6 ms·

It really does read like a scare mongering fear article. Including mention of problems but no concrete followup with current details, or at the very least a me

It really does read like a scare mongering fear article. Including mention of problems but no concrete followup with current details, or at the very least a mention of no resolution to the issue as of a specific time of fact-finding.

graderjs 5y ago
Anti-nuclear fear-mongering piece, you say? Why that has the mark of the oilman, has it not?
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  Portable nuclear reactors sounds like a new way for government contractors to make a few billion. I suppose now that the war on terror is winding down they're all scrambling for new revenue.
  - tiahura 5y ago
    Surely the taliban could make use of a few of these.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Nuclear has two enemies: the fossil fuels crowd, and the solar/wind crowd. The latter doesn’t like nuclear because the plants are still big corporate driven endeavors so they don’t “democratize energy”. The socialist faction of the Democratic Party isn’t particularly interested in solutions to climate change that don’t require massive government expansion into the energy market.
  - adolph 5y ago
    [Baptists] take the moral high ground, while the bootleggers persuade the politicians quietly, behind closed doors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    I would have thought pro-nuclear and massive government expansion go together, but you seem to be arguing the opposite. I've noticed this discrepancy before with libertarians pointing to the French nuclear program as a big success. What kind of massive expansion of government into energy markets are you thinking of that helps renewables but not nuclear?
    - graderjs 5y ago
      I think their argument is more that the economics are heavily centralized in nuclear so it resists government intervention.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    What about taxpayers who are sick of bailing them out? In Illinois, we have multiple nuclear plants that deliver a large % of our energy. Taxpayers have also had to bail out the nuclear companies because they cannot manage their plants. There is currently another bailout bill being discussed. [1] Are “massive corporate bailouts” preferred to “massive government expansion”? Is it possible that, in practice, nuclear isn’t the silver bullet people on HN claim? [1] https://news.wttw.com/2021/08/17/bye-bye-byron-exelon-prepares-shutter-illinois-nuclear-plants https://news.wttw.com/2021/08/17/bye-bye-byron-exelon-prepar...
    - graderjs 5y ago
      It's possible the plants had to be bailed out because the industry is 'sickly' and survives on subsidies, or is choked by regulations, and so cannot find a robust equilibrium via a more free market. I guess from that point of view, if you want to make nuclear work as power, then take your hands off, and let people make money off it, but have enough of a structure there to protect the population. I guess it's not easy, but it's probably easier than everyone thinks.
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        It’s odd how you only view the issue from the “point of view” you created from thin air. Maybe try to take a step back, remove underlying assumptions, and learn how things are playing out in the real world. Excelon is a publicly traded, for-profit company. They operate as a utility and have $30 billion+ annual revenue. [1] Unlike all the other utilities in Illinois, they continually come to taxpayers asking for bailouts. Maybe it’s just them, or maybe the government is at fault, maybe there is another factor. Either way, it seems that many pro-nuclear folks on HN simply ignore the real world costs in favor of ideological (or “gotcha”) arguments. [1] https://www.google.com/finance/quote/EXC:NASDAQ https://www.google.com/finance/quote/EXC:NASDAQ
        graderjs 5y ago
        Well you know the real, but I don't see you coming up with any solutions. > $30 billion+ revenue That's revenue. What's the profit? It's not going to work unless you let people make money. I'm not pro-nuclear. I'm not anti. I don't have skin in the game, and yeah, I don't know anything about this. Or your particular situation. But maybe that outsider perspective is something you need. I'm just thinking. About systems and how to make this efficient. Maybe you should try that too. But yea, those bailouts you mentioned, they're for unprofitable plants in Byron and Dresden. So don't pay them, and let them fail. So what? Get elec from gas. It's cheaper anyway. Or, factor in the cost of emissions, and pay the nuke guys more for making clean. Either way it's not the fucking company's problem of not being able to manage it. It seems like it's the state's issue of not being able to allocate its resources properly, and letting itself fall in the trap of politicizing and blame pointing, rather than solution finding. It's not the companies responsibility to run the plant at a loss. That's the state's got to solve that problem. This is a fucking non-issue. The plant has power that's too expensive: So let it die. Oh, but it's good power, it can't die: So keep it alive. Problem solved. Either way, it's not gonna help if you pretend, "Oh I'm such a big expert, I'm so right about this and non one else is," right? That's not gonna help. You got angry at me 'cause I had some idea about this. It's not my fault--No point blaming anyone else or angry at me--it's your (IL, Chicago, politicians' and peoples') responsibility to fix this. It's not mine. I just had an idea. And it's a pretty good idea too: Let the fucking market decide, don't get bogged down.

graderjs 5y ago

Anti-nuclear fear-mongering piece, you say? Why that has the mark of the oilman, has it not?

MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Portable nuclear reactors sounds like a new way for government contractors to make a few billion. I suppose now that the war on terror is winding down they're all scrambling for new revenue.
- tiahura 5y ago
  Surely the taliban could make use of a few of these.
kortilla 5y ago
Nuclear has two enemies: the fossil fuels crowd, and the solar/wind crowd. The latter doesn’t like nuclear because the plants are still big corporate driven endeavors so they don’t “democratize energy”. The socialist faction of the Democratic Party isn’t particularly interested in solutions to climate change that don’t require massive government expansion into the energy market.
- adolph 5y ago
  [Baptists] take the moral high ground, while the bootleggers persuade the politicians quietly, behind closed doors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I would have thought pro-nuclear and massive government expansion go together, but you seem to be arguing the opposite. I've noticed this discrepancy before with libertarians pointing to the French nuclear program as a big success. What kind of massive expansion of government into energy markets are you thinking of that helps renewables but not nuclear?
  - graderjs 5y ago
    I think their argument is more that the economics are heavily centralized in nuclear so it resists government intervention.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  What about taxpayers who are sick of bailing them out? In Illinois, we have multiple nuclear plants that deliver a large % of our energy. Taxpayers have also had to bail out the nuclear companies because they cannot manage their plants. There is currently another bailout bill being discussed. [1] Are “massive corporate bailouts” preferred to “massive government expansion”? Is it possible that, in practice, nuclear isn’t the silver bullet people on HN claim? [1] https://news.wttw.com/2021/08/17/bye-bye-byron-exelon-prepares-shutter-illinois-nuclear-plants https://news.wttw.com/2021/08/17/bye-bye-byron-exelon-prepar...
  - graderjs 5y ago
    It's possible the plants had to be bailed out because the industry is 'sickly' and survives on subsidies, or is choked by regulations, and so cannot find a robust equilibrium via a more free market. I guess from that point of view, if you want to make nuclear work as power, then take your hands off, and let people make money off it, but have enough of a structure there to protect the population. I guess it's not easy, but it's probably easier than everyone thinks.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      It’s odd how you only view the issue from the “point of view” you created from thin air. Maybe try to take a step back, remove underlying assumptions, and learn how things are playing out in the real world. Excelon is a publicly traded, for-profit company. They operate as a utility and have $30 billion+ annual revenue. [1] Unlike all the other utilities in Illinois, they continually come to taxpayers asking for bailouts. Maybe it’s just them, or maybe the government is at fault, maybe there is another factor. Either way, it seems that many pro-nuclear folks on HN simply ignore the real world costs in favor of ideological (or “gotcha”) arguments. [1] https://www.google.com/finance/quote/EXC:NASDAQ https://www.google.com/finance/quote/EXC:NASDAQ
      - graderjs 5y ago
        Well you know the real, but I don't see you coming up with any solutions. > $30 billion+ revenue That's revenue. What's the profit? It's not going to work unless you let people make money. I'm not pro-nuclear. I'm not anti. I don't have skin in the game, and yeah, I don't know anything about this. Or your particular situation. But maybe that outsider perspective is something you need. I'm just thinking. About systems and how to make this efficient. Maybe you should try that too. But yea, those bailouts you mentioned, they're for unprofitable plants in Byron and Dresden. So don't pay them, and let them fail. So what? Get elec from gas. It's cheaper anyway. Or, factor in the cost of emissions, and pay the nuke guys more for making clean. Either way it's not the fucking company's problem of not being able to manage it. It seems like it's the state's issue of not being able to allocate its resources properly, and letting itself fall in the trap of politicizing and blame pointing, rather than solution finding. It's not the companies responsibility to run the plant at a loss. That's the state's got to solve that problem. This is a fucking non-issue. The plant has power that's too expensive: So let it die. Oh, but it's good power, it can't die: So keep it alive. Problem solved. Either way, it's not gonna help if you pretend, "Oh I'm such a big expert, I'm so right about this and non one else is," right? That's not gonna help. You got angry at me 'cause I had some idea about this. It's not my fault--No point blaming anyone else or angry at me--it's your (IL, Chicago, politicians' and peoples') responsibility to fix this. It's not mine. I just had an idea. And it's a pretty good idea too: Let the fucking market decide, don't get bogged down.