7 ms·

I'm very pro-nuclear, but I still think this is an extremely unfair comparison. If you actually talk to anti-nuclear advocates, they have reasonable concerns ab

I'm very pro-nuclear, but I still think this is an extremely unfair comparison. If you actually talk to anti-nuclear advocates, they have reasonable concerns about safety, disposal, oversight, and proliferation. Now I don't think those concerns override the fact that nuclear fission is our best stop-gap as we slowly transition to renewables. But that doesn't mean everything anti-nuclear folks say is bunk. The whole anti-vaxx movement, on the other hand, is based almost exclusively on lies and propaganda. Maybe it's because the anti-vaxx movement grew via social media channels, which increased its toxicity substantially.

avar 7y ago
They have "reasonable" concerns, but the comparison is spot-on. Their narrow-minded paranoia has by-and-large resulted in the alternative being coal, which is killing almost a million people every year, and that's just yearly deaths, not the cumulative carbon released into the atmosphere which we'll be paying for for the next thousand years at best. Just like someone not vaccinating their kids isn't right just because they can point to some miniscule fatality rate as a result of vaccinations (e.g. infections, adverse reactions to vaccines etc.). Those tiny numbers are drowned out by the death rate of not vaccinating. So pick the shittiest Soviet nuclear design you can think of. If we powered the whole world on that and had 10 Chernobyls every year it would still suck less than coal.
- falcrist 7y ago
  They don't have ""reasonable"" concerns with scare quotes. They have legitimately reasonable concerns. Nuclear is prohibitively expensive, inherently dangerous (in terms of being high-stakes), difficult to oversee properly (particularly since reactors can outlive governments), and it requires disposal of some of the most toxic waste mankind has ever produced. I have an answer to all of those concerns, but that does NOT mean they're any less reasonable. Anti-vaxx on the other hand have completely UNreasonable concerns. Most of those I talk to in the anti-vaxx movement still think there's a risk of autism. Many think this is all a conspiracy by big pharma to sell more medicine. That's not reasonable. That's not even "reasonable". That's a conspiracy theory. I think there's a fundamental difference here as well as a difference in scale. That's why I'm saying this is a terrible comparison.
  - option 7y ago
    no there is no difference. Both don’t understand science and basic statistics. Go look up on which energy source is statistically safer (we have decades of operations and accidents now) Regarding vaccines there were actually some “oh shit” moments which turned out to be OK, but anti-vaxers lack of science knowledge make them ignorant of those (google sv40 virus and polio vaccine)
    - nugator 7y ago
      Are you saying that everyone understanding science and basic statistics should be pro nuclear power plants as the best way of generating power?
      - option 7y ago
        yes
        pfdietz 7y ago
        Anyone understanding economics, and not ignorant on the current state of the technology, cannot be pro-nuclear. The pro-nuclear position is very much based on wishful thinking about cost reduction.
    - falcrist 7y ago
      The anti-nuclear folks often understand science and stats just fine. They inflate legitimate concerns to argue against having more nuclear plants in favor of having more renewables. Almost none of the anti-vaxx people I've encountered base their concerns on science. They spout conspiracy theories. Also, why are you telling me to go look up which source is safer? I already told you I support nuclear.
  - avar 7y ago
    They are unreasonable concerns because they're not in any way grounded in reality. I can also argue that we don't need vaccinations, we just all have to go live in our own self-sustaining personal space stations in orbit, and I'd be right. You don't need disease prevention without a transmission vector. Seems like anti-vaccination can be reasonable and scientific, who knew? Similarly, the practical effects of the public policy nuclear skeptics campaign for amount to support for energy sources that are way more harmful than nuclear power could ever be. Nuclear power is only "prohibitively expensive" because CO^2 emitting energy sources somehow get a pass on the cost of scrubbing all that carbon from the atmosphere, and if we're going to talk about "inherently dangerous" I'd like to point you to the N=1 experiment we're currently running on the Earth with global warming. Similarly, I guess "toxic waste" doesn't count if you just disperse it in the atmosphere instead of putting it in barrels and store it at a nuclear power plant. The anti-nuclear movement is not just in favor of having "more renewables" as you argue in another reply. First of all, that movement has been a major influence in public policy since the early late 70s to early 80s, way before renewables were a viable alternative for grid power. Secondly, there's a lot of things which we'll still need something like nuclear energy for even if we assume a renewable grid, e.g. merchant ships which are a major worldwide source of carbon emissions. It's not viable to power those sorts of things on solar, wind or battery power. I think you'll find that even "neo-anti-nuclear" folks (if we can call them that) don't generally hold the nuanced view that they'd rather have solar or wind powering their home, but that they're also fine with nuclear merchant shipping and fishing vessels.
- zaq_xsw 7y ago
  You're getting downvoted, but I understand the sentiment. It's amazing to me that people talk about nuclear power as if it's something that we'd ideally be able to avoid outright. Nuclear is getting safer every year (and it's already safer than everything else we're currently using in terms of deaths caused and environmental damage per unit of energy, at least[1]), and people want to just shut it down? I can at least understand a sort of "nuclear isn't ready yet" stance, but I'm baffled by the idea that the end goal is to just not utilise this whole area of physics for energy production at all. You can understand the opposition in the 1970s/80s and even 90s when things were still being ironed out, but at this point, in 2019, it does seem like it's creeping towards anti-vax levels of science-denial. [1] Kharecha Pushker A (2013)
  - mimixco 7y ago
    How is nuclear getting safer when nearly all plants are at or past their design lifetimes? Seems to me like that would mean it's getting unsafer.
    - zaq_xsw 7y ago
      You're anti-old-nuclear. It's like being anti-old-aeroplanes, which isn't an interesting position. The article is about depoyment of new plants. You've replied to a bunch of different threads with empty comments like this. You shouldn't do that.
      - mimixco 7y ago
        I invite you to compare my HN "karma" with your own before dismissing the usefulness of my comments.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        Reactors are wonderful when they're still in the CAD database. They become progressively less so as they encounter the real world.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    The problem is that nuclear has become a loser technology. It's not failing because of the public thinks it's unsafe, it's failing because internally they can't compete (and excuses about regulation are just that, excuses.) If nuclear were 1/3 its current cost we'd be building nuclear power plants left and right, protests be damned. But it's not, and we aren't, and we won't be. Deal.
option 7y ago
I actually grew up in Chernobyl and my parents still work on CNPP, so I did my share of research on this topic. Given its track record Nuclear is the safest source of energy (measured in deaths/twh), safer than even solar or wind. Disposal is not nearly as big of a problem as people paint it is, especially for newer reactor.
- newsoul2019 7y ago
  I am curious now about deaths from solar and wind...
  - function_seven 7y ago
    I believe this comes from the construction and maintenance related deaths (i.e. falling off a roof when installing solar panels). I don't know if it's accurate or not, though.
    - clarry 7y ago
      If so, it doesn't sound like a particularly fair comparison to me. Nuclear facilities shouldn't be compared to Joe Randoms installing panels on their summer cottages, they should be compared to (at least) megawatt scale industrial installations, where the occupational hazards in construction probably aren't any worse than in a nuclear power plant. (The panels are at ground level on solar farms..)
      - function_seven 7y ago
        I agree. Also, Joe Random is taking on the task willingly. He has the ability to do it as safely or as dangerously as he wishes. Whereas Jane Bystander (who developed cancer from a nearby radiation indecent) wasn't engaging in any particular activity that caused her death.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- 7y ago

avar 7y ago

They have "reasonable" concerns, but the comparison is spot-on. Their narrow-minded paranoia has by-and-large resulted in the alternative being coal, which is killing almost a million people every year, and that's just yearly deaths, not the cumulative carbon released into the atmosphere which we'll be paying for for the next thousand years at best. Just like someone not vaccinating their kids isn't right just because they can point to some miniscule fatality rate as a result of vaccinations (e.g. infections, adverse reactions to vaccines etc.). Those tiny numbers are drowned out by the death rate of not vaccinating. So pick the shittiest Soviet nuclear design you can think of. If we powered the whole world on that and had 10 Chernobyls every year it would still suck less than coal.

falcrist 7y ago
They don't have ""reasonable"" concerns with scare quotes. They have legitimately reasonable concerns. Nuclear is prohibitively expensive, inherently dangerous (in terms of being high-stakes), difficult to oversee properly (particularly since reactors can outlive governments), and it requires disposal of some of the most toxic waste mankind has ever produced. I have an answer to all of those concerns, but that does NOT mean they're any less reasonable. Anti-vaxx on the other hand have completely UNreasonable concerns. Most of those I talk to in the anti-vaxx movement still think there's a risk of autism. Many think this is all a conspiracy by big pharma to sell more medicine. That's not reasonable. That's not even "reasonable". That's a conspiracy theory. I think there's a fundamental difference here as well as a difference in scale. That's why I'm saying this is a terrible comparison.
- option 7y ago
  no there is no difference. Both don’t understand science and basic statistics. Go look up on which energy source is statistically safer (we have decades of operations and accidents now) Regarding vaccines there were actually some “oh shit” moments which turned out to be OK, but anti-vaxers lack of science knowledge make them ignorant of those (google sv40 virus and polio vaccine)
  - nugator 7y ago
    Are you saying that everyone understanding science and basic statistics should be pro nuclear power plants as the best way of generating power?
    - option 7y ago
      yes
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        Anyone understanding economics, and not ignorant on the current state of the technology, cannot be pro-nuclear. The pro-nuclear position is very much based on wishful thinking about cost reduction.
  - falcrist 7y ago
    The anti-nuclear folks often understand science and stats just fine. They inflate legitimate concerns to argue against having more nuclear plants in favor of having more renewables. Almost none of the anti-vaxx people I've encountered base their concerns on science. They spout conspiracy theories. Also, why are you telling me to go look up which source is safer? I already told you I support nuclear.
- avar 7y ago
  They are unreasonable concerns because they're not in any way grounded in reality. I can also argue that we don't need vaccinations, we just all have to go live in our own self-sustaining personal space stations in orbit, and I'd be right. You don't need disease prevention without a transmission vector. Seems like anti-vaccination can be reasonable and scientific, who knew? Similarly, the practical effects of the public policy nuclear skeptics campaign for amount to support for energy sources that are way more harmful than nuclear power could ever be. Nuclear power is only "prohibitively expensive" because CO^2 emitting energy sources somehow get a pass on the cost of scrubbing all that carbon from the atmosphere, and if we're going to talk about "inherently dangerous" I'd like to point you to the N=1 experiment we're currently running on the Earth with global warming. Similarly, I guess "toxic waste" doesn't count if you just disperse it in the atmosphere instead of putting it in barrels and store it at a nuclear power plant. The anti-nuclear movement is not just in favor of having "more renewables" as you argue in another reply. First of all, that movement has been a major influence in public policy since the early late 70s to early 80s, way before renewables were a viable alternative for grid power. Secondly, there's a lot of things which we'll still need something like nuclear energy for even if we assume a renewable grid, e.g. merchant ships which are a major worldwide source of carbon emissions. It's not viable to power those sorts of things on solar, wind or battery power. I think you'll find that even "neo-anti-nuclear" folks (if we can call them that) don't generally hold the nuanced view that they'd rather have solar or wind powering their home, but that they're also fine with nuclear merchant shipping and fishing vessels.
zaq_xsw 7y ago
You're getting downvoted, but I understand the sentiment. It's amazing to me that people talk about nuclear power as if it's something that we'd ideally be able to avoid outright. Nuclear is getting safer every year (and it's already safer than everything else we're currently using in terms of deaths caused and environmental damage per unit of energy, at least[1]), and people want to just shut it down? I can at least understand a sort of "nuclear isn't ready yet" stance, but I'm baffled by the idea that the end goal is to just not utilise this whole area of physics for energy production at all. You can understand the opposition in the 1970s/80s and even 90s when things were still being ironed out, but at this point, in 2019, it does seem like it's creeping towards anti-vax levels of science-denial. [1] Kharecha Pushker A (2013)
- mimixco 7y ago
  How is nuclear getting safer when nearly all plants are at or past their design lifetimes? Seems to me like that would mean it's getting unsafer.
  - zaq_xsw 7y ago
    You're anti-old-nuclear. It's like being anti-old-aeroplanes, which isn't an interesting position. The article is about depoyment of new plants. You've replied to a bunch of different threads with empty comments like this. You shouldn't do that.
    - mimixco 7y ago
      I invite you to compare my HN "karma" with your own before dismissing the usefulness of my comments.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      Reactors are wonderful when they're still in the CAD database. They become progressively less so as they encounter the real world.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  The problem is that nuclear has become a loser technology. It's not failing because of the public thinks it's unsafe, it's failing because internally they can't compete (and excuses about regulation are just that, excuses.) If nuclear were 1/3 its current cost we'd be building nuclear power plants left and right, protests be damned. But it's not, and we aren't, and we won't be. Deal.

option 7y ago

I actually grew up in Chernobyl and my parents still work on CNPP, so I did my share of research on this topic. Given its track record Nuclear is the safest source of energy (measured in deaths/twh), safer than even solar or wind. Disposal is not nearly as big of a problem as people paint it is, especially for newer reactor.

newsoul2019 7y ago
I am curious now about deaths from solar and wind...
- function_seven 7y ago
  I believe this comes from the construction and maintenance related deaths (i.e. falling off a roof when installing solar panels). I don't know if it's accurate or not, though.
  - clarry 7y ago
    If so, it doesn't sound like a particularly fair comparison to me. Nuclear facilities shouldn't be compared to Joe Randoms installing panels on their summer cottages, they should be compared to (at least) megawatt scale industrial installations, where the occupational hazards in construction probably aren't any worse than in a nuclear power plant. (The panels are at ground level on solar farms..)
    - function_seven 7y ago
      I agree. Also, Joe Random is taking on the task willingly. He has the ability to do it as safely or as dangerously as he wishes. Whereas Jane Bystander (who developed cancer from a nearby radiation indecent) wasn't engaging in any particular activity that caused her death.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
7y ago