3 ms·

I loathe whenever these articles pop up on HN because they embrace an almost puerile approach to a wide range of complex issues surrounding Nuclear power and co

I loathe whenever these articles pop up on HN because they embrace an almost puerile approach to a wide range of complex issues surrounding Nuclear power and conclude their critics as histrionic environmentalists to avoid the demanding task of defending the atom. when people express concern about nuclear energy its not just meltdowns. its the entire lifecycle. >Yes, it’s true that fission power plants that cut corners could lead to radioactivity-related disasters it isnt just the plants, The US has had more than fifty nuclear accidents since we've harnessed the atom, the majority in the service of nuclear power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_country#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_accidents_by_cou... There are currently 21 stranded nuclear waste sites in the US that have nothing to do with a powerplant, and will not, for another 900 years. 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-... Nuclear plants are an enticing target for terrorists, natural disasters, and human error with consequences far outstripping any carbon benefit. Major accidents can render tens or hundreds of kilometers of sterile earth uninhabitable for thousands of years, during which time floods and fires can continue to poison surrounding areas as was seen recently with the wildfires of Pripyat. We still, to this date, have no comprehensive or cogent plan to properly extinguish a nuclear fire the scale of Chernobyl other than sacrificing first responders until the catastrophe abates. We didnt even have a competent plan to prevent or arrest the meltdown at Fukushima which created its own 400km exclusion zone. finally, we have no competent architectural, structural, or societal plan to alert or inform anyone 20,000 years from now of the vast areas of nuclear contamination we will have left buried in the earth in the desperate hope of staving off irreversible climate change. The idea that we would so foolheartedly blaze a trail of atomic poison without considering in any of these articles a future generation smacks of a pandersome tone that seeks a quick and dirty answer to a problem that renewables --which require careful consideration and study-- can easily achieve. Nuclear is the dullards flex-tape solution to a much larger concern of careful consideration, moderation, and sustainable lifecycles of energy for the future.

jay_kyburz 6y ago
Well put. Yes the problem is there is a lot carbon in the air, but the deeper problem is that we have no respect for the environment or for future generations. We should not just be looking for the cheapest, easiest, fastest solution generate electricity. We need to build a society that lives in harmony with our environment and doesn't leave any waste behind for future generations to clean up.
titzer 6y ago
> I loathe whenever these articles pop up on HN because they embrace an almost puerile approach to a wide range of complex issues...and conclude their critics as histrionic environmentalists > finally, we have no competent architectural, structural, or societal plan to alert or inform anyone 20,000 years from now of the vast areas of nuclear contamination we will have left buried in the earth in the desperate hope of staving off irreversible climate change. The idea that we would so foolheartedly blaze a trail of atomic poison Frankly your comment here is extraordinarily unhelpful in the grand scheme of things because it begins with preemptive insults and grievances and devolves quickly into breathless fearmongering and insult-laden tirade that is exactly the kind of thing that gets labeled as histrionics. And the fact that you end here: > Nuclear is the dullards flex-tape solution These insults are just not helpful. It's exactly the kind of comment that makes these discussions so unruly, tiring, and turn people off.
Kon5ole 6y ago
This was a good summary of my thoughts on this topic as well, thanks for adding it to the discussion. It seems to me the only sensible option is to have all the nuclear power contained in one huge reactor, and keeping that reactor some 150 million kilometers from any humans. Luckily we already have that! ;-) Personally I believe we already have the solution to the energy problem in the form of hydrogen gas, which can be made from seawater in harmless and well known ways. Water which is returned when the energy is consumed, so the possibility of also solving the water crisis at the same time seems worth exploring. It's hard to even theorize about a more optimal solution. The sun is for all earthly intents a limitless power source, and we now have the technical means of capturing and storing it without permanently consuming any resources on earth. So why don't we just do that? Why are not all energy projects supporting that optimal solution instead of pursuing other goals? Even nuclear proponents are hopefully mostly interested in nuclear as a means to an end, and not just nuclear as a thing in itself. There are challenges with both solar panels and hydrogen gas for sure, but as far as I can tell all of them are small compared to the various challenges around nuclear power. Elon Musk should get on this, he has most of the pieces of the puzzle already! Have the Boring company make underground storage caves for hydrogen, let Solar City make the gas, and use tech from SpaceX to store and burn it optimally! :)

jay_kyburz 6y ago

Well put. Yes the problem is there is a lot carbon in the air, but the deeper problem is that we have no respect for the environment or for future generations. We should not just be looking for the cheapest, easiest, fastest solution generate electricity. We need to build a society that lives in harmony with our environment and doesn't leave any waste behind for future generations to clean up.

titzer 6y ago

> I loathe whenever these articles pop up on HN because they embrace an almost puerile approach to a wide range of complex issues...and conclude their critics as histrionic environmentalists > finally, we have no competent architectural, structural, or societal plan to alert or inform anyone 20,000 years from now of the vast areas of nuclear contamination we will have left buried in the earth in the desperate hope of staving off irreversible climate change. The idea that we would so foolheartedly blaze a trail of atomic poison Frankly your comment here is extraordinarily unhelpful in the grand scheme of things because it begins with preemptive insults and grievances and devolves quickly into breathless fearmongering and insult-laden tirade that is exactly the kind of thing that gets labeled as histrionics. And the fact that you end here: > Nuclear is the dullards flex-tape solution These insults are just not helpful. It's exactly the kind of comment that makes these discussions so unruly, tiring, and turn people off.

Kon5ole 6y ago

This was a good summary of my thoughts on this topic as well, thanks for adding it to the discussion. It seems to me the only sensible option is to have all the nuclear power contained in one huge reactor, and keeping that reactor some 150 million kilometers from any humans. Luckily we already have that! ;-) Personally I believe we already have the solution to the energy problem in the form of hydrogen gas, which can be made from seawater in harmless and well known ways. Water which is returned when the energy is consumed, so the possibility of also solving the water crisis at the same time seems worth exploring. It's hard to even theorize about a more optimal solution. The sun is for all earthly intents a limitless power source, and we now have the technical means of capturing and storing it without permanently consuming any resources on earth. So why don't we just do that? Why are not all energy projects supporting that optimal solution instead of pursuing other goals? Even nuclear proponents are hopefully mostly interested in nuclear as a means to an end, and not just nuclear as a thing in itself. There are challenges with both solar panels and hydrogen gas for sure, but as far as I can tell all of them are small compared to the various challenges around nuclear power. Elon Musk should get on this, he has most of the pieces of the puzzle already! Have the Boring company make underground storage caves for hydrogen, let Solar City make the gas, and use tech from SpaceX to store and burn it optimally! :)