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

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

#431

Post by crwalker » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:19 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #393

beat wrote: post #369

Of course, this is only comparing to fossil sources, not solar, wind, or other renewables (except biomass). I don't think this is going to matter in the end, though. The best, most optimistic arguments the nuclear proponents can make would still take 20-30 years to build out enough to make a standard-deviation difference in greenhouse gasses. Meanwhile, solar/wind are already hitting production costs that rival or be…

> Of course, this is only comparing to fossil sources, not solar, wind, or other renewables (except biomass). You can include them, nuclear still comes out ahead. Solar, wind, etc, are not very power-dense. So you need a LOT of installations, building all of them inevitably has fatalities and injuries. (Falls for example.) From here: http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear... (and you can google…

I don't think the exact numbers matter at all.

What matters is that solar is generally perceived to be safer, easier, and cleaner than nuclear at any scale. I feel confident that I could set up my own solar installation safely, and that makes me more likely to do so, regardless of the fatality rates of using ladders or driving to the hardware store.

Because it's easier for clean energy adopters to take small steps towards solar than large steps towards nuclear, I think that's what they will do.

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

#432

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:19 PM UTC

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…

We would be in a better place with respect to greenhouse gasses. But we're also subject to long term disposal of waste products and high risk of pollution of groundwater, and other water sources. Some of those risks will be risks for thousands of years.

The typical answers from nuclear proponents never cover what to do with the waste product.

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

#433

Post by door » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:20 PM UTC

tryitnow wrote: post #228

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…

To be fair this article doesn't say nuclear energy is safe - rather that it is the safest relative to other sources. You mention Chernobyl and Fukushima - but those only stand out because the effects were concentrated in time and space (happened all at once and afflicted specific geographical regions). The deleterious health effects of coal, oil, and natural gas are more diffuse. They don't make such good news storie…

it's not irrational to prefer probabilistic, long-term problems to maybe once or twice having to evacuate new york or tokyo

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

#434

Post by mncolinlee » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:20 PM UTC

Not true. In the short run, solar is the safest. A massive spill of solar energy is just called a nice day. In the long run, it's the most dangerous. The sun may eventually consume the Earth and much later, go nova.

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

#435

Post by beat » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:21 PM UTC

am1988 wrote: post #410

beat wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend who makes that argument. It sounds laughably absurd when he makes it, too. Do you understand anything about risk management? edit: I've stated elsewhere in this thread that the absurdist language used by nuclear power proponents greatly undermines their credibility. This is a perfect example.

I see one person posting an argument with numbers and links to the source and another just calling them absurd. Wonder who I should listen to.

Adding numbers to an absurd argument does not make it magically not absurd.

On one side, a nervous public is concerned with Fukushima and Chernobyl, cities made suddenly uninhabitable by nuclear accidents. On the other side, someone counts people falling off of ladders while putting panels on a roof, and declares it some sort of rhetorical victory.

Arguing that nuclear is safer than solar because solar is so dangerous is a terrible argument. It makes you look like a fanatic who doesn't stop and listen to reason, like someone who cherry-picks "facts" to support a nonsense argument.

edit, to be perfectly clear: I am not saying nuclear power is unsafe.

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

#436

Post by neurotech1 » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:21 PM UTC

Nuclear energy is only as safe as the people operating it. Admiral Rickover demanded a high personal standard for reactor personnel, and there was ZERO reactor accidents[0] because of those standards.

IMO Natural Gas/BioGas powered turbine generators are better option to augment wind and solar power generation. The GE LM6000 [1] gas turbine (based on a 747 GE CF6 engine) can produce 40MW+ of electricity. They could even recycle a surplus CF6 engine to reduce manufacturing resources required.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Safety_recor...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM6000

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

#437

Post by beat » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:24 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #430

roryisok wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk of injury or death while installing solar may be greater than nuclear by the numbers, but if a guy falls off his roof installing a solar panel it doesn't poison the land around him for hundreds of years

Perhaps not, but the waste from solar panel manufacturing might. http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-... > The paper’s investigation, published in March 2008, profiled a Chinese polysilicon facility owned by Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., located near the Yellow River in the country’s Henan province. This facility supplied polysilicon to Suntech Power Holdings, at the time the world’s l…

That's not a particularly good argument, though. Are companies manufacturing solar panels breaking environmental laws to cut costs? Probably.

Are companies manufacturing nuclear power components with exotic materials not breaking environmental laws to cut costs? Um.

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

#438

Post by rsync » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:24 PM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #362

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…

Indeed. I suggest people check out part six of Adam Curtis' Pandora's Box, that cover this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_Box_%28TV_series%29#... On top of all of this we had a generation that was hammered about the dangers of a nuclear war, including the potential poisoning of the environment around a blast by fallout. And at the core of all this we have the issue that radiation is a silent killer. We can'…

"And at the core of all this we have the issue that radiation is a silent killer. We can't smell it, we can't see it, we can't feel it. This amps up the fear element greatly."

As well it should. Dangerous things that you cannot detect with any of your human senses are rightly to be feared.

This behavior is well-preserved in humans for a reason.

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

#439

Post by jessriedel » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:24 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #191

jessriedel wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lawsuits from people who don't want to lose their government housing subsidies because they have an irrational fear of negligible radiation are the epic consequences?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/10/japan-fukushim...

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

#440

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:24 PM UTC

xcryogenicx wrote: post #365

btilly wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Just see 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl. The fact that you would reference TMI in reference to dirty bombs is extremely telling in that you have no idea what you're talking about. The average radiation exposure outside TMI compound was less that an airplane flight or x-ray. Bananas are literally more dangerous.

Perhaps someone dropped a banana. The average exposure was 8 millirem (equivalent to a chest X-ray), and the peak outside the facility was 100 millirem (average annual exposure).