Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest • Hacker News Board

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#71

Post by FussyZeus » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #25

FussyZeus wrote: post #2

The brain is not designed to understand statistics. Nuclear accidents are theatrical and fun, and therefore get a lot of play on the media when they happen. Look no further than the media circus surrounding Fukushima to confirm. Everybody is scared to death of Sharks, yet sharks killed only 1 person in the US last year. Cows killed 20, 75% of which were deliberate attacks, but almost no one is afraid of a Cow. Meanwh…

People and their egos crave control. With something like driving, you feel at least somewhat in control of your own destiny. Coming face to face with a shark does not afford the same sense, same with an unstoppable chain reaction occurring deep in a nuclear reactor and the ensuing fallout.

You're correct, but there's only been a few failures like that in the entire history of Nuclear energy, one of which was a ridiculous test far beyond the scope of logic and reason (Chernobyl), one of which was a completely safe and designed failure that killed no one and did nearly nothing in terms of actual damage (3 Mile Island) and one that was the result of a plant being hit in the exact wrong spot by a natural event that it had not been designed to withstand in the first place, and despite that, still failed in a largely predictable and contained way.

And not to mention, the much wider used coal plants and natural gas plants kill way more people in a lot less theatrical ways, largely through disease of the lungs and skin. Again though watching someone die of black lung isn't nearly as interesting as watching someone die of radiation sickness, so we don't hear about it.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#72

Post by eloff » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

My understanding, which is admittedly drawn from HN "napkin math" , is that at current prices for solar and wind, nuclear is a non-starter. That trend is only intensifying. It seems to me that nuclear could have been a good option, but because we've neglected it for so long, squashed innovation with regulations (not necessarily complaining that it didn't need the regulations!) it is uncompetitive economically and will likely stay that way for the near future. Amazingly enough even coal is uncompetitive in many parts of the world now too. The future is starting to turn green under the invisible hand of market economics.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#73

Post by nothrabannosir » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

sbarker wrote: post #45

cjsuk wrote: post #14

Apart from the waste. We really don't know what to do about it other than bury it and leave it for a few tens to hundreds of generations in the future to deal with with the hope that they will know what to do. So it's the safest option. But only for now. We might just be dooming our descendants to deal with the mess and they might be in a worse state than we are now.

We should shoot the waste into to sun.

That is hard (there was an article on HN about exactly this a while ago). You need a large amount of energy to cancel out our orbit or you just end up sending it into its own solar orbit (which will intersect with ours, to boot).

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#74

Post by lmm » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:27 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #12

Can anyone explain to me why "deaths/tWh" is even a meaningful measure? Of course nuclear energy has one of the highest Wh outputs, no-one is disputing that. However, what does that have to do with the risk of use? That seems like a measure very skewed to make arguments in favour of nuclear power. I might as well argue that car drivers are safer than pedestrians because the average deaths/horse power is vastly lower.…

> Of course nuclear energy has one of the highest Wh outputs, no-one is disputing that. However, what does that have to do with the risk of use? That seems like a measure very skewed to make arguments in favour of nuclear power.

Erm, wtf? The world's energy requirements are a more-or-less fixed number of tWh, no? Like, if 1 nuclear reactor produces as much energy as 10000 wind turbines, comparing the deaths that would be caused by 1 reactor to the deaths that would be caused by 10000 turbines seems like the obviously correct comparison to make.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#75

Post by Havoc » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

anorphirith wrote: post #8

the only problem is where to get the uranium, I believe russia gets it from kazakhstan. france from niger. does US buys it from kazakhstan as well ?

I don't think it's particularly hard to get since quite a few countries have viable reserves.

It's the enrichment which is the tricky part.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#76

Post by tboughen » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

jesus92gz-spain wrote: post #63

How can nuclear (fision) energy be safer than wind/solar/hydro? New efficient solar cells should be enough, environment friendly, and safer than other alternatives as long as the manufacturing of these are environment friendly as well. Also, everyone can setup their own solar plant at home, I almost did so, but the price of the materials and the setup are too high for me. I'd like you to consider if nuclear material…

I believe it us due to the installation deaths. Typically solar cells are installed on rooftops, which are non-trivially dangerous places to work. Multiply the risk by tens of thousands of installations and we get fatalities due to solar power.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#77

Post by 1337biz » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

Logical arguments do not apply in that scenario. Other energy forms might kill people a slow, invisible death. But when a nuclear reactor melts down the pictures of death and drama will go around the world.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#78

Post by nemo » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

sbarker wrote: post #45

cjsuk wrote: post #14

Apart from the waste. We really don't know what to do about it other than bury it and leave it for a few tens to hundreds of generations in the future to deal with with the hope that they will know what to do. So it's the safest option. But only for now. We might just be dooming our descendants to deal with the mess and they might be in a worse state than we are now.

We should shoot the waste into to sun.

Not a lot of fun if the transport rocket fails.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#79

Post by cuckcuckspruce » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

kaikai wrote: post #35

nabla9 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the waste starts to leak, it will be just local problem and not big catastrophe. Compared to global warming, burying nuclear waste is more responsible solution for the future generations sake.

Nuclear waste leaking into an aquifer or the ocean will not be a local problem.

Not necessarily. Ocean disposal of nuclear waste used to be an option, but was banned in 1993. Studies of disposal sites in use before then seem to indicate that any problems found were very local[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#80

Post by zackmorris » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

cjsuk wrote: post #14

Apart from the waste. We really don't know what to do about it other than bury it and leave it for a few tens to hundreds of generations in the future to deal with with the hope that they will know what to do. So it's the safest option. But only for now. We might just be dooming our descendants to deal with the mess and they might be in a worse state than we are now.

I live in Idaho, and something that comes up fairly regularly is whether to accept more nuclear waste shipments to be stored at the https://www.inl.gov indefinitely.

To me, nuclear power is not good or bad (it just is), but I have a very low level of confidence that humans can manage it over the long term. Power companies don't seem to be willing to spend the money needed to encapsulate waste for thousands of years. That would basically mean revisiting all the waste that is currently stored and freeze it in glass or whatever. If the industry did that for all existing waste and proved their expertise in that area, then I think more people would entertain the notion of more reactors.