Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kon5ole | Hacker News Reader

>a worst case scenario like Chernobyl

Chernobyl was not a worst-case scenario, it is just the worst scenario that has happened so far. If it hadn't been handled by humans sacrificing their lives to stop the chain of events, it could have been much, much worse. Had the fire continued it could indeed have been a "wasteland" scenario.

The site you recommend makes claims about safety that are logically broken. Things are not safe based on what has happened so far, they are safe or unsafe based on what could happen in the future. Surely you realize this.

The claim this site makes is equivalent to saying that a gun is safe if it hasn't been used yet. I frankly find it to be a very dishonest argument, it seems designed to mislead rather than enlighten.

View on HN

The fact that it was:

a) an unstable reactor

b) without a containment structure

c) that was put through a dangerous experiment overriding safety systems

means to me that it's very likely to be the worst commercial nuclear power scenario we'll see.

Compare with Fukushima where a whole area was inundated by a tsunami and a triple meltdown, leading to very few, if any, people receiving more than the minimum dose known to cause measurable harm.

And again keep in mind that we're comparing against fossil and biofuel, which power over 80% of the planet and cause 7 million premature deaths from particulate emissions every single year just operating normally.

I guess the term 'worst case scenario' isn't really useful since there's always someone who can come up with something else, regardless of how unlikely it is. Fair point on that.

Now try get private insurance for a nuclear power plant.

The alternative is not burning things, it is renewables. Stop creating a strawman to argue against.

Try to get private insurance against climate change and air pollution and blackouts.

Fossil and biofuel make 80% of our energy. This is not a straw man argument.

Moving the goalposts...

Primary energy. That will shift dramatically as industries get electrified. No point cooling 70% of the produced energy in a nuclear or coal plant anymore.

Similarly, the question of interest is what to build. Fossil, or nuclear plants barely exist on that list globally.

It is simply too expensive. 5x the CO2 emissions get displaced by building renewables compared to nuclear, with a much shorter time to value.

Investing in nuclear today prolongs the climate crisis.

> Investing in nuclear today prolongs the climate crisis.

This kind of willfully blind thinking continues our reliance on fossil fuels. There is a need for reliable energy that cannot yet be met by renewable energy. For this specific reason, Russia funded German opposition to nuclear power.

Let's fix the +90% that is trivial without storage and work on the last percents when we get there in the 2030s.

The research finds it easily solvable today, but a holistic approach is necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

"Easily solvable" is highly dubious. The guy behind the 100% renewables no nuclear allowed push sued his scientific critics for publishing a critique of his work and was eventually forced to pay their legal fees. [1]

But that aside, just looking at the sheer magnitude of capacity mentioned in his papers, one can see that it's not even remotely easy or trivial. See eye-watering Table 2 in [2]

[1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered...

[2] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USSt...

Now you are assassinating the character of a person I have not mentioned. Is that what is necessary to sell nuclear?

Do you bet against this?

https://i.imgur.com/JYMNAWR.png

Nope, I am pointing out that 100% renewables is far harder than claimed, that criticism has been suppressed, and providing refs to back up my points.

I'm pro anything low carbon. I love wind and solar and hydro and nuclear. These no-nuclear people are trying to get us to tie a hand behind our backs for no reason in the midst of a climate crisis. Energy generation choices are not a zero sum game.

Lots of antinuclear people mistakenly believe that pro-nuclear people are also anti-wind or anti-solar when in fact we are usually just anti-fossil and biofuel.

We can agree that 90% is trivially solvable. That will get deployed shortly.

So you are telling me that a peaking nuclear plant will solve the last 10% when it comes online at earliest 2040? What problem are we even solving at that time other rather than brute forcing nuclear into the solution?

Then try put that nuclear power plant on a marginal price market. What do you expect to happen?

In my opinion the interesting point is c).

Simply put, humans failed and caused a catastrophe. If you have c), a) and b) don't matter. And we will always have c).

Humans are currently failing by waging a war around nuclear power plants. How safe those plants are under normal operation doesn't really matter. Humans fail by performing terrorist attacks too. They fail by building nuclear plants that can't handle a tsunami in a tsunami-prone area.

Nuclear power provides centuries of opportunity for humans to fail in ways that have immense damage potential. This is clearly a very real risk, and makes nuclear power unsafe.

One can still argue for nuclear power, but not by saying it's safe. It simply isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com