8 ms·

Next you're going to tell me recycling doesn't work and nuclear power is a good idea after all and we knew that the whole time as well. It is almost as if the

Next you're going to tell me recycling doesn't work and nuclear power is a good idea after all and we knew that the whole time as well. It is almost as if the public discourse is dominated by loud simple minded people who sort themselves into tribes along arbitrary/self-serving lines and fiercely double down in the face of evidence.

fedeb95 4y ago
"as if"
xattt 4y ago
I want to say that some public discourse was possibly seeded by foreign state actors in order to establish energy dominance.
SN76477 4y ago
>It is almost as if the public discourse is dominated by loud simple minded people who sort themselves into tribes along arbitrary/self-serving lines and fiercely double down in the face of evidence. It is exactly this
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  for a long (~7'500 word) expansion of that, cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34367615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34367615 > If one harbours anywhere in one’s mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible.
- ospray 4y ago
  I blame the sound byte media and humans inability to act on long term problems. Climate change/global warming is real and can be very dangerous but it's hard to have a critical discuss about.
asah 4y ago
The problem with nuclear was never it "not working" but the extreme penalty for the once-a-decade safety failure. To the average voter, they look at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima and say "three strikes and you're out" - and they look at Fukushima and say, "if even the Japanese can't get nuclear to be safe, then Homer Simpson stands no chance." For every HNer shouting for nuclear, there's another million viewings of Simpsons episodes and 3.6 roentgen memes. I know it's frustrating, but maybe just maybe society isn't so keen on 40 year [1], $500B cleanup jobs [2] and 1000 square mile areas becoming uninhabitable [3], and instead prefers diffuse damage (climate change, air quality, oil wars, etc). I'm not arguing either way, just observing. HN: before you downvote, please ask yourself if you're hitting the button because this comment is false, or because you don't want it to be true. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=three+mile+island+cleanup https://www.google.com/search?q=three+mile+island+cleanup [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+cleanup+cost https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+cleanup+cost https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+exclusion+zone https://www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+exclusion+zone
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  One problem with nuclear power is that it's often used in areas that are unsuitable for it. Most of the world doesn't have to deal with earthquakes and tsunamis quite as often as Japan does. Most countries would accept foreign aid after a disaster, unlike Japan and the USSR did after their disasters to save face. People also stopped developing reactors when Chernobyl happened. Of course, the Chernobyl reactor was already an outdated reactor by the time it failed, but the problem is clearly visible in reactors that have been maintained and kept for prolonged lifetimes bexause of necessity (for medical supplies, for example). I can imagine a future where renewable energy can serve most of the world's power demand, with nuclear reactors kept as a backup in case of prolonged bad weather draining the batteries/energy stores that keep the excess solar/wind energy. People also several understate the damage traditional coal plants cause to their direct environment, which funnily enough includes excessive radioactive materials. Switching away from nuclear because of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima feels similar to banning planes or skyscrapers after 9/11. Disasters happen and leave incredible death tolls, but they're not common in the slightest. I'd reckon you're far more likely to get sick because of a coal plant leaking coal ash into the air you breathe or the water supply than being nearby enough to a meltdown to be affected. Gas and oil plants suffer far fewer downsides, but they still incur a cost on the environment that some countries have decided to ignore. They use more fuel but require less cleanup if you don't consider complete carbon capture as a necessary cleanup step. Some areas can't get nuclear power. I'd consider the entirety of Japan to be a terrible fit for such power plants because most of the country is either in a disaster zone (tsunamis or earthquakes) or has no access to cooling water. With little access to fossil fuel sources and a highly dense population Japan hasn't exactly had many alternatives for many years, so I understand why they went nuclear anyway, but I wouldn't build a new nuclear plant there now that wind and solar are cheap enough that the supplies need to be maintained artificially in some cases. Areas like Tornado Alley and cities built on top of super vulcanos are also an obviously terrible fit for nuclear power, as are countries plagued by terrorism and corruption, and countries bordering hostile powers with no remorse for the population like Russia and China. However, in a safe country with a decent grid, you can build more safe nuclear reactors than you'll ever need in the places that do qualify. Nuclear can work and it can work a whole lot better than fossil fuels can, but it's not a magical solution that you can just put down anywhere for cheap power like some advocates seem to claim it does. I believe the current anti-nuclear sentiment is largely fueled by unnecessary fear and the freeze on research and construction will have a self-fulfilling prophecy effect as old reactors won't be replaced with newer, more efficient ones, larger and larger percentages of nuclear reactors will be shut down and cost more and more as nobody is willing to invest in them, and more and more unmaintaind reactors will likely suffer accidents.
greenthrow 4y ago
"Recycling doesn't work" is not true. Recycling of metals works great and is essential. Recycling of glass works well too. Recycling of paper even works. It's recycling of plastic where it gets complicated. Some plastic recycling does work, but much does not. That's where the public has generally been mislead the most. The other place is that mant businesses that do home "recycling" service send what is picked up to a landfill or incinerator. This is straight up fraud and should be prosecuted. But please let's not over simplify a complicatwd issue to the point of lying. Recycling does work and is essential in many cases.
- freshpots 4y ago
  Exactly, and recycling keeps excess materials out of landfills. Landfills are filling up and it is hard get approval and land for new ones.
  - eru 4y ago
    Well, the lack of approval is a bureaucratic problem in some areas. Otherwise, landfills filling up is a non-problem. Earth has enough space.
- PaulKeeble 4y ago
  Anything that is injection moulded (basically all plastic) can only have 1/3 of its pellets from recycled sources and it then can't be recycled again. At the very best assuming the industries claims of recycling were actually met (which they aren't) at most you would get 1.33x uses out of a piece of plastic, that is it. Its not recycleable, its almost just one use. I personally don't think there are too many issues with clean and reuse and indeed a lot of the shapes are standard and if we forced more standards we could probably reuse plastic 10+ times and vastly decrease our need for new plastic. That would require companies to make a cycle for their packaging however and they are really don't want to and so far no government has thought it might be a good idea to force them to.
- eru 4y ago
  Mostly agreed. However, isn't recycling of glass pretty pointless, as it doesn't really safe you energy compared to making fresh glass? Metal recycling really is a bright spot!
boomboomsubban 4y ago
>It is almost as if the public discourse is dominated by loud simple minded people who sort themselves into tribes along arbitrary/self-serving lines and fiercely double down in the face of evidence. This is a nice way of looking at it. Another is those "simple minded voices" are likely being paid by the oil companies to spread the pro recycling and anti nuclear positions.
- candiodari 4y ago
  This is a nice way of looking at it. Another is that there is a sort-of "public consensus" and people are really trying to forbid anyone from (significantly) deviate from it. And like any sort of large-scale consensus, it's dumb ("simple" if you like). Why? Because any sufficiently large group must accommodate below-average humans, and, well, those are below average. So such any large scale consensus cannot be very complicated, and cannot advocate for complex solutions. For example, I prefer using something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos to use very minimal resources to take control of weather, and the climate, and letting go of emission limits (at least for CO2). It doesn't require everyone to cooperate and will be a heck of a lot cheaper. This in turn protects a lot of mostly poorer people who don't really have that much to do with the problem, while remaining a realistic option. (or more bluntly: it's a realistic option that doesn't ask the poor to live in the cold)
Sharlin 4y ago
Recycling works mostly fine in many countries other than the US. But of course reduce, reuse, repair should always have been the primary "re" words. It's just that those are less convenient and bad for business from the usual shortsighted perspective.
- eru 4y ago
  Recycling of plastic doesn't work very well, regardless of country. Recycling of aluminum works really well. Recycling of paper works ok. Recycling of glass is pretty pointless (it doesn't really safe energy compared to make new glass, however re-using bottles via a deposit system works ok).
  - Sharlin 4y ago
    Yes, which is why eg. where I'm from (northern Europe) recycling plastic hasn't even been a thing until very recently, except for things such as PET bottles which have a deposit and which recycle very well. Improved automatic sorting machines have made plastic recycling more feasible, and providing a separate bin for plastics is now required for medium and high density residential properties. (It has been normal for decades to have separate bins for glass, metal, paper, and cardboard; in recent years bins for plastics and biodegradable waste have been introduced as well. There has never been just a single all-purpose "recyclables" bin.) And yes, a lot of household plastic still isn't recyclable because there are just so many types of plastic, with so many different additives used. But it is also a case of "build it, and they will come"; new industrial uses for recycled plastics do pop up once the infrastructure for delivering high-enough-quality streams of raw materials is in place.
    - pasttense01 4y ago
      It's not just a question of sorting; it's also a question of contamination.
- lost_tourist 4y ago
  It works fine in the US too. We may not be as efficient as some hyper aware European countries but overall the US is doing fine, especially with non plastic stuff. The US has far far more land available for internment of waste than Europe. We could definitely do better but quit acting like we're a 3rd world country. I'm not saying we couldn't do better but all the doom and gloom about the US is friggin' tiring.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
timeon 4y ago
> dominated by loud simple Writing this after simplified ideas in first paragraph sound strange.

fedeb95 4y ago

"as if"

xattt 4y ago

I want to say that some public discourse was possibly seeded by foreign state actors in order to establish energy dominance.

SN76477 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago
for a long (~7'500 word) expansion of that, cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34367615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34367615 > If one harbours anywhere in one’s mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible.
ospray 4y ago
I blame the sound byte media and humans inability to act on long term problems. Climate change/global warming is real and can be very dangerous but it's hard to have a critical discuss about.

asah 4y ago

The problem with nuclear was never it "not working" but the extreme penalty for the once-a-decade safety failure. To the average voter, they look at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima and say "three strikes and you're out" - and they look at Fukushima and say, "if even the Japanese can't get nuclear to be safe, then Homer Simpson stands no chance." For every HNer shouting for nuclear, there's another million viewings of Simpsons episodes and 3.6 roentgen memes. I know it's frustrating, but maybe just maybe society isn't so keen on 40 year [1], $500B cleanup jobs [2] and 1000 square mile areas becoming uninhabitable [3], and instead prefers diffuse damage (climate change, air quality, oil wars, etc). I'm not arguing either way, just observing. HN: before you downvote, please ask yourself if you're hitting the button because this comment is false, or because you don't want it to be true. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=three+mile+island+cleanup https://www.google.com/search?q=three+mile+island+cleanup [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+cleanup+cost https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+cleanup+cost https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+exclusion+zone https://www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+exclusion+zone

jeroenhd 4y ago
One problem with nuclear power is that it's often used in areas that are unsuitable for it. Most of the world doesn't have to deal with earthquakes and tsunamis quite as often as Japan does. Most countries would accept foreign aid after a disaster, unlike Japan and the USSR did after their disasters to save face. People also stopped developing reactors when Chernobyl happened. Of course, the Chernobyl reactor was already an outdated reactor by the time it failed, but the problem is clearly visible in reactors that have been maintained and kept for prolonged lifetimes bexause of necessity (for medical supplies, for example). I can imagine a future where renewable energy can serve most of the world's power demand, with nuclear reactors kept as a backup in case of prolonged bad weather draining the batteries/energy stores that keep the excess solar/wind energy. People also several understate the damage traditional coal plants cause to their direct environment, which funnily enough includes excessive radioactive materials. Switching away from nuclear because of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima feels similar to banning planes or skyscrapers after 9/11. Disasters happen and leave incredible death tolls, but they're not common in the slightest. I'd reckon you're far more likely to get sick because of a coal plant leaking coal ash into the air you breathe or the water supply than being nearby enough to a meltdown to be affected. Gas and oil plants suffer far fewer downsides, but they still incur a cost on the environment that some countries have decided to ignore. They use more fuel but require less cleanup if you don't consider complete carbon capture as a necessary cleanup step. Some areas can't get nuclear power. I'd consider the entirety of Japan to be a terrible fit for such power plants because most of the country is either in a disaster zone (tsunamis or earthquakes) or has no access to cooling water. With little access to fossil fuel sources and a highly dense population Japan hasn't exactly had many alternatives for many years, so I understand why they went nuclear anyway, but I wouldn't build a new nuclear plant there now that wind and solar are cheap enough that the supplies need to be maintained artificially in some cases. Areas like Tornado Alley and cities built on top of super vulcanos are also an obviously terrible fit for nuclear power, as are countries plagued by terrorism and corruption, and countries bordering hostile powers with no remorse for the population like Russia and China. However, in a safe country with a decent grid, you can build more safe nuclear reactors than you'll ever need in the places that do qualify. Nuclear can work and it can work a whole lot better than fossil fuels can, but it's not a magical solution that you can just put down anywhere for cheap power like some advocates seem to claim it does. I believe the current anti-nuclear sentiment is largely fueled by unnecessary fear and the freeze on research and construction will have a self-fulfilling prophecy effect as old reactors won't be replaced with newer, more efficient ones, larger and larger percentages of nuclear reactors will be shut down and cost more and more as nobody is willing to invest in them, and more and more unmaintaind reactors will likely suffer accidents.

greenthrow 4y ago

"Recycling doesn't work" is not true. Recycling of metals works great and is essential. Recycling of glass works well too. Recycling of paper even works. It's recycling of plastic where it gets complicated. Some plastic recycling does work, but much does not. That's where the public has generally been mislead the most. The other place is that mant businesses that do home "recycling" service send what is picked up to a landfill or incinerator. This is straight up fraud and should be prosecuted. But please let's not over simplify a complicatwd issue to the point of lying. Recycling does work and is essential in many cases.

freshpots 4y ago
Exactly, and recycling keeps excess materials out of landfills. Landfills are filling up and it is hard get approval and land for new ones.
- eru 4y ago
  Well, the lack of approval is a bureaucratic problem in some areas. Otherwise, landfills filling up is a non-problem. Earth has enough space.
PaulKeeble 4y ago
Anything that is injection moulded (basically all plastic) can only have 1/3 of its pellets from recycled sources and it then can't be recycled again. At the very best assuming the industries claims of recycling were actually met (which they aren't) at most you would get 1.33x uses out of a piece of plastic, that is it. Its not recycleable, its almost just one use. I personally don't think there are too many issues with clean and reuse and indeed a lot of the shapes are standard and if we forced more standards we could probably reuse plastic 10+ times and vastly decrease our need for new plastic. That would require companies to make a cycle for their packaging however and they are really don't want to and so far no government has thought it might be a good idea to force them to.
eru 4y ago
Mostly agreed. However, isn't recycling of glass pretty pointless, as it doesn't really safe you energy compared to making fresh glass? Metal recycling really is a bright spot!

boomboomsubban 4y ago

>It is almost as if the public discourse is dominated by loud simple minded people who sort themselves into tribes along arbitrary/self-serving lines and fiercely double down in the face of evidence. This is a nice way of looking at it. Another is those "simple minded voices" are likely being paid by the oil companies to spread the pro recycling and anti nuclear positions.

candiodari 4y ago
This is a nice way of looking at it. Another is that there is a sort-of "public consensus" and people are really trying to forbid anyone from (significantly) deviate from it. And like any sort of large-scale consensus, it's dumb ("simple" if you like). Why? Because any sufficiently large group must accommodate below-average humans, and, well, those are below average. So such any large scale consensus cannot be very complicated, and cannot advocate for complex solutions. For example, I prefer using something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos to use very minimal resources to take control of weather, and the climate, and letting go of emission limits (at least for CO2). It doesn't require everyone to cooperate and will be a heck of a lot cheaper. This in turn protects a lot of mostly poorer people who don't really have that much to do with the problem, while remaining a realistic option. (or more bluntly: it's a realistic option that doesn't ask the poor to live in the cold)

Sharlin 4y ago

Recycling works mostly fine in many countries other than the US. But of course reduce, reuse, repair should always have been the primary "re" words. It's just that those are less convenient and bad for business from the usual shortsighted perspective.

eru 4y ago
Recycling of plastic doesn't work very well, regardless of country. Recycling of aluminum works really well. Recycling of paper works ok. Recycling of glass is pretty pointless (it doesn't really safe energy compared to make new glass, however re-using bottles via a deposit system works ok).
- Sharlin 4y ago
  Yes, which is why eg. where I'm from (northern Europe) recycling plastic hasn't even been a thing until very recently, except for things such as PET bottles which have a deposit and which recycle very well. Improved automatic sorting machines have made plastic recycling more feasible, and providing a separate bin for plastics is now required for medium and high density residential properties. (It has been normal for decades to have separate bins for glass, metal, paper, and cardboard; in recent years bins for plastics and biodegradable waste have been introduced as well. There has never been just a single all-purpose "recyclables" bin.) And yes, a lot of household plastic still isn't recyclable because there are just so many types of plastic, with so many different additives used. But it is also a case of "build it, and they will come"; new industrial uses for recycled plastics do pop up once the infrastructure for delivering high-enough-quality streams of raw materials is in place.
  - pasttense01 4y ago
    It's not just a question of sorting; it's also a question of contamination.
lost_tourist 4y ago
It works fine in the US too. We may not be as efficient as some hyper aware European countries but overall the US is doing fine, especially with non plastic stuff. The US has far far more land available for internment of waste than Europe. We could definitely do better but quit acting like we're a 3rd world country. I'm not saying we couldn't do better but all the doom and gloom about the US is friggin' tiring.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

timeon 4y ago

> dominated by loud simple Writing this after simplified ideas in first paragraph sound strange.