3 ms·

Exactly. The hn crowd is probably especially biased here since it's a lot of geeks with a very idealistic view of the world, where every single individual on th

Exactly. The hn crowd is probably especially biased here since it's a lot of geeks with a very idealistic view of the world, where every single individual on this planet is driven by the highest of moral values exclusively. Let me just copy and paste part of a comment I made on the recycling post yesterday: Look at nuclear power. Might be the greatest and cleanest solution in theory. In practice, look at the revelations after Fukushima. Mismanagement, dramatically negligent maintenance, corruption. Would proper management have prevented the incident? Probably not, but it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. Without the tsunami, this might have continued for years to come and who knows how and when shit would've hit the fan in this alternate reality. Then the shitshow that is storing nuclear waste here in Germany. Again instead of listening to scientists and engineers in the end they dumped the metal containers inside an old salt mine. Big surprise, salt water lead to rapid corrosion and now they have to get them out again, but thankfully the tax payer cover that bullshit.

mrpopo 7y ago
I don't have an idealistic view of the world. Rather the opposite. Nuclear power can provide for part of the growing energy needs of the ever-growing human population, while petrol supplies will start declining at some point in this century for geological reasons. It might be hard to swallow, but a few nuclear accidents are worth mitigating the worst consequences of climate change and energy peak. Without adequate access to energy, humans in multi-million cities will not be able to survive. EROI on Solar and Wind power is good, but obviously almost 100% of the energy invested is from fossil fuels. We still spend more energy building solar panels than we receive from it. Which, in a way, is a good sign (it means the solar industry is growing). But no storage technology has been deployed at scale yet (which would reduce the EROI even more). Will it scale enough before a potential energy peak? Will nuclear?
- friendlybus 7y ago
  Nuclear power plants can be used as weapons. The explosion of Chernobyl could have taken out half of Europe with radioactivity had it not been dealt with. If we elect another Kim jong/Stalin, or a neighbouring country does, they could blow up their own reactors to achieve destructive means. Solar and wind don't have that problem. The nuclear accidents are bad enough. Imagine the fallout from a plant in mexico takes out half of Texas, is that an acceptable risk in the pursuit of cheap electricity? Do you want to place the future of international political stability on the ability to regulate and police an industry? Both america and japan, two trustworthy and competent nations have had problems with nukes. Trading one bad scenario for another is not going to help. Space based solar is a safer bet than nukes.
6510 7y ago
Japan never had Tsunamis, it was a safe bet to assume something like that would never happen. How could scientists know about corrosion? These are not worse case scenaria! Imagine someone looking for a nice spot to bomb your country?!? Could we make it any less convenient? Where is the outrage? Why do people in stead get mad as hell when they see something like these stigmatized efforts? https://ie.energy/about/ https://ie.energy/about/ http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/lowcurrent/index.htm http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/lo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QaWciXP1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QaWciXP1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrGtIX-UbZA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrGtIX-UbZA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8 https://www.tewari.org/ https://www.tewari.org/ For me science is not about believing anything. You can have a hypothesis, you can do the work to prove or invalidate it and you may later have to conclude you've made false conclusions. The above have all been build replicated published etc. Way to many links in my comment (I'm not sorry) but there are many more. People go out of their way trying not to notice these efforts foaming from the corners of their mouth from rage. Does [say] https://brilliantlightpower.com/advisory-board/ https://brilliantlightpower.com/advisory-board/ have anything? Well, no! They are sinking millions into research and have nothing practical thus far. But its their money? Y U so mad bro? Meanwhile the public has to pay for Nuke plants and read about "controlled release of the liquid into the Pacific". I feel intellectually violated by the use of "controlled" in that sentence. Like I'm being made fun of. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/23/national/release-radioactive-fukushima-water-sea-air-japans-meti-narrows-options/#.XgCxSvzvKUk https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/23/national/releas... Yeah, its worth it. Go ahead, you have my unwashed approval.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  > Japan never had Tsunamis, it was a safe bet to assume something like that would never happen. I assume you're being sarcastic there, but I wanted to add a salient point. The Fukushima pump/generator problem should have been spotted long beforehand during site audits. I guarantee that any experienced data center audit team would have flagged that in about an hour. So for anybody who invokes "act of god", etc. - let me tell you - Fukushima was preventable for less than one $5 grand site audit report. Yes, I'm disgusted.
manfredo 7y ago
And yet, most reports place the lives lost due to the Fukishima disaster between 0-200 people - which zero being the most common estimate. Ironically, the decision to close nuclear plants following the Fukishima meltdown likely lead to more deaths than the meltdown itself: https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/11/07/was-shutting-japans-reactors-deadlier-than-the-fukushima-disaster https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/11/07/was-shutting-japan...

mrpopo 7y ago

I don't have an idealistic view of the world. Rather the opposite. Nuclear power can provide for part of the growing energy needs of the ever-growing human population, while petrol supplies will start declining at some point in this century for geological reasons. It might be hard to swallow, but a few nuclear accidents are worth mitigating the worst consequences of climate change and energy peak. Without adequate access to energy, humans in multi-million cities will not be able to survive. EROI on Solar and Wind power is good, but obviously almost 100% of the energy invested is from fossil fuels. We still spend more energy building solar panels than we receive from it. Which, in a way, is a good sign (it means the solar industry is growing). But no storage technology has been deployed at scale yet (which would reduce the EROI even more). Will it scale enough before a potential energy peak? Will nuclear?

friendlybus 7y ago
Nuclear power plants can be used as weapons. The explosion of Chernobyl could have taken out half of Europe with radioactivity had it not been dealt with. If we elect another Kim jong/Stalin, or a neighbouring country does, they could blow up their own reactors to achieve destructive means. Solar and wind don't have that problem. The nuclear accidents are bad enough. Imagine the fallout from a plant in mexico takes out half of Texas, is that an acceptable risk in the pursuit of cheap electricity? Do you want to place the future of international political stability on the ability to regulate and police an industry? Both america and japan, two trustworthy and competent nations have had problems with nukes. Trading one bad scenario for another is not going to help. Space based solar is a safer bet than nukes.

6510 7y ago

Japan never had Tsunamis, it was a safe bet to assume something like that would never happen. How could scientists know about corrosion? These are not worse case scenaria! Imagine someone looking for a nice spot to bomb your country?!? Could we make it any less convenient? Where is the outrage? Why do people in stead get mad as hell when they see something like these stigmatized efforts? https://ie.energy/about/ https://ie.energy/about/ http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/lowcurrent/index.htm http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/lo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QaWciXP1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QaWciXP1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrGtIX-UbZA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrGtIX-UbZA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8 https://www.tewari.org/ https://www.tewari.org/ For me science is not about believing anything. You can have a hypothesis, you can do the work to prove or invalidate it and you may later have to conclude you've made false conclusions. The above have all been build replicated published etc. Way to many links in my comment (I'm not sorry) but there are many more. People go out of their way trying not to notice these efforts foaming from the corners of their mouth from rage. Does [say] https://brilliantlightpower.com/advisory-board/ https://brilliantlightpower.com/advisory-board/ have anything? Well, no! They are sinking millions into research and have nothing practical thus far. But its their money? Y U so mad bro? Meanwhile the public has to pay for Nuke plants and read about "controlled release of the liquid into the Pacific". I feel intellectually violated by the use of "controlled" in that sentence. Like I'm being made fun of. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/23/national/release-radioactive-fukushima-water-sea-air-japans-meti-narrows-options/#.XgCxSvzvKUk https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/23/national/releas... Yeah, its worth it. Go ahead, you have my unwashed approval.

redis_mlc 7y ago
> Japan never had Tsunamis, it was a safe bet to assume something like that would never happen. I assume you're being sarcastic there, but I wanted to add a salient point. The Fukushima pump/generator problem should have been spotted long beforehand during site audits. I guarantee that any experienced data center audit team would have flagged that in about an hour. So for anybody who invokes "act of god", etc. - let me tell you - Fukushima was preventable for less than one $5 grand site audit report. Yes, I'm disgusted.

manfredo 7y ago

And yet, most reports place the lives lost due to the Fukishima disaster between 0-200 people - which zero being the most common estimate. Ironically, the decision to close nuclear plants following the Fukishima meltdown likely lead to more deaths than the meltdown itself: https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/11/07/was-shutting-japans-reactors-deadlier-than-the-fukushima-disaster https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/11/07/was-shutting-japan...