6 ms·

that we have so many pro nuclear articles here on HN is remarkable to me, too. However, I come from Germany where the general sentiment is negative. I'd guess i

by Tarsul 6y ago

that we have so many pro nuclear articles here on HN is remarkable to me, too. However, I come from Germany where the general sentiment is negative. I'd guess in the US (where probably most of HN users come from?!) the sentiment is more positive? I can't explain it any other way (well, lobbyism, astroturfing... okay, but I wouldn't go that far without evidence). What I miss in all these energy discussions is arguments about reducing the load or better managing the load (with flexible pricing etc.), especially since that could be very data driven which should align well with the HN crowd. And those discussions should come before we start even thinking about nuclear. Same argument as with recycling: the best garbage [energy] is the one which never was (reduce > recycle).

wsc981 6y ago
I've never had a negative sentiment against nuclear energy, even though most of the people from my country seem to be or at least were so in the past. And I feel many of the measures the Dutch government is taking these days to reduce CO2 seem borderline crazy. For example burning trees for energy (biomass), wood that is imported from the USA and Canada and shipped in huge container ships to The Netherlands [0]. And let's not forget that trees actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Or the fact that the Dutch government wants the whole country cut off from gas for heating, while neighbouring countries (like Germany) are trying to get people to use gas for heating. In The Netherlands every house if connected to the gas network, but soon everybody will need to switch to waterpumps for heating. Or the fact that the whole country will be covered with wind turbines which ruin the view, produce a lot of noise, need a lot of space and kill many birds. --- [0]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https://www.bnnvara.nl/zembla/artikelen/bos-als-brandstof https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https:/...
cestith 6y ago
Light water reactors are not the only option for nuclear power. CANDU reactors have a wonderful safety record. MSRs are on the brink of becoming commercially viable and have been for a long time, but funding is currently insufficient. Funding is insufficient largely because light water and heavy water (like CANDU and derivatives) plants are already researched on the one hand and light water reactors have created negative sentiment for all things nuclear on the other. Would I like nuclear power that fails safe and doesn't produce bomb material? Absolutely. Would I live next door to a molten thorium salt reactor? I'd love to. Do I want to see new light water reactors built anywhere in the world? No.
jeffbee 6y ago
HN hates data on energy discussions. The HN vibe is strongly in favor of EVs, for example, despite the fact that EVs are the slowest and most expensive way to reduce transport greenhouse gas emissions. Fission is, likewise, the slowest and most expensive way to add electrical generation today. Fission is the only power source where the costs increased in the last 10 years. PV is now five times cheaper than fission. Onshore wind costs the same as PV. Batteries are easy to mass-produce. The substantive debate is over.
- hntrader 6y ago
  "Batteries are easy to mass-produce." There's people here saying the battery tech isn't ready yet for large scale grid storage of solar/wind. Is that untrue?
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    California has 250MW of battery facilities online right now. If you can do 250MW, you can do 50GW. The CAISO roadmap for energy storage does not list any technological risks.
    - hntrader 6y ago
      Not saying it can't be done, but is it cheaper than nuclear?
      - drran 6y ago
        BTW, nuclear energy will be cheaper with massive power storage, because nuclear power can be accumulated at night then.
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    Take a look at my reply to him to see some unfortunately grim stats on this issue. I would argue nuclear is currently our only choice.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
nickik 6y ago
Its always fucking baffling to me when people believe everything about nuclear is lobbying. Its a tiny industry that absolutely sucks at lobbying. > reducing the load or better managing the load (with flexible pricing etc.), especially since that could be very data driven which should align well with the HN crowd. Nobody is against that, but its not a actual solution, its an optimisation that doesn't play into the overall discussion. At the end of the day you need to generate a lot of energy, no matter how much you want to reduce or recycle.
Hammershaft 6y ago
In my opinion Germany's experience denuclearizing (and replacing it with renewables and lignite coal) has been some of the strongest evidence I've seen in favor of nuclear energy.
- Krasnol 6y ago
  Why? It's not like Germany ran out of power or something like that. The opposite is the case. It has been a frontrunner for renewable energy for years and moved the development for everybody on this planet and now they even have a plan (law) to phase out coal despite it being an important source for jobs in regions struck with unemployment.

by Tarsul 6y ago

wsc981 6y ago

I've never had a negative sentiment against nuclear energy, even though most of the people from my country seem to be or at least were so in the past. And I feel many of the measures the Dutch government is taking these days to reduce CO2 seem borderline crazy. For example burning trees for energy (biomass), wood that is imported from the USA and Canada and shipped in huge container ships to The Netherlands [0]. And let's not forget that trees actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Or the fact that the Dutch government wants the whole country cut off from gas for heating, while neighbouring countries (like Germany) are trying to get people to use gas for heating. In The Netherlands every house if connected to the gas network, but soon everybody will need to switch to waterpumps for heating. Or the fact that the whole country will be covered with wind turbines which ruin the view, produce a lot of noise, need a lot of space and kill many birds. --- [0]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https://www.bnnvara.nl/zembla/artikelen/bos-als-brandstof https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https:/...

cestith 6y ago

Light water reactors are not the only option for nuclear power. CANDU reactors have a wonderful safety record. MSRs are on the brink of becoming commercially viable and have been for a long time, but funding is currently insufficient. Funding is insufficient largely because light water and heavy water (like CANDU and derivatives) plants are already researched on the one hand and light water reactors have created negative sentiment for all things nuclear on the other. Would I like nuclear power that fails safe and doesn't produce bomb material? Absolutely. Would I live next door to a molten thorium salt reactor? I'd love to. Do I want to see new light water reactors built anywhere in the world? No.

jeffbee 6y ago

HN hates data on energy discussions. The HN vibe is strongly in favor of EVs, for example, despite the fact that EVs are the slowest and most expensive way to reduce transport greenhouse gas emissions. Fission is, likewise, the slowest and most expensive way to add electrical generation today. Fission is the only power source where the costs increased in the last 10 years. PV is now five times cheaper than fission. Onshore wind costs the same as PV. Batteries are easy to mass-produce. The substantive debate is over.

hntrader 6y ago
"Batteries are easy to mass-produce." There's people here saying the battery tech isn't ready yet for large scale grid storage of solar/wind. Is that untrue?
- jeffbee 6y ago
  California has 250MW of battery facilities online right now. If you can do 250MW, you can do 50GW. The CAISO roadmap for energy storage does not list any technological risks.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Not saying it can't be done, but is it cheaper than nuclear?
    - drran 6y ago
      BTW, nuclear energy will be cheaper with massive power storage, because nuclear power can be accumulated at night then.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  Take a look at my reply to him to see some unfortunately grim stats on this issue. I would argue nuclear is currently our only choice.
Hammershaft 6y ago

nickik 6y ago

Its always fucking baffling to me when people believe everything about nuclear is lobbying. Its a tiny industry that absolutely sucks at lobbying. > reducing the load or better managing the load (with flexible pricing etc.), especially since that could be very data driven which should align well with the HN crowd. Nobody is against that, but its not a actual solution, its an optimisation that doesn't play into the overall discussion. At the end of the day you need to generate a lot of energy, no matter how much you want to reduce or recycle.

Hammershaft 6y ago

In my opinion Germany's experience denuclearizing (and replacing it with renewables and lignite coal) has been some of the strongest evidence I've seen in favor of nuclear energy.

Krasnol 6y ago
Why? It's not like Germany ran out of power or something like that. The opposite is the case. It has been a frontrunner for renewable energy for years and moved the development for everybody on this planet and now they even have a plan (law) to phase out coal despite it being an important source for jobs in regions struck with unemployment.