10 ms·

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

by 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
        > You're describing nuclear fission as a stop gap solution. Well yes, so was oil, so is gas, until we have antimatter and fusion this will have to do. All these problems will have solutions eventually, you can dump waste down a big hole. It's not like radiation is something that never existed before, dump it a couple of miles under ground, problem solved. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... No doubt at some stage we'll have an energy source that will enable us to convert high level waste into coffee, in the mean time we can just hide it in the ground. https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/high-power-sylos-laser-could-transmute-nuclear-waste https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/high-power-sylos-laser... Like we have an urgent problem now! we need to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere now! Nuclear can do this now. I don't like it either, I don't want to live near a nuclear reactor but we're out of options. Really any issues with nuclear have technological fixes, or will have in the near future. Edit: like if we treat fission as a temporary solution for say 50 years until other stuff works then we're sweet and the planet won't burn up. Sure there's a small chance of an accident that might damage a very small part of the planet, but, what's the chance if we keep using fossil fuels of things going bad - 100% Edit 2: and the waste products from coal and oil are awful and spread out, at least with nuclear the waste products are localised.

by erentz 5y ago

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
        > You're describing nuclear fission as a stop gap solution. Well yes, so was oil, so is gas, until we have antimatter and fusion this will have to do. All these problems will have solutions eventually, you can dump waste down a big hole. It's not like radiation is something that never existed before, dump it a couple of miles under ground, problem solved. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... No doubt at some stage we'll have an energy source that will enable us to convert high level waste into coffee, in the mean time we can just hide it in the ground. https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/high-power-sylos-laser-could-transmute-nuclear-waste https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/high-power-sylos-laser... Like we have an urgent problem now! we need to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere now! Nuclear can do this now. I don't like it either, I don't want to live near a nuclear reactor but we're out of options. Really any issues with nuclear have technological fixes, or will have in the near future. Edit: like if we treat fission as a temporary solution for say 50 years until other stuff works then we're sweet and the planet won't burn up. Sure there's a small chance of an accident that might damage a very small part of the planet, but, what's the chance if we keep using fossil fuels of things going bad - 100% Edit 2: and the waste products from coal and oil are awful and spread out, at least with nuclear the waste products are localised.