
After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform - elsewhen
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/08/23/after-48-years-democrats-endorse-nuclear-energy-in-platform/#3c7687df5829
======
notRobot
For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, _much_ safer than it was
in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed
exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents
combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem
like a big deal to most people.

We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet
inhabitable for future generations without mass adoption of nuclear power.

> _Nuclear energy is by far the safest energy source in this comparison – it
> results in more than 442 times fewer deaths than the 'dirtiest' forms of
> coal; 330 times fewer than coal; 250 times less than oil; and 38 times fewer
> than gas._

[https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-
energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy)

~~~
notJim
Partly I think nuclear triggers a cognitive bias where humans will tolerate
ongoing low-level shittiness, but really struggle with large catastrophes,
even if the catastrophe is far less damaging than the ongoing low-level
damage.

However, I think the resistance is also because the nature of the catastrophe
is different. Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion
zone? I know that mining/drilling are incredibly damaging to the environment,
but theoretically work is done to mitigate/restore the areas. Of course,
they're essentially turning the _entire planet_ (or large, currently-inhabited
swaths of it anyway) into an exclusion zone, but unfortunately there is
another cognitive bias humans have where we under-rate long-term risks.

I've been a nuclear skeptic, but gradually I'm coming around to it. At this
point the main questions I have are whether it can be done cheap enough. It
seems like price is really driving renewable adoption at this point, so maybe
green policies should focus on subsidizing storage and nuclear instead?

~~~
Aerroon
> _Partly I think nuclear triggers a cognitive bias where humans will tolerate
> ongoing low-level shittiness, but really struggle with large catastrophes,
> even if the catastrophe is far less damaging than the ongoing low-level
> damage._

How come hydroelectric dams don't get treated this way? In 2019 a dam in
Brazil had a catastrophic failure that cost the lives of 270 people. In 2019!
In 1975 a dam failed in China and the death toll is estimated between 80,000
and 240,000.

All of this ignores the ecosystem destruction that building a dam and flooding
a valley does. All of that plant life will die and the carbon goes back into
the cycle.

Yet I don't see hydroelectric dams getting nearly as much push back from
activists. Why?

~~~
dredmorbius
Hydro disasters have been large, but are tangible/sensible, immediate, and
resolve relatively quickly (days for rescue, months for recovery, possibly a
few years for rebuilding).

Banqiao is now home to 17 million people (after 40 years, largely achieved
within a decade or so). Meantime, Chernobyl still hasn't seen complete
containment (after 34 years), and Fukushima hasn't begun initial cleanup
(after 9 years). The two nuclear sites will be obligatory nature preserves for
centuries, containing still-lethal risks.

The specific failings at Banqiao were virtually all managerial and political,
not technical; poor engineering, inadequate safety provisions, underestimated
environmental and operational risks, poor contingency planning, unforseen
perfect storm (literally), severed communications, insufficient warnings, no
community disaster preparation, inadequate rescue and recovery. _None of these
failures are specific to hydro, all apply to nuclear power, and as non-
engineering problems there is no technical fix that makes them go away._

In Banqiao, about 25,000 people died in the immediate innundation. Another
150,000 died in the following weeks of starvation and disease. There's no
great mystery as to how such deaths are avoided: floodwaters are mitigated by
high ground and evacuation centres; starvation and disease by food, water, and
medical stocks; and rescue & recovery by trained teams and equipment.
Reestablishment of communications, transport, and utilities is critical.

China at the time was desperately poor, politically dysfunctional, and gambled
hugely on risk and lost. Other major hydro disasters tend to share these
traits.

As do many regions looking to nuclear power for salvation.

(I've mentioned Banqiao several times over the years on HN. It's a terrifying
but educational tragedy.
[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20banqiao&sort=byPopularity&type=comment)
Wikipedia article recommended:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam\)))

~~~
pvaldes
> The two nuclear sites will be obligatory nature preserves for centuries,

That equals to slow but solid dissemination. Good luck trying to keep the
migratory birds or fishes inside their boundaries at any time.

------
namuol
First endorsement in 48 years? I'm pretty sure this qualifies as an
endorsement:

> As detailed in the Climate Action Plan, President Obama is committed to
> using every appropriate tool to combat climate change. Nuclear power, which
> in 2014 generated about 60 percent of carbon-free electricity in the United
> States, continues to play a major role in efforts to reduce carbon emissions
> from the power sector. As America leads the global transition to a low-
> carbon economy, the continued development of new and advanced nuclear
> technologies along with support for currently operating nuclear power plants
> is an important component of our clean energy strategy. Investing in the
> safe and secure development of nuclear power also helps advance other vital
> policy objectives in the national interest, such as maintaining economic
> competitiveness and job creation, as well as enhancing nuclear
> nonproliferation efforts, nuclear safety and security, and energy security.

>

> The President’s FY 2016 Budget includes more than $900 million for the
> Department of Energy (DOE) to support the U.S. civilian nuclear energy
> sector by leading federal research, development, and demonstration efforts
> in nuclear energy technologies, ranging from power generation, safety,
> hybrid energy systems, and security technologies, among other things. DOE
> also supports the deployment of these technologies with $12.5 billion in
> remaining loan guarantee authority for advanced nuclear projects through
> Title 17. DOE’s investments in nuclear energy help secure the three
> strategic objectives that are foundational to our nation’s energy system:
> energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental responsibility.

[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2015/1...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2015/11/06/fact-sheet-obama-administration-announces-actions-ensure-
nuclear-energy)

~~~
LeegleechN
First endorsement in the official party platform, which is a specific document
released by the parties every 4 years (except this year for Republicans who
re-adopted their 2016 platform with no changes...).

~~~
namuol
With some qualifiers this is technically correct, but this only makes it feel
more disingenuous.

~~~
morpheuskafka
The Democratic Party platform reflects the position of the party for four
years and is voted on and influenced by all delegates (including delegates for
candidates that do not win, ex. Bernie's delegates the past two elections).

A page on the Obama administration website reflected the personal opinion of
the president at the time it was posted, and can be changed at any time.

The presidential nominee is not necessarily going to agree with the party
platform (although they are more or less telling voters they will uphold it).
The party and all of its delegates certainly need not agree with everything
the president says.

~~~
namuol
Exactly. The party's official platform is equally dismissible as - if not more
dismissible than - as the actions taken by the party in recent history, right?

------
tbenst
I’m continuously baffled by those that claim that nuclear power is safe. Look
at Fukushima for example. It seems hard to imagine a nuclear power plant
design, even Gen III or IV that would be immune to _any_ possible natural
disaster.

Analysis of nuclear power should take into account Black Swan events: no
matter how well designed, some fraction of plants will cause INES Level 7
disasters. If the resulting cost (ie $100s of billions for cleanup),
environmental damage, and health impacts are still less than wind or solar,
I’m all for it, but pro-nuclear arguments continuously give the tired argument
that with new designs “this time is different.”

~~~
himinlomax
> Look at Fukushima for example. It seems hard to imagine a nuclear power
> plant design, even Gen III or IV that would be immune to any possible
> natural disaster.

For Fukushima, it seems that the panicked response of the local authorities
(evacuating the whole area ...) was what caused the most problems.

~~~
burfog
The automatic shutdown contributed.

Fukushima needed cooling pumps to operate. There were 3 ways to power the
pumps:

1\. the reactor itself, automatically shut down when the earthquake was
detected

2\. diesel generators, shut down by flooding

3\. power lines from elsewhere, shut down by the tsunami knocking them down

Clearly, shutting down the reactor is a self-inflicted problem. Had they left
it running, the pumps would have had power, and the whole disaster wouldn't
have happened.

It's a stupid panic-driven regulation that a nuclear power plant must shut
down for an earthquake. Once the earthquake hits, it is too late to reach a
cool shut-down state. That would take weeks. There is no justification for
doing the shutdown. It just caused problems, leading to disaster.

~~~
cesarb
> It's a stupid panic-driven regulation that a nuclear power plant must shut
> down for an earthquake. Once the earthquake hits, it is too late to reach a
> cool shut-down state.

It might be too late to reach a cold shut-down state, but it should be enough
to reduce a lot of the pressure within the pressure vessel and the piping. If
the earthquake causes a crack in the pressure vessel or the piping, this could
be the difference between it bursting open and a small leak (or even nothing,
if the crack is small enough to not penetrate all the way).

------
mensetmanusman
That’s great, anti-nuclear energy was definitely one of the anti-science
stances standing in the way of progress.

~~~
cure
It's odd to me that anti-nuclear is being labelled anti-science. It's almost
like the pro-nuclear people have blinders on. Nuclear is fantastic, in theory.
In practice, in the real world, the consequences of accidents are
extraordinarily bad and costly. The odds of a bad accident may be very small,
but they are not zero (cf.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents)).
And dealing with the waste is another highly risky and unsolved problem.

I will be happily become pro-nuclear the moment that all the real-world
externalities are actually priced in. How much do you think it cost to have
1,000 square miles in the Ukraine uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years?
What if such an accident happens in a densely populated area?

How much do you think it will cost to keep all that nuclear waste safe for the
next half a million years or so? Plutonium-239's half-life is 24,000 years,
and isotopes are dangerous for 10 to 20 times their half-life (cf
[https://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-
dangerous-u...](https://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-
uranium.html)).

The same problem of externalities exists for fossil fuels, of course. And even
for hydro power in a different way: it has displaced millions of people and
flooded many beautiful places.

~~~
Lazare
> In practice, in the real world, the consequences of accidents are
> extraordinarily bad and costly.

...not really. Fossil fuels kill a simply enormous amount of people. Coal is
responsible for something like 13k deaths per year in the US alone; air
pollution (from burning fossil fuels) kills something like 10k people _per
day_.

> How much do you think it cost to have 1,000 square miles in the Ukraine
> uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years?

A number so low it rounds to zero in this context?

> The same problem of externalities exists for fossil fuels, of course.

I don't think you can handwave that away as an "of course". The externalities
around fossil fuels are simply enormous; the issues and costs and risks of
nuclear are multiple orders of magnitude less.

~~~
cure
> I don't think you can handwave that away as an "of course". The
> externalities around fossil fuels are simply enormous; the issues and costs
> and risks of nuclear are multiple orders of magnitude less.

That wasn't intended as a handwave. Fossil fuel externalities are indeed
enormous and well documented.

It's exhausting to talk to pro-nuclear people, because all everyone ever talks
about is nuclear vs fossil. That was the 20th century's fight.

Fossil fuel for the generation of electricity is already doomed, because solar
and wind are way cheaper now. Capitalism will take care of finishing off coal,
the sooner the better, if we want to keep the planet livable.

In combination with rapid technological innovation in grid-scale storage, we
will hopefully end up with a low-carbon power generation solution, one that
does not involve risks of a nuclear accident, nor nuclear waste.

~~~
Lazare
> That was the 20th century's fight.

[https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-
insan...](https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-
number-of-new-coal-plants/)

We shall see.

------
csours
I've been reading "Normal Accidents" by Perrow. I started reading the book
expecting an even-keeled explanation of risk, but I was pretty shocked by how
prejudiced against Nuclear the tone was.

It was also a reminder of how TERRIBLE the industrial design (aka UX) of
reactor monitoring and controls were at the time the book was written (1984).

So many of the things he seems to have felt were insurmountable could be
solved by better design, something the book goes a long way toward dismissing.

Anti-nuclear sentiment seems to be one of those things that became widely
fashionable, and Pro-nuclear became demonized.

~~~
M2Ys4U
>Anti-nuclear sentiment seems to be one of those things that became widely
fashionable, and Pro-nuclear became demonized.

There was a concerted effort to connect all nuclear _power_ with nuclear
_weapons_ in the 80's and 90's. The effects of that are still with us.

~~~
xmprt
It's still a thing today. Look at the Iran deal. I don't know enough to
comment on whether its a good or bad thing but a lot of people think that Iran
purifying Uranium == Iran developing nukes.

------
stjohnswarts
I have preached until I was red in the face that nuclear is the only solution
we have currently that will get us to zero emissions on a proper time scale
when it comes to global warming. I am all for wind and solar, but you have to
be practical as well. We don't have anything that is even close to being able
to provide stable 24 hour power like nuclear. Obviously we want a mix, but
there are safe nuclear designs out there. And the feds will just have to
overrule the NIMBYs on an official site or three for properly controlling the
waste.

~~~
jodrellblank
Neither the US not UK has built and finished a new nuclear plant in 40 years,
and the single one (1) in progress in the UK is a 15-20 year project with a
construction cost of £23Bn and a subsidy of £50Bn.

Trying to turn the small UK nuclear like this would cost £1Tn private
construction, £2Tn government subsidies, and take 700 years.

Assuming it actually gets finished and not shelved by economic collapse/Brexit
as its being built by a French company.

It goes with Patrick Collision’s question about why the West can’t build big
projects quickly and affordably anymore.

Rolls-Royce were in the news recently with a mass-manufacturing small nuclear
reactor design, but at this rate the political arguing will see us with
Lithium battery storage for intermittent renewable years before 50 new nuclear
plants for baseline/backup capacity. Or buying Russian nuclear power surplus
in 2050.

~~~
javagram
> Neither the US not UK has built and finished a new nuclear plant in 40
> years, and the single one (1) in progress in the UK is a 15-20 year project
> with a construction cost of £23Bn and a subsidy of £50Bn.

This is a great point and its why we should urgently be analyzing the failures
of new nuclear projects to understand what’s going wrong and why we can’t do
something that we could do in the 1960s and 1970s without issue (France
nuclearized its power sector in less than 2 decades!)

------
8bitsrule
Renewable energy sources have zero fuel costs. Their potential for life-
threatening disasters - on the scale of Fukushima, Chernobyl, coal ash floods,
etc. - is zero.

Just as with coal mines, uranium mines and oilfields, there's a large upfront
cost ... but a much lower cost to the environment.

Furthermore, anyone can create solar-powered electricity, anywhere. There will
be no wars over access to sunlight. Sunlight is a democratic power source,
which cannot be monopolized by special interests. Nomads in Mongolia make
their own electricity. Anyone living near a creek can make their own hydro ...
thousands do.

Once renewables are built, apart from maintenance, the cost of the energy and
its transport is free, and (apart from recycling costs) pollution-free. It
will continue to be free until the generator has to be replaced, some stupid
war destroys it, and/or the Sun burns out. Too obvious for some interests.

Attempts to distort these facts, to maintain monopolies and continue to enrich
a very few, will persist. It's easy to invent lies and distortions and to
spread FUD about renewables. Yep, there's a lot at stake. For a few.

But what's best for the biosphere and its people? For the people of the
future, including our kids and grandkids? For all the lifeforms, the water
sources, and the atmosphere of the planet? The answer is renewable -- and the
technology to support its generation and storage is a superior and long-
lasting investment.

~~~
sizzle
Why can't we create a nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert like
area 51 type of setup so if there is a meltdown it can be contained. Could we
safely store the energy somehow and transport it or make some sort of long-
distance hookup to our grids?

Also anyone know why the nuclear site in San Onofre by San Diego failed?

~~~
jabl
> Why can't we create a nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert

In principle we can. Dry cooling is more expensive and less efficient than
using water, but technically doable.

But the plant requires personnel. Said personnel has kids, spouses etc. You
end up with a small town to run the plant. And that town requires fresh water
which might be hard to come by in the middle of the desert.

> Could we safely store the energy somehow and transport it or make some sort
> of long-distance hookup to our grids?

We could store the energy in nuclear fuel, at the amazing energy density of 80
TJ/kg. Hard to beat that, except with fusion or antimatter. :)

Anyway, long distance electricity transmission is technically doable; HVDC
losses are < 3%/1000 km. But again, it costs money.

> Also anyone know why the nuclear site in San Onofre by San Diego failed?

They detected premature wear on new steam generators. In the face of stiff
opposition by local state politicians, rather than fixing it they decided to
decommission the entire plant.

~~~
sumedh
> But the plant requires personnel.

So all we need is to build the plant and then automate the entire operations.

------
fma
292 comments and no one talks about the Democratic candidate that was most
vocal about nuclear, specifically thorium?

"Yang is absolutely right to make these points, and he has gotten some well-
deserved attention. But it’s surprising that he hasn’t gotten more, given how
much we’re hearing about the crisis nature of climate change. Because if you
take climate change seriously, you have to take nuclear power seriously"

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democ...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/17/2020-democrat-
president-climate-change-andrew-yang-nuclear-power-column/2342031001/)

~~~
briandear
It’s not about climate change, it’s about controlling behavior via energy
prices. The non-nuclear climate change advocates don’t care about “carbon,”
they care about wealth redistribution. That’s why I oppose most “climate”
policy. Because it isn’t about climate.

Carbon and wealth redistribution should be separate issues, but activists have
made them the same and since I oppose wealth redistribution via government
economic control, I can’t get on board with “climate.”

[https://ips-dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-...](https://ips-
dc.org/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-redistribute-wealth/)

~~~
ant6n
That’s the next next next level of climate change denial. After denying it’s
happening, after denying it’s human-made, after denying it’s solvable, we deny
it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.

~~~
ergl
The linked document has nothing to do with climate change denial, but with
climate justice, which was one of the main talking points of the school
strikes last year, and also concerns the UN:
[https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/clima...](https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/climate-
justice/). See also [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-
climate/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/)

> We deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.

No matter how you put it, climate change is completely unsolvable without
politcs, because solving climate change requires, most of all, cooperation
between countries.

~~~
ant6n
My comment isnt about the linked document, but about briandears attitude,
which essentially appears like another step in the moving goal posts of
justifying inaction on dealing with climate change.

~~~
ergl
Ah, my bad, I totally misread your comment then. I agree with you, that
comment is next-level denial.

------
ozborn
Folks should parse the article and the platform carefully, it actually reads
"existing and advanced nuclear". This could be interpreted as maintaining
existing reactors and building advanced (fusion?) reactors and NOT building
new fission reactors.

From my perspective this interpretation would be desirable (although probably
wishful thinking) given that nuclear energy is too expensive in practise
(really only existing plants are competitive with solar), too slow to
construct (10 year average construction time in the US?!), centralized and
generally poorly managed. The construction of new nuclear fission plants for
grid power in the United States isn't going anywhere, since it makes
absolutely no economic, environmental or political sense. Yes, most of us on
Hacker News know it is better than fossil fuels - but renewable energy is the
new competition. Nuclear is going directly against solar with (or without)
battery backup and it's been losing for years now - even China has slowed down
the pace of construction.

Nuclear grid power advocates should take their arguments to Mars where they
will actually have a case. Not much of an atmosphere to spin a turbine, far
away from the sun and an environment that makes the Antarctic look like a
Garden of Eden should anything go wrong.

~~~
lucb1e
> it makes absolutely no economic, environmental or political sense

Environmental? As far as I understand, the much lower emissions (not zero
because of construction, people driving to the plant, etc.) compared to our
current main power sources is a huge benefit for the environment (and thus for
us: even if you are right that it's more costly per kWh today, it might save
the next generation many trillions). Given the phrasing "absolutely no
[environmental] sense", it sounds like you're very sure it must be negative
for the environment but I don't understand why.

I am generally supportive of nuclear but only because from what I read, it
seems to be a big help in reaching environmental needs. I get the economics
part: nuclear isn't super cheap and gets easily outcompeted by renewables on
sunny or windy days. I also expect we'll start abolishing nuclear fission in
favor of fully renewable sources as soon as we finished turning off carbon-
based power plants (and, in a perfectly rational world, no sooner). If there
is more to the story like some environmental effect that I'm not aware of then
I'd like to hear it (note that I did read up on nuclear energy so you can
assume I know the basics; I pose the comment somewhat questioningly not
because I haven't done any research but because I think this is a constructive
way to learn).

------
cletus
I used to be an advocate for nuclear energy but over time I've become it has
no future because:

1\. Even if it's safer by any objective measure (deaths/kWh for example) the
failure modes are much, much worse. A fossil fuel plant just can't make
thousands of square miles uninhabitable for decades. This isn't an
exaggeration. The Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone is currently 1000mi^2 [1].
This is like how people are afraid to fly but not drive when flying
(on.commercial jets at least) is undeniably safer;

2\. Processing of fuel creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing
with (eg UF6);

3\. Spent fuel creates waste we just don't have a good way of dealing with;

4\. Decommissioning nuclear power plants creates waste we just don't have a
good way of dealing with;

5\. The above three costs seem to be borne by governments. It's still unclear
to me if companies who run nuclear power plants are paying the true costs;

5\. I just don't trust companies to manage nuclear plants safely long term;

7\. I don't trust most governments to manage nuclear plants long term; and

8\. Many nuclear power advocates will bring up coal as the counterexample.
That's a false dichotomy. Wind and solar costs continue to plummet. Natural
gas, while still a fossil fuel, has way less negative externalities than coal.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone)

------
ec109685
The most interesting part of this article is that for just 4T, we could be off
carbon energy: [https://www.woodmac.com/news/feature/deep-decarbonisation-
th...](https://www.woodmac.com/news/feature/deep-decarbonisation-the-multi-
trillion-dollar-question/)

That’s not much more than the government spent to counteract the economic
effects of cornovirus.

------
PeterStuer
I have seen 0 proof that mankind can handle the resposability that comes with
this type of extreme risk but at low probability technologies. If anything. It
is getting worse in that regard.

------
pronik
Not an american here, so it's more of a general comment.

I'm all for investing in and investigating nuclear power -- after all, the
humanity needed several decades to make electricity itself safe at all; if we
manage to make nuclear safer and indeed manageable, that's a fine thing,
scientifically speaking. It's good to have options.

However, we should be keeping an eye on the costs. Nuclear energy is cheap,
but disposing of its waste is anything but. In Europe, energy companies have
essentially socialised waste disposal so that they can advertise for "cheap"
nuclear energy. If the disposal costs had been placed on them, nuclear would
be the most expensive energy source by far.

We are probably better off future-wise looking elsewhere for a clean and cheap
energy source. Fossil and nuclear are neither.

~~~
missedthecue
What if we shot it in to space? Doesn't Space X think they can get cargo down
to $100/kg? That would be a few hundred million in costs for all of the worlds
nuclear waste annually.

~~~
fomine3
The problem is failed shot causes catastrophic result.

------
Technetium
Funny how everyone is able to talk so much shit about nuclear being amazing
and safe and all that, yet we've STILL not cleaned up the monstrous amount of
TOXIC trash that has been produced by these plants. We have done nothing to
stop creating more waste, and we have done nothing to deal with the toxic
waste we have right now. To be honest I don't _CARE_ if you want to call it
safer when there is no direct proof of that, only proof of the contrary. There
are hundreds of thousands of people still affected by major accidents, and the
waste leftover from them worldwide. Trying to keep pushing nuclear for
anything is an ignorant shortsighted choice.

[1] [https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-
build...](https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-
cleaner-cloud/10-reasons-oppose-nuclear-energy) [2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU)
[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents)
[4] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-
map-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-
expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/)

~~~
neop1x
And what about deaths and respiratory problems caused by burning fossil fuels?
What about CO2 used to produce solar/wind powerplants? How to recycle retired
or failed wind/solar powerplants? It is pretty ignorant to just look at couple
of nuclear incidents and ignore the amount of energy those plants can produce.
Can you imagine the amount of power the current humanity needs? If you want
less waste, start reducing population growth in high-growth countries first...
Here is a good video comparing various sources of energy and relevant facts
[https://youtu.be/lL6uB1z95gA](https://youtu.be/lL6uB1z95gA)

------
Mountain_Skies
How much of the resistance to nuclear power in the US was due to the very
unfortunately combination of the Three Mile Island incident and the release of
the movie The China Syndrome both happening within two weeks of each other?
Add in the nuclear arms race of the time and the emotional aspect for anything
nuclear becomes even greater.

------
rubber_duck
My uneducated gut feeling is that the only way nuclear is going to be relevant
is if they perfect micro-nuclear reactors.

I remember reading about these 10 years ago [1], and have seen a few more
since. Basically they propose small "nuclear batteries" kin of design - this
avoids catastrophic scenarios and benefits greatly from economies of scale.

The only issue I see with this approach is political - you would have a lot
more nuclear material spread around, spreading this kind of teach where it's
easily accessible and hard to protect doesn't sound reasonable with the
political situation in the world.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S)

~~~
stjohnswarts
There certainly are mini reactor designs which can be put in a grid like
network to create the same effect as our current huge-but-old reactors.
Luddites, just won't have it, but maybe if leaders just go ahead and get a
backbone we can have such things that might just save us from extinction (or
at least the end of civilization, I'm sure at least a small cadre of humans
will survive, we're pretty adaptable as a species).
[https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-
technologies/small...](https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-
technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors)

------
joejohnson
The debate around safety in nuclear power is kind tangential to the larger
issue: what do you do with all this radioactive material when you’re done with
it?

This is a much trickier issue and is largely why countries like Germany have
started to phase out nuclear power plants. But the US treats the whole world
as their dumping ground and as long as they are the global imperial power,
they can probably just dump radioactive waste in some poor part of the world.

~~~
RealityVoid
Nuclear waste is not that much actually and you simply store it in sealed
containers. The waste storage is a political issue rather than a technical
issue. How many accidents have we had related to nuclear waste storage? Zero,
that's how many.

------
Dahoon
There isn't enough material to run enough nuclear plants to make a difference.
This is or should really be common knowledge.

~~~
lucb1e
Could you elaborate or link to a source that does?

Edit: Another comment[1] says "there's more than enough for couple centuries
(and new reactor designs can make one-two orders of magnitude better use of
what's available)". Your statement "not enough to make a difference" seems
quite different from "enough for centuries". If you think this is wrong, a bit
of elaboration beyond the simple statement couldn't hurt...

They also make the point which I was going to make even if there turned out to
be a significant limit to the amount of material available:

> even if we only had 100 years worth of nuclear fuel reserve, that's more
> than enough to fix the climate problem and fully develop renewables

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24325737](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24325737)

~~~
dredmorbius
Consider that rising populations and standards of living, as well as shifts
from fossil fuels, mean increasing total electrical generation likely by ~500%
in the next 50 years or so.

The alternative is a large number of very disappointed people.

~~~
lucb1e
True, so we have to divide "centuries" by 5 or more, that's still long enough
to help with the transition. Not sure if that's what you meant though? Please
correct me if I misunderstood.

~~~
dredmorbius
200 years / 5 gives about 40 years useful life. Some technologies (thorium
MSR) remain unproved, so there's R&D lead time which is likely prohibitive ---
we're going to go into this with the designs we have _now_.

Construction and planning _still_ takes 10--20 years, and commercial viability
remains dicey. (Illinois is looking to shut down two nuclear plants not for
political/public opposition but economic reasons:
[https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-exelon-
nu...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-exelon-nuclear-
plants-shut-down-20200828-qmk6z3d5mrgipeahb56vugq3za-story.html))

Meantime wind and solar keep getting cheaper. They carry few long-time-horizon
risks, and are as safe as nuclear within measurement error, a fact nuke
boosters tend to omit. Even hydro, as horrific as past incidents have been, is
safe when well-managed, and again lacks nuclear's civilisation-spanning risk
time horizons.

If _presently proven nuclear technologies can smooth the path_ , then maybe
there's a role, but we're _still_ looking at swapping out all but a minuscule
fraction of nuclear within a generation (which will mean trying to smoothly
phase out an entrenched, powerful, politically-connected, but dying industry,
much as today's coal industry), bearing resulting near-term risks, addressing
(all but certainly via government subsidies) unfavourable economics, and
creating a long-term risk liability spanning millennia.

Meantime, nuke boosters generally continue to paint renewables as the enemy,
misconstrue risks, and lowball opportunities, none of which does much for
engendering institutional trust in the nuclear community itself.

Don't get me wrong: the challenges are huge, there's plenty of bullshit and
opportunism on all sides, and we're going to need to make some really
unpleasant decisions and trade-offs here. The Democratic party platform
announcement is probably a good thing: it's another option on the table.

But this isn't smooth sailing, and going in with a very realistic view and
eyes wide open is critical.

~~~
jabl
> 200 years / 5 gives about 40 years useful life.

Well, no, it's not that simple. Some advances would require new reactors, such
as breeders, but even in a closed system with breeders there would be maybe a
2:1 ratio of traditional burner reactors to breeders (producing fuel for the
burners). So even in such a scenario existing LWR's wouldn't be a stranded
investment.

But even if we forget breeding for a moment, an increase in usage of uranium
would make it economical to exploit poorer deposits (that 200 year figure is
at current prices and with current extraction technology), increasing the
total economically recoverable deposits (this is similar to practically all
other mining, as technology progresses and price increases the economically
recoverable deposits also increase). And at some point we will hit the
crossover point where, like in the SA article you linked to earlier,
extraction from seawater becomes economic. Giving an additional 60000 years of
deposits with current usage.

So between breeding (about a factor of 200 improvement in resource
utilization) and seawater extraction, we have enough uranium for at least
60000*200 = 12 million years with current usage. Even if we increase usage by
a factor of 100 (say, getting rid of fossil fuels thus increasing electricity
usage by about ~3x, and increasing the share of nuclear to, say, 50% of the
total electricity usage, and still have quite some room for increasing
consumption), we still have fuel for 120000 years. Probably more than enough
time to get fusion working, or if not, we're hosed anyway in the long run.

> we're going to go into this with the designs we have now.

I agree with that. While there's exiting things on the horizon, it makes sense
to start with what's available and mature now.

That, however, doesn't mean we're locked into that forever and ever. We can
start deploying traditional LWR designs today, while at the same time
commercializing breeders, seawater extraction of U, Th, and whatnot.

None of this means that a "nuclear future" will be inevitable, certainly. I
just don't think that the availability of fuel is the limiting factor. AFAICS,
the biggest threats to nuclear energy is an inability to deliver on time and
on budget combined with political opposition killing the industry.

If wind, solar, geothermal, storage, smart grids etc. manage to kill of the
fossil industry without the help of nuclear, hey, I'm ecstatic. I just think
having the nuclear option on the table makes success more likely.

~~~
dredmorbius
Main point is that "200 year supply" is not all that impressive. Demand growth
can dominate that rapidly.

When coal was first becoming a mainstream fuel in the US, reserves were
estimated as sufficient for 1 million years. Current estimates are for about
100-250 years (latter from BP's _Annual Statistical Review_ for 2019). Demand
increased somewhat, and consequences emerged. Now 150 years into the million
we're phasing out coal as quickly as possible.

Breeders, thorium (a breeder fuel), and uranium seawater extraction are
possible but have proved challenging or limited to date. Seawater extraction
particularly presents formidable challenges.

~~~
jabl
> Main point is that "200 year supply" is not all that impressive. Demand
> growth can dominate that rapidly.

Sure. But if we keep exponentially increasing energy usage, at some point
we'll boil the oceans. And long before that we would have wrecked the earths
ecosystem. So I'm assuming that the exponential increase in energy usage will
stop at some point.

The 120000 year figure I arrived at in my previous post included a factor of
100 increase over current usage. Even if we add another factor of 100 increase
(a total of a factor of 10000 increase over current usage!), we'd still have
fuel for 1200 years, surely more than enough to get fusion working.

> When coal was first becoming a mainstream fuel in the US, reserves were
> estimated as sufficient for 1 million years. Current estimates are for about
> 100-250 years (latter from BP's Annual Statistical Review for 2019). Demand
> increased somewhat, and consequences emerged. Now 150 years into the million
> we're phasing out coal as quickly as possible.

Sure, but ~200 years ago our understanding of geology was quite rudimentary
compared to today. And yes, starting from more or less zero we did
exponentially increase usage for a couple of centuries. I don't think it's
realistic to continue at the same exponential rate for several centuries more,
regardless of where the energy comes from (maybe in the far future if humanity
starts to look at interstellar travel we would have a usage for such truly
stupendous amounts of energy).

Furthermore, we're not phasing out coal because we're running out of it, but
due to climate/pollution/economics. From a climate perspective, it
unfortunately seems we have more than enough coal left to wreck the climate if
we would burn all of it.

> Breeders, thorium (a breeder fuel), and uranium seawater extraction are
> possible but have proved challenging or limited to date.

The main reason is economics. Uranium is currently just so cheap that it
doesn't make economic sense to deploy breeder reactors and reprocessing yet.
And without volume deployment, they remain expensive and underdeveloped
compared to the current once-through cycle. However, there is no question
whether the technology works. It does.

Earlier in the nuclear age (say 1950-1970 or so), uranium was believed to be
scarce, isotope enrichment by gas diffusion was very expensive and energy
consuming, and we believed the world would soon be powered by atomic energy.
So a lot of effort was made to develop breeder reactor and reprocessing
technology. However, all of this turned out to be incorrect. Uranium turned
out to be quite plentiful, centrifuges made enrichment a lot cheaper, and
nuclear power expansion ground to a standstill.

But the earlier R&D showed that the technology is viable, so if uranium prices
would start to drastically increase, the option to deploy breeders at scale
still exists.

~~~
dredmorbius
Boiling the oceans would indeed be bad, and I suspect we'll see deviation from
long-term growth trends well before that point. But, again, for the third
time, readily available fissionable fuels are much less abundant than is
commonly understood (or you assert), with a supply very likely much below 200
years _at best_ , and quite possibly only a few decades.

What's changed with regards to coal is not geology or geological knowledge,
but consumption. Not mereely increases in existing uses but new applications
of the fuel.

Breeders failed commercially for a number of reasons, fuel costs being only
one factor:

 _The story of the fast breeder reactors is a story about a technology
embraced by large enthusiasm, which never realized its expectations, at least
in the expected time-frame. The reasons for this are many. Partly, it was
technical problems, as those with cooling and safety. There were also
economical difficulties since the price of uranium did not develop as
expected. There were military implications: the problems of handling and
transporting plutonium. Also, there were social or ideological complications,
since public opposition rose against breeder reactors. The political
consequences were that the financial support from the governments
disappeared._

[https://static.sys.kth.se/itm/wp/cesis/cesiswp186.pdf](https://static.sys.kth.se/itm/wp/cesis/cesiswp186.pdf)

------
lymeeducator
It's quite possible that if most people owned a solar roof with batteries and
redundancy across a specified and localized grid, there would be less need for
large power plant owners and fewer donations to political parties. In short,
it is easier for politicians to get donations from a small group of people
than from a large group.

------
29athrowaway
Once I saw a TV show about the challenges of constructing a deposit for
nuclear waste that is expected to operate for thousands of years.

In this show, they mentioned that they did not want to use skulls to represent
danger, because skulls are not seen as dangerous in some cultures (with "Dia
de los muertos" as an specific example).

~~~
dredmorbius
A real problem and challenge. Notions of language and culture are unstable
over such periods, let alone organisations, institutions, and governments.

[https://wipp.info](https://wipp.info)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-
time_nuclear_waste_warnin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-
time_nuclear_waste_warning_messages)

[https://www.vox.com/videos/2018/1/29/16932718/biohazard-
desi...](https://www.vox.com/videos/2018/1/29/16932718/biohazard-design-
nuclear-waste)

------
mceoin
What is the RNC's stance on nuclear?

Does nuclear now enjoy bi-partisan support? Or just the Dems?

~~~
lucb1e
A bit meta, but as someone from Europe where the countries aren't usually
divided into two opposing camps, this seems oddly phrased to me. Could someone
from the USA who considers themselves either neutral or a democrat comment on
whether "just the Dems" sounds negative to you?

~~~
jasongill
It doesn't sound negative to me at all; just a factual way of stating that the
policy is only supported by one party. Perfectly normal figure of speech here
in the states.

------
systematical
Abundant energy is the way to a post scarcity society.

------
Simulacra
Better late than never...

------
witweb
But what's going to happen with the nuclear waste? I've heard too many times
about water getting into permanent repositories and leaking containers
contaminating the biosphere. Seems like a bad idea to me...

~~~
qayxc
Nuclear waste is primarily a political problem (which actually makes it damn
near impossible to solve in the near term).

There's no fundamental problem with it, since it's produced naturally as well
[1] and sites exist that would allow for very safe long term storage if need
be.

It's also possible to get rid of long lived decay products entirely using
certain types of reactors that can "burn" nuclear waste.

Again, political will and major investments would be required to make that
happen, though some companies are already working on it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_Mine)

------
anm89
The Democratic party on most issues will eventually do the right thing,
against its own will, dragging kicking and screaming the entire way.

------
dehrmann
In a way, this is the first time the Democrats are truly taking climate change
seriously.

~~~
avmich
It's in a very specific way only. Have you heard about Jay Inslee?

------
Mrdarknezz
Finally

------
option
A general anti-science movement really hurts human progress with these 3
particularly bad: 1) anti vaccines 2) anti GMO 3) anti nuclear

Great to see Dems starting to endorse nuclear after decades of oppositions
(see John Kerry’s boneheaded earlier efforts to kill it)

~~~
legulere
You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power
plants. And it’s a bit ridiculous to speak about human progress when talking
about GMO in agriculture, when all it’s used for is plants creating their own
insecticides and herbicide tolerance for furthering unsustainable monoculture
farming.

~~~
option
I thought having enough healthy food with as small of environmental impact as
possible is good for human progress /s

~~~
legulere
You mean reducing meat consumption? Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global
agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of
calories. It would even have a big positive environmental impact.

------
htnsao
Within 5 years every machine, building and device may start the transition to
self-charging nuclear diamond batteries with graphene super capacitors. [1]
[2] [3]

So these huge nuclear power plants may quickly become obsolete along with
coal, solar and wind power generation, hydro and fossil fuels.

[1] [https://ndb.technology](https://ndb.technology)

[2] [https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-
batte...](https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-self-charging-batteries-
ndb/)

[3] [https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-battery-
interview-n...](https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamond-battery-interview-
ndb/)

BTW I think HN downvoters should lose karma for downvoting.

~~~
dencodev
>⌇ Possibility of a new generation quantum smartphones.

>⌇ Personal quantum computers

Yeah I can't take this seriously

~~~
htnsao
Yeah not sure why they mentioned quantum computing there without any
supporting information.

However given the rate of scientific progress in general I would say it's very
likely to be achieved in the not-too-distant future, somewhere.

