3 ms·

And yet again the whole conversation on HN is around alleged "irrational fear". There are other risks to be considered: centralization. The world is facing cl

And yet again the whole conversation on HN is around alleged "irrational fear". There are other risks to be considered: centralization. The world is facing climate change and potential social unrest. Democratized and hyper-local energy production creates resilient communities. Highly centralized power generation increases risks of government corruption, terrorism or just plain failures (like Fukushima) leading to power failures.

karaterobot 5y ago
Small scale nuclear reactors (and microreactors) would be a solution to that centralization problem. I know that NuScale had some controversy a couple years ago; not sure how that shook out. Whether that design should be modified or not, in theory there's nothing stopping reactors generating community-level power, except that nobody wants a reactor in their back yard. Not saying anyone would want a coal plant in their backyard either, but given the choice it seems like they'd choose the coal because it scares them less while hurting them more. I hate to say it, but it does really does seem to come down to dealing with irrational fear a lot of the time.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Good luck operating them [safely] in case of social unrest or terrorism. After the collapse of USSR a lot of RTGs where stripped and used a scrap metal by people completely unaware of the risks. Luckily, RTGs have moderate amounts of active fuel. > it seems like they'd choose the coal because it scares them less while hurting them more Who is "they"? An imaginary group of people that you disagree with? > I hate to say it, but it does really does seem to come down to dealing with irrational fear a lot of the time. And once again HN claims to be rational...
  - Loughla 5y ago
    >And once again HN claims to be rational... Remember that the people here are tech focused, for the most part. Few, if any, have any experience at all with power generation, let alone nuclear power generation. When was the last time you saw an intelligent, rational, and unbiased discussion here about something that you had intimate knowledge of? I've worked in higher ed for decades, and sister let me tell you, the threads on here about higher ed are full of very short-sighted/anecdotal/ignorant statements. I just have to assume this thread is the same as that. It's easy to have an opinion about something when you don't know very many details.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      > unbiased discussion here about something that you had intimate knowledge of? [...] threads on here about higher ed are full of very short-sighted/anecdotal/ignorant statements. You are spot on!
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    > And once again HN claims to be rational... If you have an alternative theory as to why people prefer coal to nuclear, that would be useful. Commenting line by line with silliness isn't.
    - Gwypaas 5y ago
      Or just renewables with storage? Why must the alternative always be fossil fuels?
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        That seems not relevant to my point, which is that semi-namecalling commentary is pointless. If you have a real point of any sort that would be better be it addressing the point that people prefer coal to nuclear, or changing the topic to "why oh why can't we offer an alternative base load generator?"
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    Hello, I'm the person whose comment this is in response to. You're right that I was referring to an imaginary group of people. I am not aware of any surveys that specifically ask the question "would you rather live near a coal plant or a nuclear plant", so the best I can do is go off my intuition. I thought that was clear, but evidently I was wrong. If you disagree with my conclusion, that's fine. > And once again HN claims to be rational... I never said that, and I don't speak for HN.

karaterobot 5y ago

Small scale nuclear reactors (and microreactors) would be a solution to that centralization problem. I know that NuScale had some controversy a couple years ago; not sure how that shook out. Whether that design should be modified or not, in theory there's nothing stopping reactors generating community-level power, except that nobody wants a reactor in their back yard. Not saying anyone would want a coal plant in their backyard either, but given the choice it seems like they'd choose the coal because it scares them less while hurting them more. I hate to say it, but it does really does seem to come down to dealing with irrational fear a lot of the time.

goodpoint 5y ago
Good luck operating them [safely] in case of social unrest or terrorism. After the collapse of USSR a lot of RTGs where stripped and used a scrap metal by people completely unaware of the risks. Luckily, RTGs have moderate amounts of active fuel. > it seems like they'd choose the coal because it scares them less while hurting them more Who is "they"? An imaginary group of people that you disagree with? > I hate to say it, but it does really does seem to come down to dealing with irrational fear a lot of the time. And once again HN claims to be rational...
- Loughla 5y ago
  >And once again HN claims to be rational... Remember that the people here are tech focused, for the most part. Few, if any, have any experience at all with power generation, let alone nuclear power generation. When was the last time you saw an intelligent, rational, and unbiased discussion here about something that you had intimate knowledge of? I've worked in higher ed for decades, and sister let me tell you, the threads on here about higher ed are full of very short-sighted/anecdotal/ignorant statements. I just have to assume this thread is the same as that. It's easy to have an opinion about something when you don't know very many details.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > unbiased discussion here about something that you had intimate knowledge of? [...] threads on here about higher ed are full of very short-sighted/anecdotal/ignorant statements. You are spot on!
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  > And once again HN claims to be rational... If you have an alternative theory as to why people prefer coal to nuclear, that would be useful. Commenting line by line with silliness isn't.
  - Gwypaas 5y ago
    Or just renewables with storage? Why must the alternative always be fossil fuels?
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      That seems not relevant to my point, which is that semi-namecalling commentary is pointless. If you have a real point of any sort that would be better be it addressing the point that people prefer coal to nuclear, or changing the topic to "why oh why can't we offer an alternative base load generator?"
- karaterobot 5y ago
  Hello, I'm the person whose comment this is in response to. You're right that I was referring to an imaginary group of people. I am not aware of any surveys that specifically ask the question "would you rather live near a coal plant or a nuclear plant", so the best I can do is go off my intuition. I thought that was clear, but evidently I was wrong. If you disagree with my conclusion, that's fine. > And once again HN claims to be rational... I never said that, and I don't speak for HN.