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

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

#191

Post by emodendroket » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #131

padseeker wrote: post #91

This is the year 2017 - This article deliberately skips over any consideration to Wind, Solar, etc. What kind of BULLSHIT excuse for journalism and scientific study is this? Who in the nuclear industry paid for this? I only read the first 3 paragraphs but I can already tell you this article is not worth your time. The article compares the statistics of energy sources, but all of the charts focus on fossil fuels. This…

What were the epic consequences of Fukushima? No one died of radiation poisoning, and the actuarial deaths from cancer in the future are going to be minuscule compared to the natural disaster the precipitated it, and in any case much smaller than from fossil fuels. Under any cost-benefit analysis, the primary negative impact of Fukushima was the absurd amount of money being spent on decommissioning, but this is an ar…

Massive displacement with ongoing disputes between residents and the government over whether it's safe to return seems like the obvious one.

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

#192

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

dfox wrote: post #188

mikeash wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turn off solar+wind remotely (often very expensive to retrofit to existing installations as the Germans found out) If we're talking about problems that show up when wind/solar becomes an order of magnitude more prevalent than it is now, why would you care about the cost of retrofitting anything?

This is problem that happens in the German/European electrical grid right now, not at some point in future.

Right, but in the context of a world where 30-40% of the grid is solar/wind, it's easy.

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

#193

Post by wbl » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

nextos wrote: post #95

padseeker wrote: post #91

This is the year 2017 - This article deliberately skips over any consideration to Wind, Solar, etc. What kind of BULLSHIT excuse for journalism and scientific study is this? Who in the nuclear industry paid for this? I only read the first 3 paragraphs but I can already tell you this article is not worth your time. The article compares the statistics of energy sources, but all of the charts focus on fossil fuels. This…

Taleb would say all this statistics are bullshit, cause they ignore the long tails. I doubt a gas or coal power station can destroy a nation. A nuclear plant has the potential to do so.

Did Chernobyl? The reactor next door kept operating after the accident. A coal fly ash spill closed a river to fishing for weeks.

Nuclear accident badness is massively overplayed by the media.

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

#194

Post by wbl » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:15 PM UTC

all_usernames wrote: post #179

lmm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Unless we start importing uranium from off-planet, there just isn't enough material to make the whole planet significantly radioactive.

What does significantly radioactive mean? If I am a single individual, a single particle of Cesium or whatever could give me cancer. It's not an averages game when you're talking about real lives.

Do you know how much uranium coal plants release into the air?

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

#195

Post by joaomacp » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

I don't have much knowledge of the issue, but couldn't it be that big investments in nuclear energy would propagate and facilitate the process of isotope separation for enriching Uranium, which would mean more countries having the technology to build nuclear weapons, and thus increase the risk of nuclear war, and ultimately human extinction? This stuff sounds scary to me, not the energy part

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

#196

Post by CydeWeys » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

datenwolf wrote: post #163

mikeash wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the sources of CO2 for mining and all the rest? If it's electricity production then you're basically blaming nuclear for emissions from fossil fuel generation, since those would be much lower in an all-nuclear world. If it's transport then it's more justified, but when looking at how it could be in the future, transport can be electrified to close that loop.

It's mostly due to the chemistry required to liberate the Uranium from the ore. What you have in the ore is mostly Uranium oxides. You have to strip away those pesky oxygen atoms in order to further process the Uranium. And in that process quite the amount of CO2 is produced. Now keep in mind that this must be done to all the Uranium, before it undergoes enrichtment. So for every atom of U235 you get about 200 (give…

Thanks for the info. It's seeming that solar and wind are better from a full-lifecycle perspective, and if we can just solve that pesky energy storage issue then it's done.

Nuclear is oddly politicized, both pro- and anti-, whereas I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not the worst power source but it's also not the best. It's not worth continuing to invest in for the future because better sources are already coming online that don't have the associated fallout risk, hazardous materials disposal issue, and intensive mining/refining processes.

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

#197

Post by Tomte » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:17 PM UTC

Before Chernobyl blew up, nuclear energy proponents promised us, nuclear energy was safe.

When Chernobyl blew up, it was obviously a stupid Soviet design, with stupid operating personnel. But now we've got new reactors, they are safe! Nothing could ever happen!

Then Fukushima blew up. That was obviously okay, because it was a Tsunami in conjunction with a few other improbable acts, and we obviously can't expect the nuclear industry to plan for that!

So we're now in the next round. Again, we're totally safe. We've got passive reactors. Really disruptive (g) tech!

I'm sorry, I said it before and I said it again: proponents of nuclear energy have either been lying to us every single time over the last decades, or they can't really manage nuclear energy.

I don't care which one it is, and I don't care whether they believe nuclear energy is safe now. They have been playing with catastrophes of a magnitude we can't really comprehend, and the best they manage to do is "it could have been even worse" and "we promise this was the last time".

As far as I'm concerned, I'm all for making sure it was the last time.

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

#198

Post by wbl » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:18 PM UTC

internalfx wrote: post #174

Can anyone comment on if the LFTR is legit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

It isn't. Molten salt is highly corrosive.

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

#199

Post by all_usernames » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:18 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.…

Isn't cancer one of the main risks of radioactive pollution? These deaths/X metrics don't account for disease.

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

#200

Post by CydeWeys » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 5:18 PM UTC

nnfy wrote: post #151

lispm wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear energy was politicized from day minus one. It was developed out of government driven military technology. In day zero nuclear energy was set up by politicians: goals, strategies, financing, deployment, risk handling, etc. Everything was coming from energy politics. Investments were directed and the market&regulations for nuclear were set up. Government largely financed it and insures it. The large scale, the…

Fukushima was safe, by all standards. This was not related to corruption. It was simply not designed for the rarity of a magnitude 9 earthquake and the scale of the tsunami that followed. Your house in a five hundred year floodplain is not unsafe for lacking stilts. Safety costs money, this wasn't corruption.

How can you say it was safe with a straight face when it clearly wasn't? That's like saying your car is fine when it's smashed upside-down in a ditch on the side of the highway.

If some standards claimed it was safe, then those standards were simply wrong. By other standards (including, most importantly, reality), it definitely wasn't safe.