Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#141

Post by vidarh » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:30 PM UTC

blowski wrote: post #122

vidarh wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we've demonstrated that you can basically mismanage plants into meltdown, and even then nuclear still ends up killing fewer people.

Over a period of 50 years, you can mismanage a couple of plants and still kill fewer people. But not the entire industry.

I don't know what you are trying to say.

50 years of operation of hundreds of plants. We could have had a repeat of all of the accidents every year and it would still be one of the safest alternatives.

Heck, we could have Chernobyl every year, and even based on the current worst case estimates of reduced life expectancy and counting every one of them as a death, we'd still not compensate for 1 Banqiao failure, or more than 1-2 years worth of coal.

But we're not having a Chernobyl every year. What we are having is vast numbers of preventable deaths due to other types of power generation.

We're talking millions dead over the last 50 years due to other types of plants.

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#142

Post by Turing_Machine » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:31 PM UTC

pdog wrote: post #7

xroche wrote: post #3

Closing nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal power plants is simply criminal. In Europe, coal pollution kills ~20,000 people each year ( ), nuclear never killed a single person, and no study could ever provide any mortality increase due to nuclear energy (outside the Tchernobyl accident, which killed between 200 and 4000 people depending on estimations, after 20 years of study) To be clear: nuclear is no…

Fukushima has demonstrated that humans aren't great at controlling or predicting the real risk of nuclear. The fact is, even if no one dies from acute radiation poisoning, nuclear disasters are costly and devastating.

1) Massive earthquake

2) Devastating tsunami

3) Crippling fire causing loss of power to all control circuitry.

Even with all that, the number of direct radiation casualties was zero. There are about six workers who got more than a lifetime allowed dose of radiation. They may have an increased cancer risk.

1) How many do you suppose would have died had it been a hydroelectric dam of similar capacity? (hint: a lot more than six)

2) Just how safe does something have to be?

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#143

Post by 0xfeba » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:34 PM UTC

agroot12 wrote: post #92

mpweiher wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno. The Tsunami killed upwards of 15000 people. I don't have figures, but I am sure that a good number of these were not killed by the wave directly, but by technical contraptions that failed, crushed them or what have you. One of these many technical contraptions that was damaged/destroyed by the Tsunami was the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Yet, so far not a single person has been killed as a result of…

There would be more deaths if Japan and Tepco would not pour billions of dollars into collecting as much waste as possible. The waste of Fukushima is still an unsolved problem that will eat many billions more (see https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/world/asia/struggling-... ). In fact, even when your reactor does NOT explode, you still have to manage the waste for 10,000 to 1,000,000 years (see https://en.wikipedi…

> So even without a meltdown, you risk many lives in the future. Just because not many people have died yet does not make it a safe energy choice.

Even if that's true, compared to the certain deaths per year caused by coal it still wins out.

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#144

Post by Turing_Machine » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:35 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #52

Tomte wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still don't know how to handle spent fuel. So nuclear apologists are simply offering a calculation, where the biggest risk/liability has been left out, because "what number should we put in?". Also, I'm always fascinated of the "Chernobyl was unsafe, today reactors are safe" argument. The exact same line was fed to us when Chernobyl was state of the art. There are good reasons to think that it may indeed be so thi…

> We still don't know how to handle spent fuel. Actually we do, technically, and the amount is trivial (and can be reused, though that isn't currently being done). Spent fuel is a political problem. In fact, last time I checked even just the radiation from coal power plants is greater than from nuclear plants. > The exact same line was fed to us when Chernobyl was state of the art Chernobyl was never state of the art…

"Chernobyl was never state of the art"

Right. Chernobyl-style designs were rejected at a very early stage in the West.

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#145

Post by Symmetry » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:38 PM UTC

themaninthedark wrote: post #136

Symmetry wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the factors unique to dam failure, large construction projects will statistically result in dead workmen - at least over multiple projects.

Nuclear is a large construction project as well.

Well, really every form of power generation either involves construction or people clambering about on roofs they might fall off of. But this is the reason that forms of power generation with no pollution still kill a certain number of people per trillion Whr.

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#146

Post by Neliquat » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:50 PM UTC

The_Double wrote: post #100

kostyash wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How sweet, the study that guardian refers returns 404: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/silentkillers/

Working link: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Camp...

Maybe avoid taking facts from a terrorist org.

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#147

Post by novalis78 » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:51 PM UTC

Can't wait for the results of Thorcon Power's first plant in Indonesia [1]. Too bad that they could not get past the regulatory innovation kill that's preventing the US from taking a lead on next generation nuclear power plants.

[1]http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/first-walk-away-safe-mo...

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#148

Post by lispm » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:53 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #137

lispm wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it will cost only a few hundred billion dollars, maybe a trillion, to clean up the effects from the earthquake on the nuclear power plants. The country lost most of their nuclear power plants in a single day. It takes years, if not decades to bring them back online - partly. 50 plants. Each worth, say, ten billion dollar (current worth and future earnings - just an estimate). That loss alone goes into the hund…

Right, what you describe are largely the effects of the overreaction , as I was describing elsewhere. There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc.

> There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc

That's your personal opinion. I think it's naive, because you had actually no idea in what state the other reactors were.

The OFFICIAL REGULATION AUTHORITIES for nuclear safety in Japan had a different opinion. Some plants had damages, were shutdown because of the earthquake, every plant needed inspections and every plant needed full safety reviews. That it takes so long to bring some of the reactors back shows that there are lots of doubts about their safety and the industry will need to do more than just say 'there was no need to shut them down' - nobody believes that.

Here you can find a good overview what the authorities are doing and when reactors might be restarted - if at all:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...

Japan sits on a seismic very active region and severe earthquakes and tsunamis happen. It's only logical after such damage to question the whole safety architecture. Are the spend fuel pools in similar unfortunate positions? Are they full, too? What happens at complete loss of outside electricity? Are the reactors able to safely shutdown then, unlike Fukushima? Can the spent fuel pools be cooled? Are there instruments in the reactor able to survive massive damage in an earth quake? There are many many questions which have not been asked for a decade, because the consequences would have been costly upgrades and even the shutdown of reactors - for example those sitting near fault lines.

Given that the nuclear industry in Japan is corrupt and runs very old reactors with severe design mistakes, I think it is only justified to shut down the industry for a full review. That would also include the whole network of politicians, research, industry, utilities, ...

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#149

Post by Neliquat » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

mcone wrote: post #129

You don't need to convince me of the dangers of coal pollution. I grew up in Farmington, New Mexico with two massive coal-fired power plants right outside of town. But this article ignores the consequences, and apparently the very existence, of nuclear waste. This is a problem we'll be dealing with for tens of thousands of years. It's unlikely that today's pollution from coal-fired power plants will endanger the live…

So where does coal pollution go in your mind that renders it inert and nonradioactive? Please re read your statement and look how dumb it is.

Re: Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

#150

Post by petre » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 2:01 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #45

thro1111111 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only kills in case of a serious incident. Incidents are rare. Coal pollution and deaths are guaranteed

That's not true. Coal pollution and deaths are guaranteed mainly by economic disincentives to using clean coal technologies. Even mercury and CO2 emissions could be captured. But then, that would likely make solar the clear choice.

There is no clean coal. Coal mining alone produces environmental disasters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_co...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters

Carbon capture and storage technologies also lead to 50..91% increased electricity costs.

http://www.ekopolitan.com/climate/ccs-five-reports-realistic...