4 ms·

I cannot see how nuclear power is worth the risk. There are usually a large number of pro nuclear comments on articles related to nuclear power on HN. Events

by lwhi 5y ago

I cannot see how nuclear power is worth the risk. There are usually a large number of pro nuclear comments on articles related to nuclear power on HN. Events like this help to confirm my point of view. -- Edit: Here we go, downvoting begins.

erentz 5y ago
It’s not clear what the event is yet. But it’s already somehow confirmed something for you, which maybe means you should question how you’re assessing the risks. And what evidence would ever change your mind on them. Lots of HN commenters are pro nuclear because once you put aside your preconceptions and biases and learn about it you learn it’s one of the safest, cleanest, and most reliable forms of power we’ve ever created, in spite of the big headline accidents.
- lwhi 5y ago
  My view is accidents will always happen. With nuclear, the potential for harm _when_ these accidents occur, is too great.
  - chadcmulligan 5y ago
    Is it though? The risk for continuing using coal, oil and gas is a lot higher through global warming, and no accident is necessary, it's a certainty. Renewables are of course the holy grail, but storage solutions for renewables are a problem, as are supply. Renewables won't supply 100% of energy for the foreseeable future. No one is unaware that the risk exists for nuclear, its a comparison of risks though. I think one of the problems with nuclear is the accidents are localised and make headlines, the deaths from fossil fuels are spread out and harder to attribute.
    - lwhi 5y ago
      You're making a false dichotomy. It's obviously not a question of either coal or nuclear. Renewables will provide a better solution. Solving the problems you've identified, would lead to far better line of attack.
      - chadcmulligan 5y ago
        The problem is getting from A to B. Nuclear is proven and works all the time, renewables are variable at the moment, you keeps saying the same thing without facts. If you want to go to 100% renewables what is the path? A path to nuclear is clear, nuclear is a lot safer than fossil fuels, renewables are a bit safer than nuclear (ref. 1). So what's the path without nuclear? [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
        hungryforcodes 5y ago
        I agree! Nuclear FUSION is very promising, still a ways off though.
        lwhi 5y ago
        No. The problem is ending up with an amount of waste that will hang around for longer than we do, _while_ we get to B.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        chadcmulligan 5y ago
        > My view is accidents will always happen. interesting, now its waste is the problem
        lwhi 5y ago
        It's not _the_ problem. It's another problem. Even without the inevitable accidents (which apparently won't happen with new generation plants) .. we are left with waste. You're describing nuclear fission as a stop gap solution. If we take this view, the very fact the waste produced is going to hang around for a much, much longer time makes the whole idea untenable.
        chadcmulligan 5y ago
tcmart14 5y ago
A large issue is the reluctance, especially in the US, of approving new designs in nuclear. We tested a molten salt reactor in Idaho once in the 80s and it worked as expected. It can not melt down even in power loss because of the heat transference properties of using molten salt as a coolant and can not build pressure like a more conventional water cooled reactor. But rolling it out into production was killed in the water due to chernobyl and the public response to anything with the word 'nuclear' in it afterwards. We can mitigate a lot of risk now, but it takes lawmakers who don't understand physics or engineering to "bless" it for production. There are some reactor designs that can also reuse already spent nuclear fuel (TERRAPOWER's lightwave reactor). We probably shouldn't also build reactors in areas were earthquakes will occur fairly often and can create tsunamis. Renewables are great, but that is a long term solution that still needs a lot more iteration. If we are looking to reduce our carbon footprint massively with respect to the electrical grid in 30 years, nuclear is the only viable option to garuntee this.

by lwhi 5y ago

erentz 5y ago

It’s not clear what the event is yet. But it’s already somehow confirmed something for you, which maybe means you should question how you’re assessing the risks. And what evidence would ever change your mind on them. Lots of HN commenters are pro nuclear because once you put aside your preconceptions and biases and learn about it you learn it’s one of the safest, cleanest, and most reliable forms of power we’ve ever created, in spite of the big headline accidents.

lwhi 5y ago
My view is accidents will always happen. With nuclear, the potential for harm _when_ these accidents occur, is too great.
- chadcmulligan 5y ago
  Is it though? The risk for continuing using coal, oil and gas is a lot higher through global warming, and no accident is necessary, it's a certainty. Renewables are of course the holy grail, but storage solutions for renewables are a problem, as are supply. Renewables won't supply 100% of energy for the foreseeable future. No one is unaware that the risk exists for nuclear, its a comparison of risks though. I think one of the problems with nuclear is the accidents are localised and make headlines, the deaths from fossil fuels are spread out and harder to attribute.
  - lwhi 5y ago
    You're making a false dichotomy. It's obviously not a question of either coal or nuclear. Renewables will provide a better solution. Solving the problems you've identified, would lead to far better line of attack.
    - chadcmulligan 5y ago
      The problem is getting from A to B. Nuclear is proven and works all the time, renewables are variable at the moment, you keeps saying the same thing without facts. If you want to go to 100% renewables what is the path? A path to nuclear is clear, nuclear is a lot safer than fossil fuels, renewables are a bit safer than nuclear (ref. 1). So what's the path without nuclear? [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
      - hungryforcodes 5y ago
        I agree! Nuclear FUSION is very promising, still a ways off though.
      - lwhi 5y ago
        No. The problem is ending up with an amount of waste that will hang around for longer than we do, _while_ we get to B.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        chadcmulligan 5y ago
        > My view is accidents will always happen. interesting, now its waste is the problem
        lwhi 5y ago
        It's not _the_ problem. It's another problem. Even without the inevitable accidents (which apparently won't happen with new generation plants) .. we are left with waste. You're describing nuclear fission as a stop gap solution. If we take this view, the very fact the waste produced is going to hang around for a much, much longer time makes the whole idea untenable.
        chadcmulligan 5y ago

tcmart14 5y ago

A large issue is the reluctance, especially in the US, of approving new designs in nuclear. We tested a molten salt reactor in Idaho once in the 80s and it worked as expected. It can not melt down even in power loss because of the heat transference properties of using molten salt as a coolant and can not build pressure like a more conventional water cooled reactor. But rolling it out into production was killed in the water due to chernobyl and the public response to anything with the word 'nuclear' in it afterwards. We can mitigate a lot of risk now, but it takes lawmakers who don't understand physics or engineering to "bless" it for production. There are some reactor designs that can also reuse already spent nuclear fuel (TERRAPOWER's lightwave reactor). We probably shouldn't also build reactors in areas were earthquakes will occur fairly often and can create tsunamis. Renewables are great, but that is a long term solution that still needs a lot more iteration. If we are looking to reduce our carbon footprint massively with respect to the electrical grid in 30 years, nuclear is the only viable option to garuntee this.