3 ms·

The tone of your post (being simultaneously dismissive and insulting to those who have a different view than you) is very trollish. The problem many people have

The tone of your post (being simultaneously dismissive and insulting to those who have a different view than you) is very trollish. The problem many people have with nuclear power are things like accidents making areas uninhabitable, radiation making people sick, disposal of waste rods is difficult, some materials can be used to make weapons, and the cost to make a safe plant are staggering and leading to cancellation of projects. Renewable sources don’t have these downsides. Are they ugly? Not any uglier than a concrete dome and cooling systems of a nuclear power plant. You can bet wine country does not want a nuclear plant in their valley either. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to zone land usage appropriately.

pas 6y ago
Renewables have externalities too. Just because it's harder to mass hyterise them, they still exist. Eg the cost of mining for battery parts, parts that are needed to manufacture hundreds of thousands of wind turbines, millions of PV panels, inverters, etc. That said, of course it's perfectly reasonable to try to preserve some areas, and to put power generation somewhere out of sight.
skriticos2 6y ago
Agree. Compared to renewables - nuclear is a big risk (financial and operational). Also nuclear needs a lot of water, which is getting to be a serious problem. Compared to coal/gas/biomass they look great though in our current terraforming predicament. There is no way we could build enough of them in the near term to matter, so that makes this discussion moot anyway. There is simply not enough expertise and production capacity left. Very few nuclear plants have been completed recently and the institutional knowlege is fading. It takes a lot of time and effort to reinvigorate that, especially since the nuclear industry is so extremely conservative. Also the conversation is not being done on technical merits - but political inertia, an unwillingness to change and special interests by established energy companies (coal, gas). As you say, renewables are still winning (slowly) because of the low risk profile and generally being price competitive. Not that it matters much, we are mostly over the point of no return. It's just a matter of time before this ball is getting very unpleasant, sadly. We are just playing with the dial on how quickly that happens.
quotemstr 6y ago
New nuclear power plant designs [1] have many intrinsic safety features that largely obviate the old safety concerns that you mention. Anti-nuclear advocates conspicuously ignore these new designs, instead opposing a vision of the nuclear power system that hasn't been current since the 1960s. Argumentum ad Chernobylum just convinces me that the animus against nuclear power comes from aesthetic considerations and not a sober optimization of human welfare against ecological damage. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
LunaSea 6y ago
Renewables definitely have those downsides. Especially if you look at the recycling procedures of solar panels and led batteries. cf: Other link on the front page of HN: https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-leaving-behind-toxic-trash/ https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...

pas 6y ago

Renewables have externalities too. Just because it's harder to mass hyterise them, they still exist. Eg the cost of mining for battery parts, parts that are needed to manufacture hundreds of thousands of wind turbines, millions of PV panels, inverters, etc. That said, of course it's perfectly reasonable to try to preserve some areas, and to put power generation somewhere out of sight.

skriticos2 6y ago

Agree. Compared to renewables - nuclear is a big risk (financial and operational). Also nuclear needs a lot of water, which is getting to be a serious problem. Compared to coal/gas/biomass they look great though in our current terraforming predicament. There is no way we could build enough of them in the near term to matter, so that makes this discussion moot anyway. There is simply not enough expertise and production capacity left. Very few nuclear plants have been completed recently and the institutional knowlege is fading. It takes a lot of time and effort to reinvigorate that, especially since the nuclear industry is so extremely conservative. Also the conversation is not being done on technical merits - but political inertia, an unwillingness to change and special interests by established energy companies (coal, gas). As you say, renewables are still winning (slowly) because of the low risk profile and generally being price competitive. Not that it matters much, we are mostly over the point of no return. It's just a matter of time before this ball is getting very unpleasant, sadly. We are just playing with the dial on how quickly that happens.

quotemstr 6y ago

New nuclear power plant designs [1] have many intrinsic safety features that largely obviate the old safety concerns that you mention. Anti-nuclear advocates conspicuously ignore these new designs, instead opposing a vision of the nuclear power system that hasn't been current since the 1960s. Argumentum ad Chernobylum just convinces me that the animus against nuclear power comes from aesthetic considerations and not a sober optimization of human welfare against ecological damage. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

LunaSea 6y ago

Renewables definitely have those downsides. Especially if you look at the recycling procedures of solar panels and led batteries. cf: Other link on the front page of HN: https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-leaving-behind-toxic-trash/ https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...