Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased birth weights

reuters.com

151–160 of 193 posts

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

#151
post #150
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Coal vs nuclear just isn't an argument worth making.

Clean coal and clean fission are arguably about as likely, and would be about as expensive.

Why bother, when you have solar?

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

#152
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words nuclear never killed anybody apart from the ones it killed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...

I'm no expert on Chernobyl or power generation. But I think Chernobyl was the result of under-investment and poor management, whereas many of the deaths from coal are an unavoidable consequence of burning coal. Hence, you can say nuclear is safer as long as it's managed well.

"But I think Chernobyl was the result of under-investment and poor management"

Chernobyl was extremely poorly engineered, Soviet Union style. Its major flaw was no containment vessel.

Even then, it took real effort to make it fail, and it was all totally unnecessary. It was probably the worst testing-related disaster in history.

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

#153

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…

>There would be more deaths if Japan and Tepco would not pour billions of dollars into collecting as much waste as possible.

(a) Citation needed.

(b) How many more deaths?

(c) Sure, it's good that we clean these things up. There would be more deaths from cars, airplanes, trains or just about anything if we didn't do something about it.

From the NYTimes article:

"400 tons of water a day"

Sounds bad, right? Except when you compare it to a coal plant, which produces about 350 tons of ash (which is more radioactive) and >500 tons of toxic sludge per day in normal operation.

Oh, and just how bad is that water?

"The authorities are debating whether it might be acceptable, given the relatively low radioactive levels in the water, to dilute the contaminated water and then dump it into the ocean."

And of course that is "low" under the current rules, which follow the linear extrapolation ("no safe dosage") assumption that is almost certainly wrong, and tend to be extremely conservative even within that framework.

"200,400 Cubic Meters of Radioactive Rubble"

Again, there is no context given. For water, 1 cubic meter is exactly 1 ton. Concrete is 2.4 tons per cubic meter, but it isn't clear how dense the rubble is. I am guessing significantly less dense than non-rubble concrete. But let's assume this is about 500 Kilotons of rubble, how does that compare?

"Reports indicate that some coastal areas generated as much as 4.35 million metric tons of waste each from the disaster,"[1] (that's the Tsunami, not the meltdown)

So that's about 10 times that amount, from each of several/many(?) sites. How radioactive is the Fukushima rubble? The New York Times article doesn't say, but the one I found (which also mentions 500 Kilotons) says that they measured "133 Bq/kg, well below the limit of 8000 Bq/kq". So 80 times below the limit, and the limits are conservative, so they are just processing it with the "normal" rubble from elsewhere.

How much is 133 Bq/kg? Well, the Potassium inside the human body means that humans produce around 40-60 Bq/kg[2], or a total 4000 Bq per person. Coffee is 1000 Bq/kg. Coal ash is 2000 Bq/kg. 1 household smoke detector with Americanium is 30000 Bq (not per kg, per unit).[2] Bananas are 31 Bq/g, so significantly more radioactive![2], with a single typical Banana of 175g being equivalent to 40 kilos of that rubble. So the rubble is not really all that radioactive and not all that scary.

And so on and so on...

Anyway, I fully understand where you are coming from. Nuclear is scary and the reporting is so incredibly one-sided and innumerate that it is hard to believe just how slanted it is. It certainly took me a while, because I wasn't suspicious, if anything I suspected the media were under-reporting. They aren't.

[1] http://www.naturalnews.com/033949_radioactivity_Fukushima.ht...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

[3] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-...

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

#154
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Coal vs nuclear just isn't an argument worth making. Clean coal and clean fission are arguably about as likely, and would be about as expensive. Why bother, when you have solar?

"Why bother, when you have solar?"

Because solar is intermittent, and isn't practical at all in many parts of the world. The true environmental impact of nuclear is also arguably less, since solar requires a lot of space per watt produced by comparison.

Next-gen nuclear reactor designs from Thorcon Power, Terrestrial and others are very near to perfectly safe, and also produce much less long-term nuclear waste than current designs. There will be an ongoing need for clean, high-density electricity sources.

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

#155
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert on Chernobyl or power generation. But I think Chernobyl was the result of under-investment and poor management, whereas many of the deaths from coal are an unavoidable consequence of burning coal. Hence, you can say nuclear is safer as long as it's managed well.

"But I think Chernobyl was the result of under-investment and poor management" Chernobyl was extremely poorly engineered, Soviet Union style. Its major flaw was no containment vessel. Even then, it took real effort to make it fail, and it was all totally unnecessary. It was probably the worst testing-related disaster in history.

The other major flaw of RBMK reactors is a dangerously high positive void coefficient of reactivity, which self reinforces the nuclear reaction in case of a loss of coolant accident.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient

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

#156
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

"The OFFICIAL REGULATION AUTHORITIES for nuclear safety in Japan had a different opinion"

Citation needed.

I could not find anything supporting that claim in the article you linked to. In fact, there is an article saying the regulator refused to shut down a plant [1]

"Despite attempts by politicians in Tokyo to persuade them to do so, provincial governors and local communities won’t allow them to restart."[2]

"Utilities were unable immediately to restart them due to public opposition."[3]

Also, the regulator that called for tougher standards was a new regulator, politicians having replaced the old one. So very clearly a political move.

So as I wrote, the shutdowns were largely political (or in some cases, routine shutdowns for maintenance happened and the reactors were then not allowed to restart for political reasons. Same difference).

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/18/japan-earthquakes...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/for-japan-...

[3] http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/japan-shuts-down-its...

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

#157
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Coal vs nuclear just isn't an argument worth making. Clean coal and clean fission are arguably about as likely, and would be about as expensive. Why bother, when you have solar?

Because solar is largely unsuitable for base load power stations. Only solar thermal with molten salt storage or a gas pipe nearby to run the turbine during the night counts for base load. Otherwise we are talking 0.2-0.25 capacity factors.

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

#158
post #84
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the mortality rate of wind and hydro calculated? Is it from engineers being killed during maintenance/construction? It feels like those two would have a mortality rate or something similar to "a house."

Hydro means dams and dams can cause a number of accidents if they are not properly maintained.

Also when they are properly maintained. You don't want to be the maintenance guy getting killed by the combination of high water pressure and a 1cm wide opening.

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

#159
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

"The OFFICIAL REGULATION AUTHORITIES for nuclear safety in Japan had a different opinion" Citation needed. I could not find anything supporting that claim in the article you linked to. In fact, there is an article saying the regulator refused to shut down a plant [1] "Despite attempts by politicians in Tokyo to persuade them to do so, provincial governors and local communities won’t allow them to restart."[2] "Utilit…

> politicians having replaced the old one. So very clearly a political move.

The old regulator: 'The Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) granted a 10-year licence extension for Fukushima Daiichi 1 in February 2011, after technical review and some modifications in 2010.'

In March 2011, a month later, the reactor was destroyed incl. a fuel meltdown. It will take decades to clean up the mess. It wasn't even this reactor alone, units 2,3 and 4 were also damaged. Units 5 and 6 are given up in 2013.

Yeah, it was definitely a political move to replace the old regulator. The regulator was corrupt, incompetent, without power, ... The experts have failed. They had granted a ten year life extension to a reactor, which only days later was destroyed in a large scale accident.

It took a political move to replace them. Fully justified.

Don't read the torygraph or treehugger. Read the updates from the World Nuclear Association:

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

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

#160
post #138
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> collapsing damns [...] kill during normal operation Thank god I don't live anywhere near a dam designed to collapse as part of normal operation.

The "during normal operation" referred to the coal plants, which should be pretty obvious.

Obvious from the correctly set commas.
Post reply on HN