34 ms·

After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

539 points by elsewhen 6y ago

mensetmanusman 6y ago
That’s great, anti-nuclear energy was definitely one of the anti-science stances standing in the way of progress.
- pradn 6y ago
  I think many oppose nuclear power because for the same cost, you can build a lot of wind, solar, and hydro instead. I don't know if efficiencies have caught up and all. There's less of a catastrophic risk with these compared to nuclear, at least in people's imaginations. (Hydro dams have been broken in the past though and lead to many deaths.)
  - p_l 6y ago
    Except that solar or wind power plant will require significant backing from other power sources (hydroelectric outside of microscale is dead due to environmental concerns and costs), usually gas and coal. Energy storage is still very expensive in large scale except for pumped hydro storage, which again, is very problematic to arrange.
    - ip26 6y ago
      Wind blows around the clock and solar runs most of the time we are awake. If renewables are super cheap but storage is not viable, can't we simply overbuild?
      - erik_seaberg 6y ago
        Solar drops hours before daily air conditioning demand, but wind might do it. I always thought wind depended heavily on the solar cycle, but apparently Europe found it dips 20% or less at night.
        ip26 6y ago
        Solar is still delivering 50% of peak as late as 5pm, and peak air conditioning is between 3-7pm. It's not a perfect fit, but mix in some time of use rates and (as previously mentioned) wind and it seems like you could do it. In buildings with decent insulation, cooling load is not hard to time shift.
        bigdubs 6y ago
        Also batteries are critical for Solar to be viable generally anyway, but not ideal for sustainability.
      - xlc0212 6y ago
        No. It cost money and land (environment) to build them.
      - p_l 6y ago
        Wind is not as predictable as it seems, and most importantly, you don't get to control the production except for clamping down when you overproduce (this results in negative prices on the market and such). Then you have to add transfer issues, and you have situations where North Germany is exporting, while south Germany is importing, and there's a lot of fossil fuels burned just so you have capacity to keep the grid in shape. There are of course alternatives, like controlling demand via methods such as informing people they have to reduce power usage ASAP or get cut off (hope you didn't just start washing machine or put food into electric cooker)
        ip26 6y ago
        In my ideal future, demand doesn't need to be controlled that forcefully. Tank water heaters, electric cars, air conditioning, furnace fans, and dryers can all be networked and choose to operate when power is cheap. They can soak up spikes in production and back off in troughs. These things are also the vast majority of residential power (the only other heavy hitter is cooking) Improved distance transmission would definitely be a big help.
  - ie7eyrdueu 6y ago
    All of those things disrupt a much larger swathe of land than a nuclear plant though. Environmental impact is more than "does it explode?" it's also things like ecological impact. Hyrdoelectric dams are incredibly disruptive to their environment and wind/solar take up at least 300x the space of a nuclear plant depending on which of the two you're talking about.
  - formercoder 6y ago
    Yep, if you want California-style rolling blackouts.
    - osn9363739 6y ago
      Except those have been happening longer than renewables have been a meaningful provider of energy.
- cure 6y ago
  It's odd to me that anti-nuclear is being labelled anti-science. It's almost like the pro-nuclear people have blinders on. Nuclear is fantastic, in theory. In practice, in the real world, the consequences of accidents are extraordinarily bad and costly. The odds of a bad accident may be very small, but they are not zero (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...). And dealing with the waste is another highly risky and unsolved problem. I will be happily become pro-nuclear the moment that all the real-world externalities are actually priced in. How much do you think it cost to have 1,000 square miles in the Ukraine uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years? What if such an accident happens in a densely populated area? How much do you think it will cost to keep all that nuclear waste safe for the next half a million years or so? Plutonium-239's half-life is 24,000 years, and isotopes are dangerous for 10 to 20 times their half-life (cf https://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-uranium.html https://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-u...). The same problem of externalities exists for fossil fuels, of course. And even for hydro power in a different way: it has displaced millions of people and flooded many beautiful places.
  - burfog 6y ago
    Plutonium-239 is not waste. It is fuel. Use it. The longer the half-life, the less we care. Bismuth and tungsten are radioactive, with half-lives longer than the age of the universe, but they aren't going to hurt anybody.
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    > The odds of a bad accident may be very small but they are not zero re: Very small We've had nuclear power less than a century and we've had more than one significant event, and even more near events. But its not simply the odds, but the impact. We have yet to see a worst case scenario. How much longer can that last?
  - Lazare 6y ago
    > In practice, in the real world, the consequences of accidents are extraordinarily bad and costly. ...not really. Fossil fuels kill a simply enormous amount of people. Coal is responsible for something like 13k deaths per year in the US alone; air pollution (from burning fossil fuels) kills something like 10k people per day. > How much do you think it cost to have 1,000 square miles in the Ukraine uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years? A number so low it rounds to zero in this context? > The same problem of externalities exists for fossil fuels, of course. I don't think you can handwave that away as an "of course". The externalities around fossil fuels are simply enormous; the issues and costs and risks of nuclear are multiple orders of magnitude less.
- legulere 6y ago
  Just because you need a bit of science to understand nuclear power plants doesn’t mean that it makes sense to build new nuclear plants. New nuclear is simply too expensive, with high construction costs in the west.
sg47 6y ago
Republicans will use their fear mongering tactics, point to Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear power is bad. Also, it goes against what their base wants - coal power.
- manfredo 6y ago
  As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...
  - sg47 6y ago
    I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.
    - jvreagan 6y ago
      Perhaps your assumption is flawed.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      That's a gross over simplification of the Republican view point. Both sides have blind spots. Republicans on climate change, Democrats on other things like nuclear for instance.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        Getting back to you on IPCC energy modalities risks, from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24150323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24150323 Found a mention in an earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11241142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11241142 Source seems to be: Methodology, starting at p. 993: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf And p. 845 (I think, "745" is clearly a typo): http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf
notRobot 6y ago
For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future generations without mass adoption of nuclear power. > Nuclear energy is by far the safest energy source in this comparison – it results in more than 442 times fewer deaths than the 'dirtiest' forms of coal; 330 times fewer than coal; 250 times less than oil; and 38 times fewer than gas. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- melling 6y ago
  Now we just need to make it affordable. Cost overruns seem to be a big problem in the industry. The US recently canceled 2 plants, and we’re struggling to finish the other 2.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    Nuclear is much cheaper when built at scale. Often 3-5x cheaper. Most of the plants built during the nuclear boom in the 1960s and 1970s were built at a cost of ~$2.5 billion per gigawatt of capacity. Note that this capacity is put out 24/7, so it's equivalent to about 4 times as much solar capacity (which typically has a capacity factor of ~25%). Solar and wind are cheap in terms of watts per day, but become drastically more expensive one you need to start adding storage. Storage costs are typically in the $200-400 per KWh range for battery storage, and $100 - $200 per KWh range for hydroelectric storage, but the latter is geographically limited.
  - tomatotomato37 6y ago
    I also haven't really seen anyone discuss the cost of nuclear in human labor costs. No matter what method or design you use you still need educated workers to babysit both the reactor and the standard turbine infrastructure, whose salary dwarfs whatever costs come from fuel or safety countermeasures. In contrast, solar and wind tend to be very manpower efficient due to the logistical pain of maintaining something spread over 10 sq. miles forcing investments in reliability and autonomy. Edit: Messed up wording
namuol 6y ago
First endorsement in 48 years? I'm pretty sure this qualifies as an endorsement: > As detailed in the Climate Action Plan, President Obama is committed to using every appropriate tool to combat climate change. Nuclear power, which in 2014 generated about 60 percent of carbon-free electricity in the United States, continues to play a major role in efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector. As America leads the global transition to a low-carbon economy, the continued development of new and advanced nuclear technologies along with support for currently operating nuclear power plants is an important component of our clean energy strategy. Investing in the safe and secure development of nuclear power also helps advance other vital policy objectives in the national interest, such as maintaining economic competitiveness and job creation, as well as enhancing nuclear nonproliferation efforts, nuclear safety and security, and energy security. > > The President’s FY 2016 Budget includes more than $900 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) to support the U.S. civilian nuclear energy sector by leading federal research, development, and demonstration efforts in nuclear energy technologies, ranging from power generation, safety, hybrid energy systems, and security technologies, among other things. DOE also supports the deployment of these technologies with $12.5 billion in remaining loan guarantee authority for advanced nuclear projects through Title 17. DOE’s investments in nuclear energy help secure the three strategic objectives that are foundational to our nation’s energy system: energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental responsibility. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/06/fact-sheet-obama-administration-announces-actions-ensure-nuclear-energy https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/1...
- LeegleechN 6y ago
  First endorsement in the official party platform, which is a specific document released by the parties every 4 years (except this year for Republicans who re-adopted their 2016 platform with no changes...).
  - namuol 6y ago
    With some qualifiers this is technically correct, but this only makes it feel more disingenuous.
mceoin 6y ago
What is the RNC's stance on nuclear? Does nuclear now enjoy bi-partisan support? Or just the Dems?
- Orou 6y ago
  The article states that the Republican Party is pro-nuclear and anti-government, and the Democratic Party was anti-nuclear and pro-government. While it seems from the headline that both parties are now pro-nuclear, it is unclear how that will play out at a policy level. Based on the quoted stance of being "technologically-neutral", it may well be the case that Democrats still won't support nuclear power, not because they are against it as a rule but because they see solar and wind as being superior alternatives.
- bluquark 6y ago
  The RNC doesn't have a platform in 2020 so we can't speak of a defined Republican position on individual issues anymore. In their previous platforms, they supported expanding nuclear: http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/18/the-party-platforms-on-energy-and-nuclear/ http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/18/the-party-platforms-on-...
- lucb1e 6y ago
  A bit meta, but as someone from Europe where the countries aren't usually divided into two opposing camps, this seems oddly phrased to me. Could someone from the USA who considers themselves either neutral or a democrat comment on whether "just the Dems" sounds negative to you?
  - jasongill 6y ago
    It doesn't sound negative to me at all; just a factual way of stating that the policy is only supported by one party. Perfectly normal figure of speech here in the states.
- criddell 6y ago
  If the Democrats are for it, then they are against it.
dehrmann 6y ago
In a way, this is the first time the Democrats are truly taking climate change seriously.
- avmich 6y ago
  It's in a very specific way only. Have you heard about Jay Inslee?
option 6y ago
A general anti-science movement really hurts human progress with these 3 particularly bad: 1) anti vaccines 2) anti GMO 3) anti nuclear Great to see Dems starting to endorse nuclear after decades of oppositions (see John Kerry’s boneheaded earlier efforts to kill it)
- legulere 6y ago
  You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants. And it’s a bit ridiculous to speak about human progress when talking about GMO in agriculture, when all it’s used for is plants creating their own insecticides and herbicide tolerance for furthering unsustainable monoculture farming.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants That needs a bit more justification. It certainly hasn't been true for the last 40 odd years and by extension most of the anti-nuclear types probably are also anti-science. Generally they're the sort of people who'll hold global warming up as a real problem and then argue that Fukushima is an unacceptable risk. It is hard to hold both those positions and be heavy on the science. On the scale that global warming is a risk the risk from a nuclear plant can't even be detected. I've lived next to a coal fired power plant; the science is very, very clear I'd have better life outcomes if I'd lived near a nuclear one.
  - option 6y ago
    I thought having enough healthy food with as small of environmental impact as possible is good for human progress /s
    - legulere 6y ago
      You mean reducing meat consumption? Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories. It would even have a big positive environmental impact.
  - 6y ago
csours 6y ago
I've been reading "Normal Accidents" by Perrow. I started reading the book expecting an even-keeled explanation of risk, but I was pretty shocked by how prejudiced against Nuclear the tone was. It was also a reminder of how TERRIBLE the industrial design (aka UX) of reactor monitoring and controls were at the time the book was written (1984). So many of the things he seems to have felt were insurmountable could be solved by better design, something the book goes a long way toward dismissing. Anti-nuclear sentiment seems to be one of those things that became widely fashionable, and Pro-nuclear became demonized.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  >Anti-nuclear sentiment seems to be one of those things that became widely fashionable, and Pro-nuclear became demonized. There was a concerted effort to connect all nuclear power with nuclear weapons in the 80's and 90's. The effects of that are still with us.
  - xmprt 6y ago
    It's still a thing today. Look at the Iran deal. I don't know enough to comment on whether its a good or bad thing but a lot of people think that Iran purifying Uranium == Iran developing nukes.
ozborn 6y ago
Folks should parse the article and the platform carefully, it actually reads "existing and advanced nuclear". This could be interpreted as maintaining existing reactors and building advanced (fusion?) reactors and NOT building new fission reactors. From my perspective this interpretation would be desirable (although probably wishful thinking) given that nuclear energy is too expensive in practise (really only existing plants are competitive with solar), too slow to construct (10 year average construction time in the US?!), centralized and generally poorly managed. The construction of new nuclear fission plants for grid power in the United States isn't going anywhere, since it makes absolutely no economic, environmental or political sense. Yes, most of us on Hacker News know it is better than fossil fuels - but renewable energy is the new competition. Nuclear is going directly against solar with (or without) battery backup and it's been losing for years now - even China has slowed down the pace of construction. Nuclear grid power advocates should take their arguments to Mars where they will actually have a case. Not much of an atmosphere to spin a turbine, far away from the sun and an environment that makes the Antarctic look like a Garden of Eden should anything go wrong.
- lucb1e 6y ago
  > it makes absolutely no economic, environmental or political sense Environmental? As far as I understand, the much lower emissions (not zero because of construction, people driving to the plant, etc.) compared to our current main power sources is a huge benefit for the environment (and thus for us: even if you are right that it's more costly per kWh today, it might save the next generation many trillions). Given the phrasing "absolutely no [environmental] sense", it sounds like you're very sure it must be negative for the environment but I don't understand why. I am generally supportive of nuclear but only because from what I read, it seems to be a big help in reaching environmental needs. I get the economics part: nuclear isn't super cheap and gets easily outcompeted by renewables on sunny or windy days. I also expect we'll start abolishing nuclear fission in favor of fully renewable sources as soon as we finished turning off carbon-based power plants (and, in a perfectly rational world, no sooner). If there is more to the story like some environmental effect that I'm not aware of then I'd like to hear it (note that I did read up on nuclear energy so you can assume I know the basics; I pose the comment somewhat questioningly not because I haven't done any research but because I think this is a constructive way to learn).
tbenst 6y ago
I’m continuously baffled by those that claim that nuclear power is safe. Look at Fukushima for example. It seems hard to imagine a nuclear power plant design, even Gen III or IV that would be immune to any possible natural disaster. Analysis of nuclear power should take into account Black Swan events: no matter how well designed, some fraction of plants will cause INES Level 7 disasters. If the resulting cost (ie $100s of billions for cleanup), environmental damage, and health impacts are still less than wind or solar, I’m all for it, but pro-nuclear arguments continuously give the tired argument that with new designs “this time is different.”
- etrautmann 6y ago
  Yes, and even when you consider those costs, it pales in comparison to the lives lost and negative externalities of coal, oil, and gas usage. These include climate change, particulate pollution, environmental release of mercury, devastation of vast swaths of the environment worldwide, and other factors that may be hard to quantify but negatively impactful.
  - matwood 6y ago
    There was a post on HN the other day that talked about how hard it is for humans to see beyond direct first order effects. Once you get to indirect or N order effects, it's nearly impossible for humans to fully appreciate. People see nuclear and it's easy to draw a straight line accident -> damage. People know about mercury is seafood, but they can't seem to attach fossil fuel burning to that problem even when told. It's a disconnect that I hope as a species we will one day figure out. Global warming and weather changes? Good luck.
    - r00fus 6y ago
      It helped that there was a whole campaign propped up by the fossil fuel companies to demonize nuclear. Don't get me wrong - I think there are issues with nuclear - primarily the waste heat - generally ruins the rivers or other local bodies of water even assuming radioactive waste is contained.
  - 6y ago
witweb 6y ago
But what's going to happen with the nuclear waste? I've heard too many times about water getting into permanent repositories and leaking containers contaminating the biosphere. Seems like a bad idea to me...
- qayxc 6y ago
  Nuclear waste is primarily a political problem (which actually makes it damn near impossible to solve in the near term). There's no fundamental problem with it, since it's produced naturally as well [1] and sites exist that would allow for very safe long term storage if need be. It's also possible to get rid of long lived decay products entirely using certain types of reactors that can "burn" nuclear waste. Again, political will and major investments would be required to make that happen, though some companies are already working on it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine
- p_l 6y ago
  You can reprocess it. France does so, Japan does so, even Poland sold off nuclear waste from research reactors for reprocessing - the parts of it that aren't critical medical radioisotopes, which we sold separately for use in hospitals etc. All of French fuel waste fits in one hall. That's smaller than space taken by one fly ash repository at a coal plant.
Dahoon 6y ago
There isn't enough material to run enough nuclear plants to make a difference. This is or should really be common knowledge.
- lucb1e 6y ago
  Could you elaborate or link to a source that does? Edit: Another comment[1] says "there's more than enough for couple centuries (and new reactor designs can make one-two orders of magnitude better use of what's available)". Your statement "not enough to make a difference" seems quite different from "enough for centuries". If you think this is wrong, a bit of elaboration beyond the simple statement couldn't hurt... They also make the point which I was going to make even if there turned out to be a significant limit to the amount of material available: > even if we only had 100 years worth of nuclear fuel reserve, that's more than enough to fix the climate problem and fully develop renewables [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24325737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24325737
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Consider that rising populations and standards of living, as well as shifts from fossil fuels, mean increasing total electrical generation likely by ~500% in the next 50 years or so. The alternative is a large number of very disappointed people.
    - lucb1e 6y ago
      True, so we have to divide "centuries" by 5 or more, that's still long enough to help with the transition. Not sure if that's what you meant though? Please correct me if I misunderstood.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        200 years / 5 gives about 40 years useful life. Some technologies (thorium MSR) remain unproved, so there's R&D lead time which is likely prohibitive --- we're going to go into this with the designs we have now. Construction and planning still takes 10--20 years, and commercial viability remains dicey. (Illinois is looking to shut down two nuclear plants not for political/public opposition but economic reasons: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-exelon-nuclear-plants-shut-down-20200828-qmk6z3d5mrgipeahb56vugq3za-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-exelon-nu...) Meantime wind and solar keep getting cheaper. They carry few long-time-horizon risks, and are as safe as nuclear within measurement error, a fact nuke boosters tend to omit. Even hydro, as horrific as past incidents have been, is safe when well-managed, and again lacks nuclear's civilisation-spanning risk time horizons. If presently proven nuclear technologies can smooth the path, then maybe there's a role, but we're still looking at swapping out all but a minuscule fraction of nuclear within a generation (which will mean trying to smoothly phase out an entrenched, powerful, politically-connected, but dying industry, much as today's coal industry), bearing resulting near-term risks, addressing (all but certainly via government subsidies) unfavourable economics, and creating a long-term risk liability spanning millennia. Meantime, nuke boosters generally continue to paint renewables as the enemy, misconstrue risks, and lowball opportunities, none of which does much for engendering institutional trust in the nuclear community itself. Don't get me wrong: the challenges are huge, there's plenty of bullshit and opportunism on all sides, and we're going to need to make some really unpleasant decisions and trade-offs here. The Democratic party platform announcement is probably a good thing: it's another option on the table. But this isn't smooth sailing, and going in with a very realistic view and eyes wide open is critical.
lymeeducator 6y ago
It's quite possible that if most people owned a solar roof with batteries and redundancy across a specified and localized grid, there would be less need for large power plant owners and fewer donations to political parties. In short, it is easier for politicians to get donations from a small group of people than from a large group.
rubber_duck 6y ago
My uneducated gut feeling is that the only way nuclear is going to be relevant is if they perfect micro-nuclear reactors. I remember reading about these 10 years ago [1], and have seen a few more since. Basically they propose small "nuclear batteries" kin of design - this avoids catastrophic scenarios and benefits greatly from economies of scale. The only issue I see with this approach is political - you would have a lot more nuclear material spread around, spreading this kind of teach where it's easily accessible and hard to protect doesn't sound reasonable with the political situation in the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
- ie7eyrdueu 6y ago
  I think the idea would be to not spread the technology to countries that are deemed risky and to severely punish people who leak the tech. I wasn't sure if you instead meant the microplants could be terrorist targets but this quote from the wiki seems like it'd be fairly effective at preventing that: >The actual reactor would be located in a sealed, cylindrical vault 30 m (98 ft) underground,<
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  There certainly are mini reactor designs which can be put in a grid like network to create the same effect as our current huge-but-old reactors. Luddites, just won't have it, but maybe if leaders just go ahead and get a backbone we can have such things that might just save us from extinction (or at least the end of civilization, I'm sure at least a small cadre of humans will survive, we're pretty adaptable as a species). https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small...
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I have preached until I was red in the face that nuclear is the only solution we have currently that will get us to zero emissions on a proper time scale when it comes to global warming. I am all for wind and solar, but you have to be practical as well. We don't have anything that is even close to being able to provide stable 24 hour power like nuclear. Obviously we want a mix, but there are safe nuclear designs out there. And the feds will just have to overrule the NIMBYs on an official site or three for properly controlling the waste.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  Neither the US not UK has built and finished a new nuclear plant in 40 years, and the single one (1) in progress in the UK is a 15-20 year project with a construction cost of £23Bn and a subsidy of £50Bn. Trying to turn the small UK nuclear like this would cost £1Tn private construction, £2Tn government subsidies, and take 700 years. Assuming it actually gets finished and not shelved by economic collapse/Brexit as its being built by a French company. It goes with Patrick Collision’s question about why the West can’t build big projects quickly and affordably anymore. Rolls-Royce were in the news recently with a mass-manufacturing small nuclear reactor design, but at this rate the political arguing will see us with Lithium battery storage for intermittent renewable years before 50 new nuclear plants for baseline/backup capacity. Or buying Russian nuclear power surplus in 2050.
  - javagram 6y ago
    > Neither the US not UK has built and finished a new nuclear plant in 40 years, and the single one (1) in progress in the UK is a 15-20 year project with a construction cost of £23Bn and a subsidy of £50Bn. This is a great point and its why we should urgently be analyzing the failures of new nuclear projects to understand what’s going wrong and why we can’t do something that we could do in the 1960s and 1970s without issue (France nuclearized its power sector in less than 2 decades!)
Mountain_Skies 6y ago
How much of the resistance to nuclear power in the US was due to the very unfortunately combination of the Three Mile Island incident and the release of the movie The China Syndrome both happening within two weeks of each other? Add in the nuclear arms race of the time and the emotional aspect for anything nuclear becomes even greater.
- ie7eyrdueu 6y ago
  As a Californian, it always seems to come in two flavors. There's the people who think it's risky because they read about something that's not terribly relevant to their region or they're part of the hippie cult that thinks anything sciencey is unnatural an therefore bad. I love the state because I like how accepting the people are at the social level, but when it comes to anything material like construction or energy suddenly the loudest voices are a bunch of good vibes idealists who'd prefer a bad bad but fashionable solution to something that actually solves the problem.
Simulacra 6y ago
Better late than never...
anm89 6y ago
The Democratic party on most issues will eventually do the right thing, against its own will, dragging kicking and screaming the entire way.
htnsao 6y ago
Within 5 years every machine, building and device may start the transition to self-charging nuclear diamond batteries with graphene super capacitors. [1] [2] [3] So these huge nuclear power plants may quickly become obsolete along with coal, solar and wind power generation, hydro and fossil fuels. [1] https://ndb.technology https://ndb.technology [2] https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-ndb/ https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batte... [3] https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-battery-interview-ndb/ https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-battery-interview-n... BTW I think HN downvoters should lose karma for downvoting.
- dencodev 6y ago
  >⌇ Possibility of a new generation quantum smartphones. >⌇ Personal quantum computers Yeah I can't take this seriously
  - htnsao 6y ago
    Yeah not sure why they mentioned quantum computing there without any supporting information. However given the rate of scientific progress in general I would say it's very likely to be achieved in the not-too-distant future, somewhere.
pronik 6y ago
Not an american here, so it's more of a general comment. I'm all for investing in and investigating nuclear power -- after all, the humanity needed several decades to make electricity itself safe at all; if we manage to make nuclear safer and indeed manageable, that's a fine thing, scientifically speaking. It's good to have options. However, we should be keeping an eye on the costs. Nuclear energy is cheap, but disposing of its waste is anything but. In Europe, energy companies have essentially socialised waste disposal so that they can advertise for "cheap" nuclear energy. If the disposal costs had been placed on them, nuclear would be the most expensive energy source by far. We are probably better off future-wise looking elsewhere for a clean and cheap energy source. Fossil and nuclear are neither.
- class4behavior 6y ago
  The lack of transparency and the concentration of power is one of the biggest points against the nuclear energy sector. It affects their safety investments, oversight, subsidies, insurance contracts, responsibilities, and so on.
- namuol 6y ago
  I'm not in the energy field, but I do have hopes that we can find a way to make nuclear fuel use more efficient, thereby reducing the amount of waste: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-let... But as long as we have this kind of rhetoric there will be no incentive to solve the current problems with nuclear power.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  What if we shot it in to space? Doesn't Space X think they can get cargo down to $100/kg? That would be a few hundred million in costs for all of the worlds nuclear waste annually.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    The problem is failed shot causes catastrophic result.
29athrowaway 6y ago
Once I saw a TV show about the challenges of constructing a deposit for nuclear waste that is expected to operate for thousands of years. In this show, they mentioned that they did not want to use skulls to represent danger, because skulls are not seen as dangerous in some cultures (with "Dia de los muertos" as an specific example).
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  A real problem and challenge. Notions of language and culture are unstable over such periods, let alone organisations, institutions, and governments. https://wipp.info https://wipp.info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin... https://www.vox.com/videos/2018/1/29/16932718/biohazard-design-nuclear-waste https://www.vox.com/videos/2018/1/29/16932718/biohazard-desi...
- r00fus 6y ago
  This was discussed extensively on a previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851871 Major takeaway - you also can't say it's a place of death because an unscrupulous/desperate warlord might view symbols of death as ways to achieve power.
cletus 6y ago
I used to be an advocate for nuclear energy but over time I've become it has no future because: 1. Even if it's safer by any objective measure (deaths/kWh for example) the failure modes are much, much worse. A fossil fuel plant just can't make thousands of square miles uninhabitable for decades. This isn't an exaggeration. The Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone is currently 1000mi^2 [1]. This is like how people are afraid to fly but not drive when flying (on.commercial jets at least) is undeniably safer; 2. Processing of fuel creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with (eg UF6); 3. Spent fuel creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with; 4. Decommissioning nuclear power plants creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with; 5. The above three costs seem to be borne by governments. It's still unclear to me if companies who run nuclear power plants are paying the true costs; 5. I just don't trust companies to manage nuclear plants safely long term; 7. I don't trust most governments to manage nuclear plants long term; and 8. Many nuclear power advocates will bring up coal as the counterexample. That's a false dichotomy. Wind and solar costs continue to plummet. Natural gas, while still a fossil fuel, has way less negative externalities than coal. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone
duckMuppet 6y ago
It took them a while not to endorse slavery as well. I'd not look for anything groundbreaking from either party, especially not one where the octogenarian candidate was one of the main persons doing the eulogy for a kkk leader Just last decade.
fma 6y ago
292 comments and no one talks about the Democratic candidate that was most vocal about nuclear, specifically thorium? "Yang is absolutely right to make these points, and he has gotten some well-deserved attention. But it’s surprising that he hasn’t gotten more, given how much we’re hearing about the crisis nature of climate change. Because if you take climate change seriously, you have to take nuclear power seriously" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democrat-president-climate-change-andrew-yang-nuclear-power-column/2342031001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democ...
- briandear 6y ago
  It’s not about climate change, it’s about controlling behavior via energy prices. The non-nuclear climate change advocates don’t care about “carbon,” they care about wealth redistribution. That’s why I oppose most “climate” policy. Because it isn’t about climate. Carbon and wealth redistribution should be separate issues, but activists have made them the same and since I oppose wealth redistribution via government economic control, I can’t get on board with “climate.” https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-redistribute-wealth/ https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-...
  - spbaar 6y ago
    So I thought the consensus among economists, hn, etc was that the best most painless way to solve climate crisis is a carbon tax, that doesn't drastically alter the economy all at once. So what to do with the tax money? Presumably invest in green energy. A lot of that can help people directly, like solar and nuclear jobs, and indirectly, like better trains, or subsidies for the poor on any essential goods that price was raised by the carbon tax a lot. We can probably find a use for all the money raised by placing a carbon tax at the rate needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. But if we put the tax at the right rate and have some money afterwards, what's wrong with free college?
  - ant6n 6y ago
    That’s the next next next level of climate change denial. After denying it’s happening, after denying it’s human-made, after denying it’s solvable, we deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
systematical 6y ago
Abundant energy is the way to a post scarcity society.
8bitsrule 6y ago
Renewable energy sources have zero fuel costs. Their potential for life-threatening disasters - on the scale of Fukushima, Chernobyl, coal ash floods, etc. - is zero. Just as with coal mines, uranium mines and oilfields, there's a large upfront cost ... but a much lower cost to the environment. Furthermore, anyone can create solar-powered electricity, anywhere. There will be no wars over access to sunlight. Sunlight is a democratic power source, which cannot be monopolized by special interests. Nomads in Mongolia make their own electricity. Anyone living near a creek can make their own hydro ... thousands do. Once renewables are built, apart from maintenance, the cost of the energy and its transport is free, and (apart from recycling costs) pollution-free. It will continue to be free until the generator has to be replaced, some stupid war destroys it, and/or the Sun burns out. Too obvious for some interests. Attempts to distort these facts, to maintain monopolies and continue to enrich a very few, will persist. It's easy to invent lies and distortions and to spread FUD about renewables. Yep, there's a lot at stake. For a few. But what's best for the biosphere and its people? For the people of the future, including our kids and grandkids? For all the lifeforms, the water sources, and the atmosphere of the planet? The answer is renewable -- and the technology to support its generation and storage is a superior and long-lasting investment.
- sizzle 6y ago
  Why can't we create a nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert like area 51 type of setup so if there is a meltdown it can be contained. Could we safely store the energy somehow and transport it or make some sort of long-distance hookup to our grids? Also anyone know why the nuclear site in San Onfre by San Diego failed?
- zik 6y ago
  The crazy part is that all over the world nuclear is being phased out as it's uneconomic compared with renewable energy. I wonder why they chose now as the time to endorse it, just when it's no longer relevant. So strange.
  - paulintrognon 6y ago
    It's not one or the other. Renewables on their own can't work. They need to be paired with another energy source. This is where Nuclear (or coal or else) comes useful.
ec109685 6y ago
The most interesting part of this article is that for just 4T, we could be off carbon energy: https://www.woodmac.com/news/feature/deep-decarbonisation-the-multi-trillion-dollar-question/ https://www.woodmac.com/news/feature/deep-decarbonisation-th... That’s not much more than the government spent to counteract the economic effects of cornovirus.
PeterStuer 6y ago
I have seen 0 proof that mankind can handle the resposability that comes with this type of extreme risk but at low probability technologies. If anything. It is getting worse in that regard.
Mrdarknezz 6y ago
Finally
joejohnson 6y ago
The debate around safety in nuclear power is kind tangential to the larger issue: what do you do with all this radioactive material when you’re done with it? This is a much trickier issue and is largely why countries like Germany have started to phase out nuclear power plants. But the US treats the whole world as their dumping ground and as long as they are the global imperial power, they can probably just dump radioactive waste in some poor part of the world.
- RealityVoid 6y ago
  Nuclear waste is not that much actually and you simply store it in sealed containers. The waste storage is a political issue rather than a technical issue. How many accidents have we had related to nuclear waste storage? Zero, that's how many.
Technetium 6y ago
Funny how everyone is able to talk so much shit about nuclear being amazing and safe and all that, yet we've STILL not cleaned up the monstrous amount of TOXIC trash that has been produced by these plants. We have done nothing to stop creating more waste, and we have done nothing to deal with the toxic waste we have right now. To be honest I don't CARE if you want to call it safer when there is no direct proof of that, only proof of the contrary. There are hundreds of thousands of people still affected by major accidents, and the waste leftover from them worldwide. Trying to keep pushing nuclear for anything is an ignorant shortsighted choice. [1] https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-cleaner-cloud/10-reasons-oppose-nuclear-energy https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and... [4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...
- neop1x 6y ago
  And what about deaths and respiratory problems caused by burning fossil fuels? What about CO2 used to produce solar/wind powerplants? How to recycle retired or failed wind/solar powerplants? It is pretty ignorant to just look at couple of nuclear incidents and ignore the amount of energy those plants can produce. Can you imagine the amount of power the current humanity needs? If you want less waste, start reducing population growth in high-growth countries first... Here is a good video comparing various sources of energy and relevant facts https://youtu.be/lL6uB1z95gA https://youtu.be/lL6uB1z95gA

539 points by elsewhen 6y ago

mensetmanusman 6y ago

That’s great, anti-nuclear energy was definitely one of the anti-science stances standing in the way of progress.

pradn 6y ago
I think many oppose nuclear power because for the same cost, you can build a lot of wind, solar, and hydro instead. I don't know if efficiencies have caught up and all. There's less of a catastrophic risk with these compared to nuclear, at least in people's imaginations. (Hydro dams have been broken in the past though and lead to many deaths.)
- p_l 6y ago
  Except that solar or wind power plant will require significant backing from other power sources (hydroelectric outside of microscale is dead due to environmental concerns and costs), usually gas and coal. Energy storage is still very expensive in large scale except for pumped hydro storage, which again, is very problematic to arrange.
  - ip26 6y ago
    Wind blows around the clock and solar runs most of the time we are awake. If renewables are super cheap but storage is not viable, can't we simply overbuild?
    - erik_seaberg 6y ago
      Solar drops hours before daily air conditioning demand, but wind might do it. I always thought wind depended heavily on the solar cycle, but apparently Europe found it dips 20% or less at night.
      - ip26 6y ago
        Solar is still delivering 50% of peak as late as 5pm, and peak air conditioning is between 3-7pm. It's not a perfect fit, but mix in some time of use rates and (as previously mentioned) wind and it seems like you could do it. In buildings with decent insulation, cooling load is not hard to time shift.
        bigdubs 6y ago
        Also batteries are critical for Solar to be viable generally anyway, but not ideal for sustainability.
    - xlc0212 6y ago
      No. It cost money and land (environment) to build them.
    - p_l 6y ago
      Wind is not as predictable as it seems, and most importantly, you don't get to control the production except for clamping down when you overproduce (this results in negative prices on the market and such). Then you have to add transfer issues, and you have situations where North Germany is exporting, while south Germany is importing, and there's a lot of fossil fuels burned just so you have capacity to keep the grid in shape. There are of course alternatives, like controlling demand via methods such as informing people they have to reduce power usage ASAP or get cut off (hope you didn't just start washing machine or put food into electric cooker)
      - ip26 6y ago
        In my ideal future, demand doesn't need to be controlled that forcefully. Tank water heaters, electric cars, air conditioning, furnace fans, and dryers can all be networked and choose to operate when power is cheap. They can soak up spikes in production and back off in troughs. These things are also the vast majority of residential power (the only other heavy hitter is cooking) Improved distance transmission would definitely be a big help.
- ie7eyrdueu 6y ago
  All of those things disrupt a much larger swathe of land than a nuclear plant though. Environmental impact is more than "does it explode?" it's also things like ecological impact. Hyrdoelectric dams are incredibly disruptive to their environment and wind/solar take up at least 300x the space of a nuclear plant depending on which of the two you're talking about.
- formercoder 6y ago
  Yep, if you want California-style rolling blackouts.
  - osn9363739 6y ago
    Except those have been happening longer than renewables have been a meaningful provider of energy.
cure 6y ago
It's odd to me that anti-nuclear is being labelled anti-science. It's almost like the pro-nuclear people have blinders on. Nuclear is fantastic, in theory. In practice, in the real world, the consequences of accidents are extraordinarily bad and costly. The odds of a bad accident may be very small, but they are not zero (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...). And dealing with the waste is another highly risky and unsolved problem. I will be happily become pro-nuclear the moment that all the real-world externalities are actually priced in. How much do you think it cost to have 1,000 square miles in the Ukraine uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years? What if such an accident happens in a densely populated area? How much do you think it will cost to keep all that nuclear waste safe for the next half a million years or so? Plutonium-239's half-life is 24,000 years, and isotopes are dangerous for 10 to 20 times their half-life (cf https://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-uranium.html https://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-u...). The same problem of externalities exists for fossil fuels, of course. And even for hydro power in a different way: it has displaced millions of people and flooded many beautiful places.
- burfog 6y ago
  Plutonium-239 is not waste. It is fuel. Use it. The longer the half-life, the less we care. Bismuth and tungsten are radioactive, with half-lives longer than the age of the universe, but they aren't going to hurt anybody.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  > The odds of a bad accident may be very small but they are not zero re: Very small We've had nuclear power less than a century and we've had more than one significant event, and even more near events. But its not simply the odds, but the impact. We have yet to see a worst case scenario. How much longer can that last?
- Lazare 6y ago
  > In practice, in the real world, the consequences of accidents are extraordinarily bad and costly. ...not really. Fossil fuels kill a simply enormous amount of people. Coal is responsible for something like 13k deaths per year in the US alone; air pollution (from burning fossil fuels) kills something like 10k people per day. > How much do you think it cost to have 1,000 square miles in the Ukraine uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years? A number so low it rounds to zero in this context? > The same problem of externalities exists for fossil fuels, of course. I don't think you can handwave that away as an "of course". The externalities around fossil fuels are simply enormous; the issues and costs and risks of nuclear are multiple orders of magnitude less.
legulere 6y ago
Just because you need a bit of science to understand nuclear power plants doesn’t mean that it makes sense to build new nuclear plants. New nuclear is simply too expensive, with high construction costs in the west.

sg47 6y ago

Republicans will use their fear mongering tactics, point to Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear power is bad. Also, it goes against what their base wants - coal power.

manfredo 6y ago
As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...
- sg47 6y ago
  I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.
  - jvreagan 6y ago
    Perhaps your assumption is flawed.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    That's a gross over simplification of the Republican view point. Both sides have blind spots. Republicans on climate change, Democrats on other things like nuclear for instance.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Getting back to you on IPCC energy modalities risks, from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24150323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24150323 Found a mention in an earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11241142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11241142 Source seems to be: Methodology, starting at p. 993: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf And p. 845 (I think, "745" is clearly a typo): http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf

notRobot 6y ago

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future generations without mass adoption of nuclear power. > Nuclear energy is by far the safest energy source in this comparison – it results in more than 442 times fewer deaths than the 'dirtiest' forms of coal; 330 times fewer than coal; 250 times less than oil; and 38 times fewer than gas. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

melling 6y ago
Now we just need to make it affordable. Cost overruns seem to be a big problem in the industry. The US recently canceled 2 plants, and we’re struggling to finish the other 2.
- manfredo 6y ago
  Nuclear is much cheaper when built at scale. Often 3-5x cheaper. Most of the plants built during the nuclear boom in the 1960s and 1970s were built at a cost of ~$2.5 billion per gigawatt of capacity. Note that this capacity is put out 24/7, so it's equivalent to about 4 times as much solar capacity (which typically has a capacity factor of ~25%). Solar and wind are cheap in terms of watts per day, but become drastically more expensive one you need to start adding storage. Storage costs are typically in the $200-400 per KWh range for battery storage, and $100 - $200 per KWh range for hydroelectric storage, but the latter is geographically limited.
- tomatotomato37 6y ago
  I also haven't really seen anyone discuss the cost of nuclear in human labor costs. No matter what method or design you use you still need educated workers to babysit both the reactor and the standard turbine infrastructure, whose salary dwarfs whatever costs come from fuel or safety countermeasures. In contrast, solar and wind tend to be very manpower efficient due to the logistical pain of maintaining something spread over 10 sq. miles forcing investments in reliability and autonomy. Edit: Messed up wording

namuol 6y ago

First endorsement in 48 years? I'm pretty sure this qualifies as an endorsement: > As detailed in the Climate Action Plan, President Obama is committed to using every appropriate tool to combat climate change. Nuclear power, which in 2014 generated about 60 percent of carbon-free electricity in the United States, continues to play a major role in efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector. As America leads the global transition to a low-carbon economy, the continued development of new and advanced nuclear technologies along with support for currently operating nuclear power plants is an important component of our clean energy strategy. Investing in the safe and secure development of nuclear power also helps advance other vital policy objectives in the national interest, such as maintaining economic competitiveness and job creation, as well as enhancing nuclear nonproliferation efforts, nuclear safety and security, and energy security. > > The President’s FY 2016 Budget includes more than $900 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) to support the U.S. civilian nuclear energy sector by leading federal research, development, and demonstration efforts in nuclear energy technologies, ranging from power generation, safety, hybrid energy systems, and security technologies, among other things. DOE also supports the deployment of these technologies with $12.5 billion in remaining loan guarantee authority for advanced nuclear projects through Title 17. DOE’s investments in nuclear energy help secure the three strategic objectives that are foundational to our nation’s energy system: energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental responsibility. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/06/fact-sheet-obama-administration-announces-actions-ensure-nuclear-energy https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/1...

LeegleechN 6y ago
First endorsement in the official party platform, which is a specific document released by the parties every 4 years (except this year for Republicans who re-adopted their 2016 platform with no changes...).
- namuol 6y ago
  With some qualifiers this is technically correct, but this only makes it feel more disingenuous.

mceoin 6y ago

What is the RNC's stance on nuclear? Does nuclear now enjoy bi-partisan support? Or just the Dems?

Orou 6y ago
The article states that the Republican Party is pro-nuclear and anti-government, and the Democratic Party was anti-nuclear and pro-government. While it seems from the headline that both parties are now pro-nuclear, it is unclear how that will play out at a policy level. Based on the quoted stance of being "technologically-neutral", it may well be the case that Democrats still won't support nuclear power, not because they are against it as a rule but because they see solar and wind as being superior alternatives.
bluquark 6y ago
The RNC doesn't have a platform in 2020 so we can't speak of a defined Republican position on individual issues anymore. In their previous platforms, they supported expanding nuclear: http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/18/the-party-platforms-on-energy-and-nuclear/ http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/18/the-party-platforms-on-...
lucb1e 6y ago
A bit meta, but as someone from Europe where the countries aren't usually divided into two opposing camps, this seems oddly phrased to me. Could someone from the USA who considers themselves either neutral or a democrat comment on whether "just the Dems" sounds negative to you?
- jasongill 6y ago
  It doesn't sound negative to me at all; just a factual way of stating that the policy is only supported by one party. Perfectly normal figure of speech here in the states.
criddell 6y ago
If the Democrats are for it, then they are against it.

dehrmann 6y ago

In a way, this is the first time the Democrats are truly taking climate change seriously.

avmich 6y ago
It's in a very specific way only. Have you heard about Jay Inslee?

option 6y ago

A general anti-science movement really hurts human progress with these 3 particularly bad: 1) anti vaccines 2) anti GMO 3) anti nuclear Great to see Dems starting to endorse nuclear after decades of oppositions (see John Kerry’s boneheaded earlier efforts to kill it)

legulere 6y ago
You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants. And it’s a bit ridiculous to speak about human progress when talking about GMO in agriculture, when all it’s used for is plants creating their own insecticides and herbicide tolerance for furthering unsustainable monoculture farming.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants That needs a bit more justification. It certainly hasn't been true for the last 40 odd years and by extension most of the anti-nuclear types probably are also anti-science. Generally they're the sort of people who'll hold global warming up as a real problem and then argue that Fukushima is an unacceptable risk. It is hard to hold both those positions and be heavy on the science. On the scale that global warming is a risk the risk from a nuclear plant can't even be detected. I've lived next to a coal fired power plant; the science is very, very clear I'd have better life outcomes if I'd lived near a nuclear one.
- option 6y ago
  I thought having enough healthy food with as small of environmental impact as possible is good for human progress /s
  - legulere 6y ago
    You mean reducing meat consumption? Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories. It would even have a big positive environmental impact.
- 6y ago

csours 6y ago

I've been reading "Normal Accidents" by Perrow. I started reading the book expecting an even-keeled explanation of risk, but I was pretty shocked by how prejudiced against Nuclear the tone was. It was also a reminder of how TERRIBLE the industrial design (aka UX) of reactor monitoring and controls were at the time the book was written (1984). So many of the things he seems to have felt were insurmountable could be solved by better design, something the book goes a long way toward dismissing. Anti-nuclear sentiment seems to be one of those things that became widely fashionable, and Pro-nuclear became demonized.

M2Ys4U 6y ago
>Anti-nuclear sentiment seems to be one of those things that became widely fashionable, and Pro-nuclear became demonized. There was a concerted effort to connect all nuclear power with nuclear weapons in the 80's and 90's. The effects of that are still with us.
- xmprt 6y ago
  It's still a thing today. Look at the Iran deal. I don't know enough to comment on whether its a good or bad thing but a lot of people think that Iran purifying Uranium == Iran developing nukes.

ozborn 6y ago

Folks should parse the article and the platform carefully, it actually reads "existing and advanced nuclear". This could be interpreted as maintaining existing reactors and building advanced (fusion?) reactors and NOT building new fission reactors. From my perspective this interpretation would be desirable (although probably wishful thinking) given that nuclear energy is too expensive in practise (really only existing plants are competitive with solar), too slow to construct (10 year average construction time in the US?!), centralized and generally poorly managed. The construction of new nuclear fission plants for grid power in the United States isn't going anywhere, since it makes absolutely no economic, environmental or political sense. Yes, most of us on Hacker News know it is better than fossil fuels - but renewable energy is the new competition. Nuclear is going directly against solar with (or without) battery backup and it's been losing for years now - even China has slowed down the pace of construction. Nuclear grid power advocates should take their arguments to Mars where they will actually have a case. Not much of an atmosphere to spin a turbine, far away from the sun and an environment that makes the Antarctic look like a Garden of Eden should anything go wrong.

lucb1e 6y ago
> it makes absolutely no economic, environmental or political sense Environmental? As far as I understand, the much lower emissions (not zero because of construction, people driving to the plant, etc.) compared to our current main power sources is a huge benefit for the environment (and thus for us: even if you are right that it's more costly per kWh today, it might save the next generation many trillions). Given the phrasing "absolutely no [environmental] sense", it sounds like you're very sure it must be negative for the environment but I don't understand why. I am generally supportive of nuclear but only because from what I read, it seems to be a big help in reaching environmental needs. I get the economics part: nuclear isn't super cheap and gets easily outcompeted by renewables on sunny or windy days. I also expect we'll start abolishing nuclear fission in favor of fully renewable sources as soon as we finished turning off carbon-based power plants (and, in a perfectly rational world, no sooner). If there is more to the story like some environmental effect that I'm not aware of then I'd like to hear it (note that I did read up on nuclear energy so you can assume I know the basics; I pose the comment somewhat questioningly not because I haven't done any research but because I think this is a constructive way to learn).

tbenst 6y ago

I’m continuously baffled by those that claim that nuclear power is safe. Look at Fukushima for example. It seems hard to imagine a nuclear power plant design, even Gen III or IV that would be immune to any possible natural disaster. Analysis of nuclear power should take into account Black Swan events: no matter how well designed, some fraction of plants will cause INES Level 7 disasters. If the resulting cost (ie $100s of billions for cleanup), environmental damage, and health impacts are still less than wind or solar, I’m all for it, but pro-nuclear arguments continuously give the tired argument that with new designs “this time is different.”

etrautmann 6y ago
Yes, and even when you consider those costs, it pales in comparison to the lives lost and negative externalities of coal, oil, and gas usage. These include climate change, particulate pollution, environmental release of mercury, devastation of vast swaths of the environment worldwide, and other factors that may be hard to quantify but negatively impactful.
- matwood 6y ago
  There was a post on HN the other day that talked about how hard it is for humans to see beyond direct first order effects. Once you get to indirect or N order effects, it's nearly impossible for humans to fully appreciate. People see nuclear and it's easy to draw a straight line accident -> damage. People know about mercury is seafood, but they can't seem to attach fossil fuel burning to that problem even when told. It's a disconnect that I hope as a species we will one day figure out. Global warming and weather changes? Good luck.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    It helped that there was a whole campaign propped up by the fossil fuel companies to demonize nuclear. Don't get me wrong - I think there are issues with nuclear - primarily the waste heat - generally ruins the rivers or other local bodies of water even assuming radioactive waste is contained.
- 6y ago

witweb 6y ago

But what's going to happen with the nuclear waste? I've heard too many times about water getting into permanent repositories and leaking containers contaminating the biosphere. Seems like a bad idea to me...

qayxc 6y ago
Nuclear waste is primarily a political problem (which actually makes it damn near impossible to solve in the near term). There's no fundamental problem with it, since it's produced naturally as well [1] and sites exist that would allow for very safe long term storage if need be. It's also possible to get rid of long lived decay products entirely using certain types of reactors that can "burn" nuclear waste. Again, political will and major investments would be required to make that happen, though some companies are already working on it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine
p_l 6y ago
You can reprocess it. France does so, Japan does so, even Poland sold off nuclear waste from research reactors for reprocessing - the parts of it that aren't critical medical radioisotopes, which we sold separately for use in hospitals etc. All of French fuel waste fits in one hall. That's smaller than space taken by one fly ash repository at a coal plant.

Dahoon 6y ago

There isn't enough material to run enough nuclear plants to make a difference. This is or should really be common knowledge.

lucb1e 6y ago
Could you elaborate or link to a source that does? Edit: Another comment[1] says "there's more than enough for couple centuries (and new reactor designs can make one-two orders of magnitude better use of what's available)". Your statement "not enough to make a difference" seems quite different from "enough for centuries". If you think this is wrong, a bit of elaboration beyond the simple statement couldn't hurt... They also make the point which I was going to make even if there turned out to be a significant limit to the amount of material available: > even if we only had 100 years worth of nuclear fuel reserve, that's more than enough to fix the climate problem and fully develop renewables [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24325737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24325737
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Consider that rising populations and standards of living, as well as shifts from fossil fuels, mean increasing total electrical generation likely by ~500% in the next 50 years or so. The alternative is a large number of very disappointed people.
  - lucb1e 6y ago
    True, so we have to divide "centuries" by 5 or more, that's still long enough to help with the transition. Not sure if that's what you meant though? Please correct me if I misunderstood.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      200 years / 5 gives about 40 years useful life. Some technologies (thorium MSR) remain unproved, so there's R&D lead time which is likely prohibitive --- we're going to go into this with the designs we have now. Construction and planning still takes 10--20 years, and commercial viability remains dicey. (Illinois is looking to shut down two nuclear plants not for political/public opposition but economic reasons: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-exelon-nuclear-plants-shut-down-20200828-qmk6z3d5mrgipeahb56vugq3za-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-exelon-nu...) Meantime wind and solar keep getting cheaper. They carry few long-time-horizon risks, and are as safe as nuclear within measurement error, a fact nuke boosters tend to omit. Even hydro, as horrific as past incidents have been, is safe when well-managed, and again lacks nuclear's civilisation-spanning risk time horizons. If presently proven nuclear technologies can smooth the path, then maybe there's a role, but we're still looking at swapping out all but a minuscule fraction of nuclear within a generation (which will mean trying to smoothly phase out an entrenched, powerful, politically-connected, but dying industry, much as today's coal industry), bearing resulting near-term risks, addressing (all but certainly via government subsidies) unfavourable economics, and creating a long-term risk liability spanning millennia. Meantime, nuke boosters generally continue to paint renewables as the enemy, misconstrue risks, and lowball opportunities, none of which does much for engendering institutional trust in the nuclear community itself. Don't get me wrong: the challenges are huge, there's plenty of bullshit and opportunism on all sides, and we're going to need to make some really unpleasant decisions and trade-offs here. The Democratic party platform announcement is probably a good thing: it's another option on the table. But this isn't smooth sailing, and going in with a very realistic view and eyes wide open is critical.

lymeeducator 6y ago

It's quite possible that if most people owned a solar roof with batteries and redundancy across a specified and localized grid, there would be less need for large power plant owners and fewer donations to political parties. In short, it is easier for politicians to get donations from a small group of people than from a large group.

rubber_duck 6y ago

My uneducated gut feeling is that the only way nuclear is going to be relevant is if they perfect micro-nuclear reactors. I remember reading about these 10 years ago [1], and have seen a few more since. Basically they propose small "nuclear batteries" kin of design - this avoids catastrophic scenarios and benefits greatly from economies of scale. The only issue I see with this approach is political - you would have a lot more nuclear material spread around, spreading this kind of teach where it's easily accessible and hard to protect doesn't sound reasonable with the political situation in the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

ie7eyrdueu 6y ago
I think the idea would be to not spread the technology to countries that are deemed risky and to severely punish people who leak the tech. I wasn't sure if you instead meant the microplants could be terrorist targets but this quote from the wiki seems like it'd be fairly effective at preventing that: >The actual reactor would be located in a sealed, cylindrical vault 30 m (98 ft) underground,<
stjohnswarts 6y ago
There certainly are mini reactor designs which can be put in a grid like network to create the same effect as our current huge-but-old reactors. Luddites, just won't have it, but maybe if leaders just go ahead and get a backbone we can have such things that might just save us from extinction (or at least the end of civilization, I'm sure at least a small cadre of humans will survive, we're pretty adaptable as a species). https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small...

stjohnswarts 6y ago

I have preached until I was red in the face that nuclear is the only solution we have currently that will get us to zero emissions on a proper time scale when it comes to global warming. I am all for wind and solar, but you have to be practical as well. We don't have anything that is even close to being able to provide stable 24 hour power like nuclear. Obviously we want a mix, but there are safe nuclear designs out there. And the feds will just have to overrule the NIMBYs on an official site or three for properly controlling the waste.

jodrellblank 6y ago
Neither the US not UK has built and finished a new nuclear plant in 40 years, and the single one (1) in progress in the UK is a 15-20 year project with a construction cost of £23Bn and a subsidy of £50Bn. Trying to turn the small UK nuclear like this would cost £1Tn private construction, £2Tn government subsidies, and take 700 years. Assuming it actually gets finished and not shelved by economic collapse/Brexit as its being built by a French company. It goes with Patrick Collision’s question about why the West can’t build big projects quickly and affordably anymore. Rolls-Royce were in the news recently with a mass-manufacturing small nuclear reactor design, but at this rate the political arguing will see us with Lithium battery storage for intermittent renewable years before 50 new nuclear plants for baseline/backup capacity. Or buying Russian nuclear power surplus in 2050.
- javagram 6y ago
  > Neither the US not UK has built and finished a new nuclear plant in 40 years, and the single one (1) in progress in the UK is a 15-20 year project with a construction cost of £23Bn and a subsidy of £50Bn. This is a great point and its why we should urgently be analyzing the failures of new nuclear projects to understand what’s going wrong and why we can’t do something that we could do in the 1960s and 1970s without issue (France nuclearized its power sector in less than 2 decades!)

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

How much of the resistance to nuclear power in the US was due to the very unfortunately combination of the Three Mile Island incident and the release of the movie The China Syndrome both happening within two weeks of each other? Add in the nuclear arms race of the time and the emotional aspect for anything nuclear becomes even greater.

ie7eyrdueu 6y ago
As a Californian, it always seems to come in two flavors. There's the people who think it's risky because they read about something that's not terribly relevant to their region or they're part of the hippie cult that thinks anything sciencey is unnatural an therefore bad. I love the state because I like how accepting the people are at the social level, but when it comes to anything material like construction or energy suddenly the loudest voices are a bunch of good vibes idealists who'd prefer a bad bad but fashionable solution to something that actually solves the problem.

Simulacra 6y ago

Better late than never...

anm89 6y ago

The Democratic party on most issues will eventually do the right thing, against its own will, dragging kicking and screaming the entire way.

htnsao 6y ago

Within 5 years every machine, building and device may start the transition to self-charging nuclear diamond batteries with graphene super capacitors. [1] [2] [3] So these huge nuclear power plants may quickly become obsolete along with coal, solar and wind power generation, hydro and fossil fuels. [1] https://ndb.technology https://ndb.technology [2] https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-ndb/ https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batte... [3] https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-battery-interview-ndb/ https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-battery-interview-n... BTW I think HN downvoters should lose karma for downvoting.

dencodev 6y ago
>⌇ Possibility of a new generation quantum smartphones. >⌇ Personal quantum computers Yeah I can't take this seriously
- htnsao 6y ago
  Yeah not sure why they mentioned quantum computing there without any supporting information. However given the rate of scientific progress in general I would say it's very likely to be achieved in the not-too-distant future, somewhere.

pronik 6y ago

Not an american here, so it's more of a general comment. I'm all for investing in and investigating nuclear power -- after all, the humanity needed several decades to make electricity itself safe at all; if we manage to make nuclear safer and indeed manageable, that's a fine thing, scientifically speaking. It's good to have options. However, we should be keeping an eye on the costs. Nuclear energy is cheap, but disposing of its waste is anything but. In Europe, energy companies have essentially socialised waste disposal so that they can advertise for "cheap" nuclear energy. If the disposal costs had been placed on them, nuclear would be the most expensive energy source by far. We are probably better off future-wise looking elsewhere for a clean and cheap energy source. Fossil and nuclear are neither.

class4behavior 6y ago
The lack of transparency and the concentration of power is one of the biggest points against the nuclear energy sector. It affects their safety investments, oversight, subsidies, insurance contracts, responsibilities, and so on.
namuol 6y ago
I'm not in the energy field, but I do have hopes that we can find a way to make nuclear fuel use more efficient, thereby reducing the amount of waste: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-let... But as long as we have this kind of rhetoric there will be no incentive to solve the current problems with nuclear power.
missedthecue 6y ago
What if we shot it in to space? Doesn't Space X think they can get cargo down to $100/kg? That would be a few hundred million in costs for all of the worlds nuclear waste annually.
- fomine3 6y ago
  The problem is failed shot causes catastrophic result.

29athrowaway 6y ago

Once I saw a TV show about the challenges of constructing a deposit for nuclear waste that is expected to operate for thousands of years. In this show, they mentioned that they did not want to use skulls to represent danger, because skulls are not seen as dangerous in some cultures (with "Dia de los muertos" as an specific example).

dredmorbius 6y ago
A real problem and challenge. Notions of language and culture are unstable over such periods, let alone organisations, institutions, and governments. https://wipp.info https://wipp.info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin... https://www.vox.com/videos/2018/1/29/16932718/biohazard-design-nuclear-waste https://www.vox.com/videos/2018/1/29/16932718/biohazard-desi...
r00fus 6y ago
This was discussed extensively on a previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11851871 Major takeaway - you also can't say it's a place of death because an unscrupulous/desperate warlord might view symbols of death as ways to achieve power.

cletus 6y ago

I used to be an advocate for nuclear energy but over time I've become it has no future because: 1. Even if it's safer by any objective measure (deaths/kWh for example) the failure modes are much, much worse. A fossil fuel plant just can't make thousands of square miles uninhabitable for decades. This isn't an exaggeration. The Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone is currently 1000mi^2 [1]. This is like how people are afraid to fly but not drive when flying (on.commercial jets at least) is undeniably safer; 2. Processing of fuel creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with (eg UF6); 3. Spent fuel creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with; 4. Decommissioning nuclear power plants creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with; 5. The above three costs seem to be borne by governments. It's still unclear to me if companies who run nuclear power plants are paying the true costs; 5. I just don't trust companies to manage nuclear plants safely long term; 7. I don't trust most governments to manage nuclear plants long term; and 8. Many nuclear power advocates will bring up coal as the counterexample. That's a false dichotomy. Wind and solar costs continue to plummet. Natural gas, while still a fossil fuel, has way less negative externalities than coal. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone

duckMuppet 6y ago

It took them a while not to endorse slavery as well. I'd not look for anything groundbreaking from either party, especially not one where the octogenarian candidate was one of the main persons doing the eulogy for a kkk leader Just last decade.

fma 6y ago

292 comments and no one talks about the Democratic candidate that was most vocal about nuclear, specifically thorium? "Yang is absolutely right to make these points, and he has gotten some well-deserved attention. But it’s surprising that he hasn’t gotten more, given how much we’re hearing about the crisis nature of climate change. Because if you take climate change seriously, you have to take nuclear power seriously" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democrat-president-climate-change-andrew-yang-nuclear-power-column/2342031001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democ...

briandear 6y ago
It’s not about climate change, it’s about controlling behavior via energy prices. The non-nuclear climate change advocates don’t care about “carbon,” they care about wealth redistribution. That’s why I oppose most “climate” policy. Because it isn’t about climate. Carbon and wealth redistribution should be separate issues, but activists have made them the same and since I oppose wealth redistribution via government economic control, I can’t get on board with “climate.” https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-redistribute-wealth/ https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-...
- spbaar 6y ago
  So I thought the consensus among economists, hn, etc was that the best most painless way to solve climate crisis is a carbon tax, that doesn't drastically alter the economy all at once. So what to do with the tax money? Presumably invest in green energy. A lot of that can help people directly, like solar and nuclear jobs, and indirectly, like better trains, or subsidies for the poor on any essential goods that price was raised by the carbon tax a lot. We can probably find a use for all the money raised by placing a carbon tax at the rate needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. But if we put the tax at the right rate and have some money afterwards, what's wrong with free college?
- ant6n 6y ago
  That’s the next next next level of climate change denial. After denying it’s happening, after denying it’s human-made, after denying it’s solvable, we deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

systematical 6y ago

Abundant energy is the way to a post scarcity society.

8bitsrule 6y ago

Renewable energy sources have zero fuel costs. Their potential for life-threatening disasters - on the scale of Fukushima, Chernobyl, coal ash floods, etc. - is zero. Just as with coal mines, uranium mines and oilfields, there's a large upfront cost ... but a much lower cost to the environment. Furthermore, anyone can create solar-powered electricity, anywhere. There will be no wars over access to sunlight. Sunlight is a democratic power source, which cannot be monopolized by special interests. Nomads in Mongolia make their own electricity. Anyone living near a creek can make their own hydro ... thousands do. Once renewables are built, apart from maintenance, the cost of the energy and its transport is free, and (apart from recycling costs) pollution-free. It will continue to be free until the generator has to be replaced, some stupid war destroys it, and/or the Sun burns out. Too obvious for some interests. Attempts to distort these facts, to maintain monopolies and continue to enrich a very few, will persist. It's easy to invent lies and distortions and to spread FUD about renewables. Yep, there's a lot at stake. For a few. But what's best for the biosphere and its people? For the people of the future, including our kids and grandkids? For all the lifeforms, the water sources, and the atmosphere of the planet? The answer is renewable -- and the technology to support its generation and storage is a superior and long-lasting investment.

sizzle 6y ago
Why can't we create a nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert like area 51 type of setup so if there is a meltdown it can be contained. Could we safely store the energy somehow and transport it or make some sort of long-distance hookup to our grids? Also anyone know why the nuclear site in San Onfre by San Diego failed?
zik 6y ago
The crazy part is that all over the world nuclear is being phased out as it's uneconomic compared with renewable energy. I wonder why they chose now as the time to endorse it, just when it's no longer relevant. So strange.
- paulintrognon 6y ago
  It's not one or the other. Renewables on their own can't work. They need to be paired with another energy source. This is where Nuclear (or coal or else) comes useful.

ec109685 6y ago

The most interesting part of this article is that for just 4T, we could be off carbon energy: https://www.woodmac.com/news/feature/deep-decarbonisation-the-multi-trillion-dollar-question/ https://www.woodmac.com/news/feature/deep-decarbonisation-th... That’s not much more than the government spent to counteract the economic effects of cornovirus.

PeterStuer 6y ago

I have seen 0 proof that mankind can handle the resposability that comes with this type of extreme risk but at low probability technologies. If anything. It is getting worse in that regard.

Mrdarknezz 6y ago

Finally

joejohnson 6y ago

The debate around safety in nuclear power is kind tangential to the larger issue: what do you do with all this radioactive material when you’re done with it? This is a much trickier issue and is largely why countries like Germany have started to phase out nuclear power plants. But the US treats the whole world as their dumping ground and as long as they are the global imperial power, they can probably just dump radioactive waste in some poor part of the world.

RealityVoid 6y ago
Nuclear waste is not that much actually and you simply store it in sealed containers. The waste storage is a political issue rather than a technical issue. How many accidents have we had related to nuclear waste storage? Zero, that's how many.

Technetium 6y ago

Funny how everyone is able to talk so much shit about nuclear being amazing and safe and all that, yet we've STILL not cleaned up the monstrous amount of TOXIC trash that has been produced by these plants. We have done nothing to stop creating more waste, and we have done nothing to deal with the toxic waste we have right now. To be honest I don't CARE if you want to call it safer when there is no direct proof of that, only proof of the contrary. There are hundreds of thousands of people still affected by major accidents, and the waste leftover from them worldwide. Trying to keep pushing nuclear for anything is an ignorant shortsighted choice. [1] https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-cleaner-cloud/10-reasons-oppose-nuclear-energy https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and... [4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...

neop1x 6y ago
And what about deaths and respiratory problems caused by burning fossil fuels? What about CO2 used to produce solar/wind powerplants? How to recycle retired or failed wind/solar powerplants? It is pretty ignorant to just look at couple of nuclear incidents and ignore the amount of energy those plants can produce. Can you imagine the amount of power the current humanity needs? If you want less waste, start reducing population growth in high-growth countries first... Here is a good video comparing various sources of energy and relevant facts https://youtu.be/lL6uB1z95gA https://youtu.be/lL6uB1z95gA