Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 679 posts

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

#231

Post by bmcusick »

candiodari wrote: post #143
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…

> 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? Wind is hanging rapidly rotating turbines on thin shafts 100-200 meter off the ground. Are you seriously going to claim installing and maintaining those things is a safe occupation ? They are referred…

Not to detract from your larger point, but rooftop solar is not most of the solar market. Utility scale solar panels (the fields of solar panels on 10' poles) is a lot bigger, and has lower risk.

Another thing to think about is that with solar roofs becoming a thing (there are more companies in this market than just Tesla), the additional risk associated with rooftop solar could be seen as "zero", since houses need to install a roof anyway.

But yes, your larger point that renewables aren't risk free is valid and correct.

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

#232

Post by pps43 »

mrb wrote: post #219
Tomte wrote: post #197

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 n…

" They have been playing with catastrophes of a magnitude we can't really comprehend " Did you even read the article? Statistics show you that nuclear is safer. Coal/oil/etc actually kill about 1000× more people than nuclear per TWh generated.

So if you played Russian roulette a couple of times and lived, it must be safe, right? Probability is events over trials, zero events in two trials means probability of dying is 0/2=0%.

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

#233

Post by ekianjo »

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…

Then you need to count the whole refining process that goes in making usable petrol, too. This is not totally unique to nuclear.

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

#234

Post by m0skit0 »

thinkcontext wrote: post #218

I find this line of reasoning a little misleading. Looking at nuclear's safety record isn't entirely the correct measure, its that the potential consequences are so extreme. Consider Fukushima. In some ways Japan got lucky, it was entirely possible that an additional reactor on the site could have melted down and the holding pond could have breached. Because of this they were having to consider evacuating areas on th…

Got lucky? I think the opposite: Chernobyl was unlucky. I mean, you're basically calling all these nuclear incidents "lucky". That doesn't statistically hold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and...

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

#236

Post by komali2 »

Now that is an introduction!

>The production of energy can be attributed to both mortality (deaths) and morbidity (severe illness) cases as a consequence of each stage of the energy production process:

A lot of people here may know what mortality and morbidity mean straight off, but I want to share this article as much as possible, and it does a great job reaching out to laymen. I also like how it starts right off with "more energy is good, here's a link demonstrating why, let's move on."

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

mikeash wrote: post #204
datenwolf wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What part of that process produces CO2? I'm reading up on it but everything I find gives a fairly simplified view of things. The chemical reactions discussed on Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride ) don't involve any carbon, but maybe it's from some secondary aspect?

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by bmcusick »

CydeWeys wrote: post #210
bmcusick wrote: post #202

Ctrl+F "Solar", "Wind". No matches found. That's weird, huh? I'm all for a rational assessment of risk, but shouldn't they be on the list? Actually, I've seen such comparisons, and solar and wind do pretty well. They don't kill anyone from air pollution and global warming, but manufacturing and maintenance isn't risk-free. When you install things on roofs, sometimes people fall off. Most solar installation these days…

I'd be surprised if the biggest source of injury from solar wasn't from installers falling off roofs. You can't count all of those injuries against solar itself, though, as roofing injuries will happen regardless, and putting up solar panels greatly extends the life of a roof, so the amortized total injury to installers doesn't go up as much.

Plus with Tesla's solar roof, you might say that the additional risk of solar is zero, since it's (probably, I'm guessing) no more dangerous to install than any other roof.

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

#239

Post by mrb »

pps43 wrote: post #232
mrb wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" They have been playing with catastrophes of a magnitude we can't really comprehend " Did you even read the article? Statistics show you that nuclear is safer. Coal/oil/etc actually kill about 1000× more people than nuclear per TWh generated.

So if you played Russian roulette a couple of times and lived, it must be safe, right? Probability is events over trials, zero events in two trials means probability of dying is 0/2=0%.

We have been operating thousands of nuclear generators for 60 years.

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

#240

Post by mikeash »

beders wrote: post #220
mikeash wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas kills 4,000 people per PWh generated. Fukushima killed zero immediately, and might kill 100-200 eventually through increased cancer incidences. Fukushima made a few hundred square kilometers briefly unsafe, and some tens of square kilometers temporarily uninhabitable. (Or really, inhabitable but slightly unhealthy.) Fossil fuels are wrecking the entire planet. It's interesting that Fukushima seems to be a…

briefly unsafe What crack are you smoking? How about you move to Chernobyl and check in with the local population. Oh, that's right. No one can live there anymore....

A good chunk of the area evacuated for Fukushima was later cleared and the residents allowed to return. See here: http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/Evacuation...

I guess understanding the situation means I'm smoking crack?

Post reply on HN