Live data from Hacker News

Fukushima

podniesinski.pl

181–190 of 227 posts

Re: Fukushima

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there is the option to use less energy. That's just silly. If you are an American, go to any other country to learn how to get by with less energy (ie smaller houses that require less heating, smaller cars that use less fuel, less commuting to begin with, smaller fridges,...).

In theory, there is such an option. In practice, no one will take it, because why should they? It's both a coordination problem and a short/long-term values problem. How do you convince an average Joe to reduce his quality of life now in order to secure some abstract better future later; a future, that will come to pass if and only if every other average Joe and Jane does the same? You can't, unless you're a god. And…

Presumably then controlling population growth is another way to save energy. I took that "how many earths does your life style require" - the evil half of my brain thought "if my lifestyle requires 1,5 earths, then it would be sustainable with one third less people than we have not"...

Afaik China for example is trying to actively manage the population growth/consumption problem, and sometimes they managed to introduce some environment friendly things that took other countries decades (like making filters in car exhausts mandatory, making plastic bags illegal, and so on). Not that China is a model of environmentalism, just saying that it's not a given that third world countries have to take the same route to modern living as US+Europe.

As for why would anybody save energy: it doesn't always have to equate less convenience. For example, even if you gave me the biggest possible car, with some magic CO2-neutral power source and what not, I would still not like commuting. So a solution that involves less commuting could both save energy and be more convenient (for example cool new houses could be build that make it more attractive to live in the city - in fact less cars would make living in the city a lot more attractive).

In general it seems to me that if "convenience X" involves a lot of energy, it will also involve a lot of nuisance (machines that make noises or need a lot of attention - lots of energy passing through it means likely it will break down sooner).

Or better insulating your house could simply be cheaper than paying for the energy to heat it - why wouldn't you then choose to insulate the house?

And so on.

Re: Fukushima

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also says - "The disaster could have been forseen and prevented. As in the Chernobyl case, it was a human, not technology, that was mainly responsible for the disaster." I'd say his stance is pretty nuanced and more to do with the care taken by people when designing and operating nuclear technology than being anti nuclear technology.

Except that excerpt is ridiculous, looking for an emotional hook where one doesn't exist. Humans were not responsible, a major earthquake and tsunami were responsible. Few structures of any kind would stand up to that.

> Humans were not responsible

Well, yes and no:

"TEPCO, that operated the station, had been warned their seawall was insufficient to withstand a powerful tsunami, but the seawall height was not raised in response." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe...

I agree with your general sentiment, but I would say that humans are the biggest threat in nuclear power.

Re: Fukushima

#183
post #17

I found the pictures fascinating, but the accompanying text marred my enjoyment. Considering the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster, the anti-nuclear sentiment really irked me. The Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami killed close to 20,000 people. The author completely ignored those victims. Instead, he focused on Fukushima, which will cause around 150 deaths from cancers. For every tragedy created by Fukushima, there a…

You do not know how many deaths there have been or will be from Fukushima. Every government always under-reports deaths from nuclear exposure.

Saying it is the safest energy technology in existence is a dangerous lie. Solar is safer. Wind is safer. Even natural gas is safer.

Re: Fukushima

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt a bit of that sentiment, but it didn't seem ham-handed. If you are interested in reading about nuclear accidents and the things we can learn from them, I highly suggest Atomic Accidents by James Mahaffey ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20820098-atomic-accident... ). He's pro-nuclear, but acknowledges that there are still things to learn about safe containment. His focus is mainly, and rightly, on the unr…

Is "ham-handed" a cross between being "heavy-handed" and "ham-fisted"? :)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ham-handed

it means the same thing as ham-fisted, more or less.

Re: Fukushima

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The structure stood up fine, we know how to build for that, it was the placement of the air fed diesel generators in a floodable basement that screwed Fukashima.

Structure was probably the wrong word, I meant more the plant as a whole. I think my point still remains... it would be a very rare structure that wouldn't have a design flaw exposed by such a large earthquake/tsunami one-two punch.

How about Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, the closest nuclear plant to the epicenter, which remained almost undamaged after the 14 meter seawall kept out the tsunami.

edit - also, if you design for tsunami, the two-punch scenario is your design brief.

Re: Fukushima

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just up voted this to balance down votes. It's a shame to down vote something just because you dislike an opinion.

Or, you know, it's being downvoted for blatant falsehoods like: "Today's nuclear power plants are inherently unsafe. Most that are in operation depend on active cooling systems to prevent a meltdown."

80% of the world's nuclear fleet are in fact light water reactors - like Fukushima - which require continuous cooling and a constant source of power.

Even the latest passive safety proposals like liquid fluoride thorium reactors don't conclusively solve the fundamental problem of overheating after a cooling system failure [1].

[1] http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2010/6/not-so-fa...

Re: Fukushima

#187
post #14

One thing that grabs my attention is that the radiation levels in the contaminated zones are much lower than I thought they'd be. For context, the limit for a radiation worker in the US is 50 mSv. Obviously, I guess it depends on the radioactive isotopes released and what kind of radiation they release, but I'm still impressed.

That's the limit per year. The figures you're seeing in this article are per hour . It's not immediately lethal, but it's drastically elevated.

The figures are mSv/year or µSv/hour, i.e. harmless.

Re: Fukushima

#188
post #140
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The limit is 50mSv per year, not per hour. Sievert is cumulative unit that has to be either qualified by time or measured over entire lifespan to be meaningfully comparable. But on the other hand quantitatively measuring and comparing radiation effects is hard problem as there is essentially nothing that can be precisely measured and at the same time has any meaning as to biological effects, in practice the conversio…

Would appear that the limit is similar - the "red zone" is for "(> 50 mSv/y)" (note "more than") -- and the sign at the end "Leaving the zone" reads 4.9 mSV/h. That'd be about 42.000 mSV/year -- if we assume constant dose. Or put it another way -- stay an hour and you're at the (safe) limit of exposure for a year. As for all the comments on how nuclear isn't all that dangerous -- how much do we really know about peop…

The numbers in your first paragraph are off by a factor of 1,000. The signs are in microsieverts per hour, not millisieverts. Only the author's peak reading of 6.8µSv/h would have exceeded the maximum for radiation workers, and only if he stood in that spot for a whole year. Even then, it would still be below the lowest dosage that is clearly linked to increased cancer risk (100mSv/year).

Re: Fukushima

#189
post #94
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting to read that burning coal actually produces more radioactive waste than a nuclear plant [1], only because there are loads and loads of it, and there are usually very few regulations involved. Some say that coal is not the only alternative and it can be processed in a safer manner, but this is wishful thinking. Renewable sources involve a costly manufacturing process that is not necessarily green [2]…

Burning coal does not produce more radioactive waste. It is just that under normal operating conditions more is released into the atmosphere from burning coal. However, if there is an accident, then you are talking orders of magnitude more radiation in a nuclear accident. http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

Ah, so it's one of those moments when there are contradicting studies and without getting a PhD on the subject one can't have a meaningful opinion. I just wish there was a good way of settling such situations.

Re: Fukushima

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"you have areas of land where people won't be able to live for thousands of years.." Where are these areas? Can you name a few of them? " in addition to that we have to store the waste from these "safe" plants for few millennia" Nope. After a couple of hundred years it's no more radioactive than the ore from which it came. Long half-life = less radioactive. By definition.

How about Chernobyl exclusion zone? "Ukrainian officials estimate the area will not be safe for human life again for another 20,000 years" [1] "The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years" [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#The_Exclusi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Long_term_ma...

> "Ukrainian officials estimate the area will not be safe for human life again for another 20,000 years"

The source given in the Wiki article is Time: Disasters that Shook the World. Not exactly a scholarly work. It is also the apparent source of this falsehood in the Wiki article: "Even today, radiation levels are so high that the workers responsible for rebuilding the sarcophagus are only allowed to work five hours a day for one month before taking 15 days of rest." According to the article on the exclusion zone itself[1] and the source for said article[2], "More than 3,000 workers manage the Zone, living in Chernobyl town during 4-day and 15-day shifts." Furthermore, the article on the Reactor 4 sarcophagus contains a picture[3] of those same workers less than 200m from Reactor 4 with no protective gear. If radiation levels in the zone were that high they would be fully geared up.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#Popul... [2] http://www.afterchernobyl.com/ [3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Chernoby...

Post reply on HN