8 ms·

No one banned nuclear. But of course it is the only sensible reaction to such an incident to check your designs for faults and review all reactors under constru

by _ph_ 3y ago

No one banned nuclear. But of course it is the only sensible reaction to such an incident to check your designs for faults and review all reactors under construction. And then decide whether it is prudent to continue with the construction and which changes would be required.

radicalbyte 3y ago
Coal cause more cancer and pumps a huge amount of radioactive material into the sky but I've not seen anyone closing coal power stations to stop that. The fear of nuclear power is just one of those irrational fears..
- cinntaile 3y ago
  The long term plan is to shut down all coal plants. In the US alone coal usage has more than halved since 2008.
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Of course people want to close coal power stations too. One might argue about the relative timing, but the goal is to get rid of nuclear and coal. And while a safely operating nuclear plant is actually pretty low on radiation, we unfortunately had severe incidents which released a lot of radiation. Here in Bavaria, the forests are still contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster. Wild boar meat still has to be checked for radiation and a lot of it destroyed as not fit for consumption. Never mind the meat which probably gets eaten unchecked.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  This is pure whataboutism.
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      Your comments are getting downvoted because they're breaking the site guidelines. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them instead? We'd appreciate it. Note these: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "Omit internet tropes" "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken" "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
  - Fatnino 3y ago
    So is bitching about nuclear while ignoring the much worse coal.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      No one is ignoring coal lmao
    - imtringued 3y ago
      People complaining about nuclear power are mostly concerned with cost and time needed for construction and no loosening regulations is not an option.
pas 3y ago
In effect they did through overzealous safety requirements (which made it more expensive compared to other forms of electricity generation) this regulatory inconsistency is mostly irrational, because it's clear through other policies that society values safety much less in other policies (eg. driving, all the emissions from other sources, gun safety, etc) of course regulations are not perfect mirrors of society's preferences, but it's close enough. (and of course society doesn't "has to be" consistent, but I would say a pretty vocal minority, perhaps even the majority wishes it to be so) . . that said, yes, if the world would order 1000+ nuclear power plants, all standardized, then we could have it cheaper, because then it would make sense to invest in automation, and maybe modular small reactors can already get enough traction. but since we are not ordering that many and even AP1000 is just a brand not really a standard, there's practically no economies of scale
- _ph_ 3y ago
  If you claim the safety requirements were overzealous, do you have any data to substantiate your claim?
  - pas 3y ago
    On nuclear construction cost increases, from Crowley and Griffith 1982, “US construction cost rise threatens nuclear option” (via @whatisnuclear): """ Ironically, some of the decisions that have been made in the name of improving safety margins for low probability events, may have reduced the safety margins for high probability events. The UE&C piping study uncovered numerous areas where the tolerances requested in the piping design documents might be appropriate for a machine shop oriented manufacturing operation, but are totally unrealistic for field construction. """ via https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15 https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15 The whole quote is worth reading/skimming. More importantly this zero risk approach has to be considered relative to all the other risks arising from building other types of power plants. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (and of course a bit more on the problems with the process at the NRC https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission-eight-months-after-receiving-proposed-advanced-reactor-licensing-rule-commission-has-not-acted https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regu... )
philwelch 3y ago
> No one banned nuclear. Sometimes, when your employer wants to fire you but doesn’t want you to be able to file for unemployment or accuse them of firing you for some legally impermissible reason, they just make it so miserable to keep working there that you end up quitting. There is a legal term for this: “constructive dismissal”. I hope the implied analogy is obvious.
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Yes. But it proves nothing.
xw3089 3y ago
Maybe not no one https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/12.90.050 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/12.90.050
- jeffbee 3y ago
  The funny thing is these effing boomers still protest against nuclear power at the end of University Avenue every month, as if this was somehow a relevant concern in 2023.
  - aftbit 3y ago
    I remember when I lived there, they had to get a special exemption to use self-checkout machines made by 3M in the Berkeley library. I don't remember why 3M ended up on the bad boy list, probably something related to nuclear weapons though.
    - jeffbee 3y ago
      "The Peace and Justice Commission finds that it would violate the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act (NFBA) to approve a waiver of the law and contract with 3M Corporation for maintenance of the Library’s RFID system." "Pursuant to B.M.C. Section 12.90.070, the City of Berkeley shall grant no contract to any person or business, which knowingly engages in work for nuclear weapons."
      - aftbit 3y ago
        Thank you for the quotes. Can you provide the source too? Google search returns only this page for quoted searches for this text.

by _ph_ 3y ago

radicalbyte 3y ago

Coal cause more cancer and pumps a huge amount of radioactive material into the sky but I've not seen anyone closing coal power stations to stop that. The fear of nuclear power is just one of those irrational fears..

cinntaile 3y ago
The long term plan is to shut down all coal plants. In the US alone coal usage has more than halved since 2008.
_ph_ 3y ago
Of course people want to close coal power stations too. One might argue about the relative timing, but the goal is to get rid of nuclear and coal. And while a safely operating nuclear plant is actually pretty low on radiation, we unfortunately had severe incidents which released a lot of radiation. Here in Bavaria, the forests are still contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster. Wild boar meat still has to be checked for radiation and a lot of it destroyed as not fit for consumption. Never mind the meat which probably gets eaten unchecked.
goodpoint 3y ago
This is pure whataboutism.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    Your comments are getting downvoted because they're breaking the site guidelines. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them instead? We'd appreciate it. Note these: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "Omit internet tropes" "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken" "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
- Fatnino 3y ago
  So is bitching about nuclear while ignoring the much worse coal.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    No one is ignoring coal lmao
  - imtringued 3y ago
    People complaining about nuclear power are mostly concerned with cost and time needed for construction and no loosening regulations is not an option.

pas 3y ago

In effect they did through overzealous safety requirements (which made it more expensive compared to other forms of electricity generation) this regulatory inconsistency is mostly irrational, because it's clear through other policies that society values safety much less in other policies (eg. driving, all the emissions from other sources, gun safety, etc) of course regulations are not perfect mirrors of society's preferences, but it's close enough. (and of course society doesn't "has to be" consistent, but I would say a pretty vocal minority, perhaps even the majority wishes it to be so) . . that said, yes, if the world would order 1000+ nuclear power plants, all standardized, then we could have it cheaper, because then it would make sense to invest in automation, and maybe modular small reactors can already get enough traction. but since we are not ordering that many and even AP1000 is just a brand not really a standard, there's practically no economies of scale

_ph_ 3y ago
If you claim the safety requirements were overzealous, do you have any data to substantiate your claim?
- pas 3y ago
  On nuclear construction cost increases, from Crowley and Griffith 1982, “US construction cost rise threatens nuclear option” (via @whatisnuclear): """ Ironically, some of the decisions that have been made in the name of improving safety margins for low probability events, may have reduced the safety margins for high probability events. The UE&C piping study uncovered numerous areas where the tolerances requested in the piping design documents might be appropriate for a machine shop oriented manufacturing operation, but are totally unrealistic for field construction. """ via https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15 https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15 The whole quote is worth reading/skimming. More importantly this zero risk approach has to be considered relative to all the other risks arising from building other types of power plants. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (and of course a bit more on the problems with the process at the NRC https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission-eight-months-after-receiving-proposed-advanced-reactor-licensing-rule-commission-has-not-acted https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regu... )

philwelch 3y ago

> No one banned nuclear. Sometimes, when your employer wants to fire you but doesn’t want you to be able to file for unemployment or accuse them of firing you for some legally impermissible reason, they just make it so miserable to keep working there that you end up quitting. There is a legal term for this: “constructive dismissal”. I hope the implied analogy is obvious.

_ph_ 3y ago
Yes. But it proves nothing.

xw3089 3y ago

Maybe not no one https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/12.90.050 https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/12.90.050

jeffbee 3y ago
The funny thing is these effing boomers still protest against nuclear power at the end of University Avenue every month, as if this was somehow a relevant concern in 2023.
- aftbit 3y ago
  I remember when I lived there, they had to get a special exemption to use self-checkout machines made by 3M in the Berkeley library. I don't remember why 3M ended up on the bad boy list, probably something related to nuclear weapons though.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    "The Peace and Justice Commission finds that it would violate the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act (NFBA) to approve a waiver of the law and contract with 3M Corporation for maintenance of the Library’s RFID system." "Pursuant to B.M.C. Section 12.90.070, the City of Berkeley shall grant no contract to any person or business, which knowingly engages in work for nuclear weapons."
    - aftbit 3y ago
      Thank you for the quotes. Can you provide the source too? Google search returns only this page for quoted searches for this text.