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

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

#311

Post by iheartmemcache » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:04 PM UTC

bmcusick wrote: post #266

CydeWeys wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if it lasts longer than a tar-asphalt shingle roof, which seems reasonable given the materials involved, it will actually reduce deaths.

Right. Great point. It could cut risks in half if it lasts twice as long.

We'd need long term statistics to fully develop a model of risk. I.e., (admittedly, anecdotally) within the first year or two of having his monocrystalline setup, Dave[1] suffered damage to one panel (aerial debris) requiring a service call to replace the unit. If this happens on a semi-frequent basis (i.e. one panel per ~3 years per install) the risk profile changes not insignificantly.

[1] https://player.fm/series/eevblog/eevblog-844-solar-panel-rep...

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

#312

Post by pmoriarty » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:05 PM UTC

ricw wrote: post #203

The quoted statistics are interesting, but irrelevant when it comes to the actual use of nuclear. Furthermore, why are solar and wind energy missing from these stats? They account for 90% of new power in Europe in 2016 [1], and I'd assume similar for the major world economies. I'd like to know who funded this study. It screams of nuclear industry backing... For anyone still being in disbelief of nuclear being made ob…

There needs to be more awareness of this. If nuclear power was so amazingly safe, private insurance companies should have no problems insuring it. But they won't.

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

#313

Post by Retric » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:06 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #222

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…

>It was developed out of government driven military technology That's not a justification. The internet was also developed out of DARPA. Most of silicon valley exists because of cold war electronics warfare research, etc.

Civilian nuclear plants where designed, built, and operated to reduce the costs of nuclear weapons. This resulted in huge subsides, but also a lot of export controls. You can't say that about the internet.

PS: A lot of past regulations seem dumb today, but power was not the primary goal which shaped a lot of policy.

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

#314

Post by jimmaswell » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:06 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #262

payne92 wrote: post #13

I believe the politicization of nuclear energy (the resulting lack of investment & innovation) will go down as one of the major blunders in human history. We'd be in a far, far better situation with greenhouse gasses if we (as a human race) had continued to invest in nuclear energy. There would have been mishaps along the way, but at a much smaller scale than we're experiencing now with deaths from air pollution and…

The problem with nuclear energy is that a nuclear power plant isn't very different in concept from a nuclear bomb. Getting the latter from the former is a serious concern. Having the former accidentally turn into a dirty nuke (not a lot of force, but lots of fallout), is scarily easy. Just see 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.

It is very different. You can't just make an atom bomb out of what's available at a nuclear plant. They're entirely different concepts requiting diffrrent materials.

Chernobyl was an outdated design known to be dangerous at the time it was made, and something like the Chernobyl incident can't happen on anything newer. A study found statistically insignificant rises in cancer rates from the 3 Mile incident.

I recommend the book Atomic Accidents, it's very informative and I believe it went over specifically why a nuclear plant can't just explode like an atom bomb or even really help you make one.

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

#315

Post by dfox » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:06 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #192

dfox wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would assume that all-DC grid would happen before that (and solve the issues with grid stability). Extrapolating from the rate at which Europe migrated from 110V AC to 230V AC you are looking at at least 50 years for that to happen.

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

#316

Post by ronald_raygun » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:06 PM UTC

moomin wrote: post #255

I'm something of a fan of nuclear power, but there's no way it's safer than a solar panel array. Ah, they didn't include renewables. Colour me surprised.

Renewables solve a different problem though. There aren't great ways of storing energy on a large scale. So you end up needed two components to a grid - a baseline that you can scale up whenever (coal, natural gas, nuclear), and a renewable component. Saying that nuclear is the safest in regards to a baseline energy load is a valid argument to make.

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

#317

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:06 PM UTC

unabst wrote: post #288

mikeash wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Right. You see the red there? How long before it's all habitable? Here's another example. A beach that had a quarter million visitors a year had to be shut down, and was recently reopened thanks to "tide embankment construction". That's seven years of not being able to go to the beach because of nuclear, and now they're told it's safe because the water is blocked. Japan is still living with the disaster. For locals,…

The red part is what I described as "some tens of square kilometers temporarily uninhabitable." It's not the "briefly unsafe" part.

> Statistics will not change anyone's mind.

This is really what it comes down to, isn't it? And I agree, no matter what the numbers are, it doesn't convince opponents.

I get that this is the case, but I'm still baffled by it when I'm confronted by such people here. I'd hope that HN commenters, at least, would be amenable.

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

#318

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:07 PM UTC

martinald wrote: post #304

mikeash wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not. Germany is having to do this right now - hitting 30-40% and it's really expensive.

Because they apparently didn't anticipate this and now have to retrofit the equipment. If you're building out new stuff, you don't have to retrofit.

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

#319

Post by outworlder » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:08 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…

> So for every atom of U235 you get about 200 (give or take) atoms of U238

How is that even a problem? Nuclear power plants do not require much fissionable material at all. Compare that with any fossil fueled power plant.

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

#320

Post by jsonne » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:08 PM UTC

Koromix wrote: post #137

simias wrote: post #64

People are scared of nuclear energy for the same reason that they're scared of taking an airplane. Even though it's technically and statistically very safe, the perceived risk appears much greater. In particular in both cases when something goes wrong it tends to go extremely wrong and you're completely helpless to stop it. In contrast getting in a car accident or slowly suffocating in coal power plant emissions seem…

> People are scared of nuclear energy for the same reason that they're scared of taking an airplane. Even though it's technically and statistically very safe, the perceived risk appears much greater. [...] I'm more worried about global warming than Fukushima and I'd gladly trade even a dozen of Fukushima-type incidents in the next decades (highly unlikely) if it could stop global warming and its dire, hard-to-revert…

I'm no biologist or scientist of any sort, but it seems this is a problem with all apex predators to some degree. You get to the top of the food chain by adapting to and being highly reactive to short term and catastrophic risk. Once you get there you have to do a 180 and suddenly be highly attuned to subtle and long term issues to stay there. It's simply a different skill set and frame of mind.