careless operation of reactors and stupid ways of handling fuel processing and waste. So, if you're that slightly more sophisticated member of the public, you ask the question: are we doing any better today in terms of nuclear regulatory apparatus, governance, and general corporate responsibility? It might actually be a bit better now than forty years ago, but we all know where public sentiment is today. Industry and regulators will very understandably need to do some work to earn everyone's trust. It's not about the reactors, it's about the people operating them. > They aren't dumb, they just know rightly that engineers can't foresee the everything in the future and are understandably skeptical. That's exactly right.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
A couple+ years ago I had a one+ hour (casual) conversation with someone (important) who does fusion research (in the Princeton, NJ area). I'll spare us all the details, but his take was simple: fusion is within reach but we need more money. Nearly everything I've read since leads me to believe he was honest and accurate. Mind you, I was just a guy with a cocktail in one hand and a shameless will to ask questions in the other. China seems to be making strides, yes. Perhaps, being a fusion insider, you have some updates on the State of Fusion?
est31 8y ago
I'm one of those fission sceptics. The main problems I have with fission isn't technological issues, it's human issues. E.g. in Fukushima, people were forced to move back into their homes, without giving them an option to get compensated instead. Furthermore, engineers pointed out that there were issues with the way Fukushima was built but their concerns were discarded. Human issue again. Fission plants should be built with the greatest care possible and be designed for major natural disasters. As for advancements in the field: they might have happened but many reactors are still kept running even though their design is outdated. The greatest advances in drawers don't help if you still have ticking time bombs and one of them go off. Another human issue. Or the entire thing with dumping waste into the oceans, like on the coasts of Somalia, harming the health in the region and destroying the jobs of the fishermen. Another human problem. Engineers, in general, are very smart people. They can foresee a great deal of things. But they need to be listened to, and it's too easy to operate a nuclear plant without listening to safety concerns of engineers. What we've got right now is people harming the health of locals and discarding concerns by engineers, and lying to locals and politicians about this, claiming that the engineers didn't have any concerns. Which is a big problem, and a very human one. And if there's a catastrophy, the government bails them out (what about a mandatory 100 billion coverage insurance for nuclear plants??), and treats locals like shit again. No thanks.
- avar 8y ago
  What we've got right now is on the order of a million people dying prematurely every year because of the human issue of people worrying too much about concentrated risk (nuclear) and not understanding the diffuse risk (coal). Sure, we can improve fission in various ways, but this sort of skepticism is way riskier in the aggregate as it translates into public policy.
  - est31 8y ago
    Indeed, coal is even worse than nuclear. So let's have neither but renewables instead :). Compared to europe, the USA is a big country and it is also further in the south which means more sun for solar collectors.
dotancohen 8y ago
Considering that fossil fuels damage both humans and the environment orders of magnitude worse than fission, to what do you attribute the public's non-negative attitude towards it?
- mac01021 8y ago
  For one thing, a near-total lack of appreciation of the damage done by fossil fuels.
bhntr3 8y ago
> the public is skeptical regarding fission for good reason: history has not been kind to the kind of disasters fission reactors have wrought. It's not just that! I was pro-fission until someone educated me how horribly irresponsible we've been about our nuclear waste disposal. And how dangerous it is. Deep waste storage has been deadlocked in government since the 80s so waste is just hanging out by each reactor. If this funding and nuclear push doesn't include just finishing Yucca mountain, then imo it's a bad idea. It looks like some progress was made recently but given that it took 40 years to vet yucca mountain I hate the idea of more nuclear power concurrent with a restarted site selection process. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/looking-trash-can-nuclear-waste-management-united-states/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/looking-trash-can-nuc...
- javagram 8y ago
  According to the article, Bill Gates’ company is using a technology called TWR which is different from the fission reactors you mention. According to Wikipedia, “TWRs could theoretically run, self-sustained, for decades without refueling or removing spent fuel.” Agreed that the failure to finish and activate Yucca Mountain is ridiculous. Alternatively, we could be using that spent fuel in other reactors as I believe France does. Either way the current policy is irresponsible although it’s due to politics not technology.
  - justatdotin 8y ago
    ah yes, those theoretical reactors are so much better than real ones.
    - 666lumberjack 8y ago
      Like the theoretical super-cheap batteries needed to make renewables actually practical as a comprehensive replacement for fossil fuel energy?
      - justatdotin 8y ago
        I'll admit the battery story has a way to go yet - I'm not relying totally on batteries yet. But battery farms are already playing a role around here.
27182818284 8y ago
>public who are already skeptical about fusion, to them fission has not had a great track record. Branding problem. Hell if "clean coal" can start to get inroads then something like "Direct Helium Solar" or something can be used as re-branded nuclear fusion.
nuclearminded 8y ago
The US government already recognized the importance of nuclear innovation (since we lost that lead in the last 50 years) On January 24, 2019, President Trump Signs Pro-Nuclear Legislation: make regulations move more quickly with respect to new nuclear reactors and to establish a better and faster licensing structure for advanced nuclear reactors https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/01/24/president-signs-pro-nuclear-legislation/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/01/24/president...
8bitsrule 8y ago
Interesting, I think, that Fukushima was built at a location that had experienced two huge tsunamis within living memory at the time. Wonder what kind of hand-waving dismissals and assurances were used to sell that project.
TheCondor 8y ago
We may have advanced the technologies since Chernobyl but we haven't even come close to dealing with that yet. We just built a multi billion dollar dome for that will possibly last 100 years, provided we keep up with the active measures to extend the life of it. That region will be fucked up for over 10,000 years. How long will Fukushima need the ice wall? I have yet to hear about a comprehensive plan or set of designs that is meltdown proof and doesn’t have a waste problem. It’s a conceptually simple way to make a lot of cleanish energy, and it works now and it works on cloudy days but there are still giant externalities that just haven’t been solved. We can’t even out the waste in deep underground mines in the desert, we haven’t had the political will to do that.
Tomte 8y ago
> Make as many arguments you want to make about fukushima facing a natural disaster, That's no excuse! In the end I don't care if the fission guys misestimated the natural disaster risk or whether they simply discarded it as "not in our threat model". > and how the field has advanced since three-mile island and chernobyl, But the old plants are still there! And, tying it together with the first point: back then the fission guys promised it was safe and no catastrophe could happen. Then the catastrophe happened. Okay, but this time we have cool new technology, and we know so much more, and nothing bad can happen. And then it happened. Now we're just back in the cycle. Why should we believe you? It's possible that it's now perfectly safe. But the fission guys lost all credibility when they again and again oversold what they really know, plan for and guarantee.
Turbots 8y ago
What are your thoughts on the Thorium Fuel cycle and liquid fuel thorium reactors, or molten salt reactors in general?

arduanika 8y ago

How kind has history been to the "safe" renewables? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

ianai 8y ago

The public opinion isn’t skeptical of nuclear. They assume nuclear is some white hole of cancer that’s going to kill them and everyone around the plant or uses its power. It kills people, makes them turn green, and grow a third eye/flippers. It’s prejudice.

bonesss 8y ago
It's also a prejudice not shared by people who live near reactors, who tend to be better informed and have much more positive opinions.

foobarbazetc 8y ago

Isn’t there also a cost argument here? Both time to ROI and decommissioning costs are enormous? Or have things changed?

zokier 8y ago
I'm pro nuclear in principle (it sure beats fossils), but I do get the feeling that the era we are in is not right for such big monolithic infrastructure projects. The costs tend to balloon and the private companies behind them have difficulties in delivering and meeting the stringent quality standards that nuclear requires (for good reasons). See for example the utter failure that has been Olkiluoto 3[1] or the recent bankruptcy of Westinghouse[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13987046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13987046
- javagram 8y ago
  It’s puzzling how 50 years later, with much better technology, we can’t build plants on the scale of what was built in the 60s. The US navy uses nuclear reactors for their aircraft carriers and they don’t seem to have the same problems getting them built and installed that commercial power operators do now. I wonder what makes the difference, I tried googling but couldn’t find a good comparison. Perhaps it is just not commercially viable but works on a military scale budget?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
    - zokier 8y ago
      Military equipment is constructed by private civilian companies, by normal civilian employees, not by members of armed services. See for example https://fluormarinepropulsion.com/ https://fluormarinepropulsion.com/ https://www.bechtel.com/services/defense-nuclear-security/us-naval-programs/ https://www.bechtel.com/services/defense-nuclear-security/us... https://www.bwxt.com/what-we-do/naval-nuclear-propulsion https://www.bwxt.com/what-we-do/naval-nuclear-propulsion Welcome to the military-industrial complex
  - hoaw 8y ago
    To succeed with large project you generally have to develop competence in-house first to know what you are doing. Today it is quite unpopular, at least in western countries, for the government to do that. When things become more accessible, it doesn't necessarily mean they become simpler. In fact there is often added complexity. It isn't just nuclear power plants, but all kinds of infrastructure.

justin66 8y ago

> the fact remains the public is skeptical regarding fission for good reason: history has not been kind to the kind of disasters fission reactors have wrought It's a problem even if you assume the public and the public's view is a bit more sophisticated. If we are precise, the problem was not the disasters the reactors wrought, it's the problem people - operators, corporations, regulators, etc. - wrought with careless operation of reactors and stupid ways of handling fuel processing and waste. So, if you're that slightly more sophisticated member of the public, you ask the question: are we doing any better today in terms of nuclear regulatory apparatus, governance, and general corporate responsibility? It might actually be a bit better now than forty years ago, but we all know where public sentiment is today. Industry and regulators will very understandably need to do some work to earn everyone's trust. It's not about the reactors, it's about the people operating them. > They aren't dumb, they just know rightly that engineers can't foresee the everything in the future and are understandably skeptical. That's exactly right.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

A couple+ years ago I had a one+ hour (casual) conversation with someone (important) who does fusion research (in the Princeton, NJ area). I'll spare us all the details, but his take was simple: fusion is within reach but we need more money. Nearly everything I've read since leads me to believe he was honest and accurate. Mind you, I was just a guy with a cocktail in one hand and a shameless will to ask questions in the other. China seems to be making strides, yes. Perhaps, being a fusion insider, you have some updates on the State of Fusion?

est31 8y ago

I'm one of those fission sceptics. The main problems I have with fission isn't technological issues, it's human issues. E.g. in Fukushima, people were forced to move back into their homes, without giving them an option to get compensated instead. Furthermore, engineers pointed out that there were issues with the way Fukushima was built but their concerns were discarded. Human issue again. Fission plants should be built with the greatest care possible and be designed for major natural disasters. As for advancements in the field: they might have happened but many reactors are still kept running even though their design is outdated. The greatest advances in drawers don't help if you still have ticking time bombs and one of them go off. Another human issue. Or the entire thing with dumping waste into the oceans, like on the coasts of Somalia, harming the health in the region and destroying the jobs of the fishermen. Another human problem. Engineers, in general, are very smart people. They can foresee a great deal of things. But they need to be listened to, and it's too easy to operate a nuclear plant without listening to safety concerns of engineers. What we've got right now is people harming the health of locals and discarding concerns by engineers, and lying to locals and politicians about this, claiming that the engineers didn't have any concerns. Which is a big problem, and a very human one. And if there's a catastrophy, the government bails them out (what about a mandatory 100 billion coverage insurance for nuclear plants??), and treats locals like shit again. No thanks.

avar 8y ago
What we've got right now is on the order of a million people dying prematurely every year because of the human issue of people worrying too much about concentrated risk (nuclear) and not understanding the diffuse risk (coal). Sure, we can improve fission in various ways, but this sort of skepticism is way riskier in the aggregate as it translates into public policy.
- est31 8y ago
  Indeed, coal is even worse than nuclear. So let's have neither but renewables instead :). Compared to europe, the USA is a big country and it is also further in the south which means more sun for solar collectors.

dotancohen 8y ago

Considering that fossil fuels damage both humans and the environment orders of magnitude worse than fission, to what do you attribute the public's non-negative attitude towards it?

mac01021 8y ago
For one thing, a near-total lack of appreciation of the damage done by fossil fuels.

bhntr3 8y ago

> the public is skeptical regarding fission for good reason: history has not been kind to the kind of disasters fission reactors have wrought. It's not just that! I was pro-fission until someone educated me how horribly irresponsible we've been about our nuclear waste disposal. And how dangerous it is. Deep waste storage has been deadlocked in government since the 80s so waste is just hanging out by each reactor. If this funding and nuclear push doesn't include just finishing Yucca mountain, then imo it's a bad idea. It looks like some progress was made recently but given that it took 40 years to vet yucca mountain I hate the idea of more nuclear power concurrent with a restarted site selection process. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/looking-trash-can-nuclear-waste-management-united-states/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/looking-trash-can-nuc...

javagram 8y ago
According to the article, Bill Gates’ company is using a technology called TWR which is different from the fission reactors you mention. According to Wikipedia, “TWRs could theoretically run, self-sustained, for decades without refueling or removing spent fuel.” Agreed that the failure to finish and activate Yucca Mountain is ridiculous. Alternatively, we could be using that spent fuel in other reactors as I believe France does. Either way the current policy is irresponsible although it’s due to politics not technology.
- justatdotin 8y ago
  ah yes, those theoretical reactors are so much better than real ones.
  - 666lumberjack 8y ago
    Like the theoretical super-cheap batteries needed to make renewables actually practical as a comprehensive replacement for fossil fuel energy?
    - justatdotin 8y ago
      I'll admit the battery story has a way to go yet - I'm not relying totally on batteries yet. But battery farms are already playing a role around here.

27182818284 8y ago

>public who are already skeptical about fusion, to them fission has not had a great track record. Branding problem. Hell if "clean coal" can start to get inroads then something like "Direct Helium Solar" or something can be used as re-branded nuclear fusion.

nuclearminded 8y ago

The US government already recognized the importance of nuclear innovation (since we lost that lead in the last 50 years) On January 24, 2019, President Trump Signs Pro-Nuclear Legislation: make regulations move more quickly with respect to new nuclear reactors and to establish a better and faster licensing structure for advanced nuclear reactors https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/01/24/president-signs-pro-nuclear-legislation/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/01/24/president...

8bitsrule 8y ago

Interesting, I think, that Fukushima was built at a location that had experienced two huge tsunamis within living memory at the time. Wonder what kind of hand-waving dismissals and assurances were used to sell that project.

TheCondor 8y ago

We may have advanced the technologies since Chernobyl but we haven't even come close to dealing with that yet. We just built a multi billion dollar dome for that will possibly last 100 years, provided we keep up with the active measures to extend the life of it. That region will be fucked up for over 10,000 years. How long will Fukushima need the ice wall? I have yet to hear about a comprehensive plan or set of designs that is meltdown proof and doesn’t have a waste problem. It’s a conceptually simple way to make a lot of cleanish energy, and it works now and it works on cloudy days but there are still giant externalities that just haven’t been solved. We can’t even out the waste in deep underground mines in the desert, we haven’t had the political will to do that.

Tomte 8y ago

> Make as many arguments you want to make about fukushima facing a natural disaster, That's no excuse! In the end I don't care if the fission guys misestimated the natural disaster risk or whether they simply discarded it as "not in our threat model". > and how the field has advanced since three-mile island and chernobyl, But the old plants are still there! And, tying it together with the first point: back then the fission guys promised it was safe and no catastrophe could happen. Then the catastrophe happened. Okay, but this time we have cool new technology, and we know so much more, and nothing bad can happen. And then it happened. Now we're just back in the cycle. Why should we believe you? It's possible that it's now perfectly safe. But the fission guys lost all credibility when they again and again oversold what they really know, plan for and guarantee.

Turbots 8y ago

What are your thoughts on the Thorium Fuel cycle and liquid fuel thorium reactors, or molten salt reactors in general?