4 ms·

So, it's fairly obvious this was written with a pro-Nucelar bent, which is disappointing for something branded with YC. Even if we ignore that when nuclear powe

So, it's fairly obvious this was written with a pro-Nucelar bent, which is disappointing for something branded with YC. Even if we ignore that when nuclear power plants DO fail, they're cataclysmic in consequences. Simply put, there are only so many 500-year-no-go-zones we can create in our environment before the problems presented by them start to scale upwards into places we don't understand. What I think is most interesting is that very few entrepreneurs are talking about the exciting world of a more distributed grid. Distributed Grids running on renewables with backup from a larger centralized grid is a really interesting idea, and it's one where long term servicing costs will be pretty big. It'd be a good time for folks in SV to think about swinging at the big formerly-state-subsidized behemoth power company. Because the alternative is that they make their case that they need state subsidization while still maintaining autonomy. I don't really understand why so many folks like to think it's a clever take to say, "Actually Nuclear is quite safe." Even if that's the case, it is dependent on having a centralized power grid (which is very hard to maintain and occasionally causes wildfires), it depends on fuel mining and manufacture (also not a very safe proposition for those involved, uranium mining has similar risks to coal mining), and the proliferation of these fuels also proliferates an important component of the means by which weapons that turn a city to ash in mere moments are manufactured. Compare this to the plunging cost of solar and wind. It just... doesn't seem very smart except for the most densely stacked industrial regions.

scrumper 7y ago
It isn’t written from a pro-nuclear perspective: it’s just data, with attributed sources. And the majority of those nuclear deaths are from uranium mining.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  There is an associated article with an obvious bias.
  - scrumper 7y ago
    Not seeing that, perhaps because I am on mobile. I have a tab with a chart, a tab with a csv, and a tab with the sources. Edit: or on desktop. Can you post the link to the article you're seeing please?
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
  - leereeves 7y ago
    It's pretty clear you're starting with an anti-nuclear bias. Are you sure you're not just seeing a neutral article through the lens of your own bias?
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      Can you clarify which of the following you mean: "It is biased to point out bias in the writing accompanying this chart?" Or "It is biased to point out the facts regarding the realities of nuclear cleanup" or "It is biased to point out that other rather significant forms of energy generation were left out of this comparison without any justification?" For the record, I am biased against centralized power grids. I'd rather see decentralized power grids and as a strategy for those I think RTG piles are a safe and well-understood technology for backstopping other forms of small scale renewable power. Fission is just... it's too expensive for what it is. It centralized too much power with states. It's very dangerous when its safety is inevitably bypassed by industry that could never be held accountable for the tens of thousands of years of human no-go zones that it can produce.
      - scrumper 7y ago
        So your decentralized grid involves large-scale deployment of RTGs? Have you thought about the security implications of that? It makes it massively easier for bad actors to obtain fissile materials. At least it's feasible to provide high security for centralized nuclear facilities. (In the UK there's even a special police force for this.)
- Permit 7y ago
  Simply presenting data can still be biased. For example you can choose what metrics to show or you can choose to omit data (deaths for solar and wind) in order to make your preferred choice more palatable. I'm not accusing the authors of doing this because I don't know much about this field, but it's worth being aware that even raw data can be biased.
  - scrumper 7y ago
    > (deaths for solar and wind) Good point. And those were interesting omissions, I agree.
mercutio2 7y ago
I’m not especially in favor of commissioning nuclear plants to be built by the existing nuclear industry, because they’re expensive to start with and nuclear industry cost claims have routinely been wildly optimistic. But this idea that nuclear power plant disasters cause measurable harm anywhere but Chernobyl is just ignoring every bit of epidemiology I’ve ever seen. And, even at worst-case-Chernobyl, where they took a terrible design and turned off all the safety features, the idea that negative effects last more than decades is ludicrous. The atoms with short half lives are the dangerous-to-human-health atoms; after decades they’re gone. I’m with you on centralizing power production having socio-political ramifications, but... we’re going to have a grid any which way. Unless we get Shipstone-level inexpensive batteries, we’re still going to have to maintain an electrical grid. My anti-nuclear friends hate me for it, but I tend to think if we have any hope of limiting carbon forcing in mid-century, we’re going to need nuclear.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Reports are saying that Chernobyl is something of a nature preserve now. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclus...
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    A nature preserve where if most mammals go they die in agony and only a most mammals species that can survive do so with reduced lifespans. Good point. Thanks.
    - phonypc 7y ago
      "In other words, within 10 years of the disaster, the small mammal populations were apparently showing no ill effects from the radiation." "There have been a lot of radiobiological studies over the decades to find out what it takes to really damage animal populations, to do some serious reproductive damage. And across most of the exclusion zone, the doses aren't really high enough to have that effect."
luk_hol 7y ago
If distributed works I am all for distributed. But distributed does not always work nor is it always a superior option. Imagine we figure out cold fusion. That will probably always be "centralized", but it could be vastly superior to any other power source we can fathom to imagine. Honestly, I am an anarchist. I detest hierarchy. I don't like centralization. But let us not make a religion out of it. Let us stay rational. I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment. It is not perfect, far from it. It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > If distributed works I am all for distributed. But distributed does not always work nor is it always a superior option. Imagine we figure out cold fusion. That will probably always be "centralized", but it could be vastly superior to any other power source we can fathom to imagine. Okay, imagined it. If we need that much power in one place then great. We'll work on it then. But for the majority of individuals, they'll never need close to that level of electricity. > I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment. Based off nothing other than handwavey arguments about how, "Look how this system which has been deployed at a tiny fraction of the scale of the other systems has fewer deaths when we specifically cut out fuel procurement but count atmospheric pollution even if that's difficult to avoid confounding?" This is not a compelling line of argument. No more so than the "what if we suddenly have a fusion breakthrough won't you want thousands of lines of cabling then?" > It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany. I don't recall us saying science was bad. Rather, it was, "Concentrating capital on ever larger energy ziggurats is not something that makes sense in 2019." Sure. Let's look at Germany, where they literally have such an abundance of power they can't migrate their grids to use it fast enough so they pay people to use it? Or how they're now investing in inexpensive and locally sourced storage options because they can power over 90% of their peak demand on a good day? These are "good problems to have." Certainly better than "How do we shield this drone enough that we can make contact with the melted fuel rods at Fukushima."

scrumper 7y ago

It isn’t written from a pro-nuclear perspective: it’s just data, with attributed sources. And the majority of those nuclear deaths are from uranium mining.

KirinDave 7y ago
There is an associated article with an obvious bias.
- scrumper 7y ago
  Not seeing that, perhaps because I am on mobile. I have a tab with a chart, a tab with a csv, and a tab with the sources. Edit: or on desktop. Can you post the link to the article you're seeing please?
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
- leereeves 7y ago
  It's pretty clear you're starting with an anti-nuclear bias. Are you sure you're not just seeing a neutral article through the lens of your own bias?
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    Can you clarify which of the following you mean: "It is biased to point out bias in the writing accompanying this chart?" Or "It is biased to point out the facts regarding the realities of nuclear cleanup" or "It is biased to point out that other rather significant forms of energy generation were left out of this comparison without any justification?" For the record, I am biased against centralized power grids. I'd rather see decentralized power grids and as a strategy for those I think RTG piles are a safe and well-understood technology for backstopping other forms of small scale renewable power. Fission is just... it's too expensive for what it is. It centralized too much power with states. It's very dangerous when its safety is inevitably bypassed by industry that could never be held accountable for the tens of thousands of years of human no-go zones that it can produce.
    - scrumper 7y ago
      So your decentralized grid involves large-scale deployment of RTGs? Have you thought about the security implications of that? It makes it massively easier for bad actors to obtain fissile materials. At least it's feasible to provide high security for centralized nuclear facilities. (In the UK there's even a special police force for this.)
Permit 7y ago
Simply presenting data can still be biased. For example you can choose what metrics to show or you can choose to omit data (deaths for solar and wind) in order to make your preferred choice more palatable. I'm not accusing the authors of doing this because I don't know much about this field, but it's worth being aware that even raw data can be biased.
- scrumper 7y ago
  > (deaths for solar and wind) Good point. And those were interesting omissions, I agree.

mercutio2 7y ago

I’m not especially in favor of commissioning nuclear plants to be built by the existing nuclear industry, because they’re expensive to start with and nuclear industry cost claims have routinely been wildly optimistic. But this idea that nuclear power plant disasters cause measurable harm anywhere but Chernobyl is just ignoring every bit of epidemiology I’ve ever seen. And, even at worst-case-Chernobyl, where they took a terrible design and turned off all the safety features, the idea that negative effects last more than decades is ludicrous. The atoms with short half lives are the dangerous-to-human-health atoms; after decades they’re gone. I’m with you on centralizing power production having socio-political ramifications, but... we’re going to have a grid any which way. Unless we get Shipstone-level inexpensive batteries, we’re still going to have to maintain an electrical grid. My anti-nuclear friends hate me for it, but I tend to think if we have any hope of limiting carbon forcing in mid-century, we’re going to need nuclear.

leereeves 7y ago
Reports are saying that Chernobyl is something of a nature preserve now. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclus...
- KirinDave 7y ago
  A nature preserve where if most mammals go they die in agony and only a most mammals species that can survive do so with reduced lifespans. Good point. Thanks.
  - phonypc 7y ago
    "In other words, within 10 years of the disaster, the small mammal populations were apparently showing no ill effects from the radiation." "There have been a lot of radiobiological studies over the decades to find out what it takes to really damage animal populations, to do some serious reproductive damage. And across most of the exclusion zone, the doses aren't really high enough to have that effect."

luk_hol 7y ago

If distributed works I am all for distributed. But distributed does not always work nor is it always a superior option. Imagine we figure out cold fusion. That will probably always be "centralized", but it could be vastly superior to any other power source we can fathom to imagine. Honestly, I am an anarchist. I detest hierarchy. I don't like centralization. But let us not make a religion out of it. Let us stay rational. I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment. It is not perfect, far from it. It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany.

KirinDave 7y ago
> If distributed works I am all for distributed. But distributed does not always work nor is it always a superior option. Imagine we figure out cold fusion. That will probably always be "centralized", but it could be vastly superior to any other power source we can fathom to imagine. Okay, imagined it. If we need that much power in one place then great. We'll work on it then. But for the majority of individuals, they'll never need close to that level of electricity. > I think nuclear is the safest viable option we have at this moment. Based off nothing other than handwavey arguments about how, "Look how this system which has been deployed at a tiny fraction of the scale of the other systems has fewer deaths when we specifically cut out fuel procurement but count atmospheric pollution even if that's difficult to avoid confounding?" This is not a compelling line of argument. No more so than the "what if we suddenly have a fusion breakthrough won't you want thousands of lines of cabling then?" > It also doesn't mean we should stop funding the research of renewable energy and of energy storage. Quite contrary. But let us not fall for wishful thinking --- look at Germany. I don't recall us saying science was bad. Rather, it was, "Concentrating capital on ever larger energy ziggurats is not something that makes sense in 2019." Sure. Let's look at Germany, where they literally have such an abundance of power they can't migrate their grids to use it fast enough so they pay people to use it? Or how they're now investing in inexpensive and locally sourced storage options because they can power over 90% of their peak demand on a good day? These are "good problems to have." Certainly better than "How do we shield this drone enough that we can make contact with the melted fuel rods at Fukushima."