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

531–540 of 679 posts

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

#531

Post by xelas »

Let's cut a crap, shell we? We can't solve climate change problem which might be acute for last 20 years, yet we believe somehow that we are able to solve storage issue of nuclear waste for next 100 000. Egyptian pyramids are ONLY 5000 years old! And we are not 100% sure what is written in there.

How do you warn next generation after 10 000 years, that some particular site is dangerous/radiaoctive? How do we keep something safe for 100 000 years? Is our Earth look same after 20 000 years, 50 000 years, 70 000 years? Will there be new volcano or shift of tectonic plates? Ice age? How do you keep such waste safe?

Even as of today, there is no final storage solution for spent nuclear fuel. There is one know being built in Finland, and it is just for waste produces in Finland. BTW, there is very nice movie about it: Into Eternity. You should look it!

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

#532

Post by xelas »

Let's cut a crap, shell we? We can't solve climate change problem which might be acute for last 20 years, yet we believe somehow that we are able to solve storage issue of nuclear waste for next 100 000. Egyptian pyramids are ONLY 5000 years old! And we are not 100% sure what is written in there.

How do you warn next generation after 10 000 years, that some particular site is dangerous/radiaoctive? How do we keep something safe for 100 000 years? Is our Earth look same after 20 000 years, 50 000 years, 70 000 years? Will there be new volcano or shift of tectonic plates? Ice age? How do you keep such waste safe? And what is the true cost of nuclear energy if you account 100 000 years storage of it?

Even as of today, there is no final storage solution for spent nuclear fuel. There is one know being built in Finland, and it is just for waste produces in Finland. BTW, there is very nice movie about it: Into Eternity. You should look it!

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

#533

Post by godelski »

Animats wrote: post #527
jcranberry wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've heard (through two or three levels of separation), the regulatory agency on Nuclear power is stiflingly draconian. Getting any kind of new technology implemented is prohibitively difficult and expensive, which just adds to the list of disincentives in venturing into nuclear power.

The regulatory agency on Nuclear power is stiflingly draconian. That's a feature. It's why Harrisburg, PA is still populated.

You don't need Draconian regulation to have effective regulation.

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

#534

Post by Mz »

godelski wrote: post #525
jcranberry wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've heard (through two or three levels of separation), the regulatory agency on Nuclear power is stiflingly draconian. Getting any kind of new technology implemented is prohibitively difficult and expensive, which just adds to the list of disincentives in venturing into nuclear power.

Average time from final designs to shovel in the ground is about 10 years. So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building. I do agree there should be TIGHT regulations, but there certainly is a limit. Also, it has a lack of subsidies, compared to the other sectors.

So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building.

Cutting edge tech tends to be unproven and unreliable tech. When you can lose an entire city if things go wrong, worrying about having the latest tech is the wrong priority.

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

#535

Post by godelski »

Animats wrote: post #529
godelski wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average time from final designs to shovel in the ground is about 10 years. So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building. I do agree there should be TIGHT regulations, but there certainly is a limit. Also, it has a lack of subsidies, compared to the other sectors.

There's a huge subsidy in that the Federal Government subsidizes the disaster insurance.

Owners of plants are responsible for the first $12b. 3 mile cleanup was well under this. So I'm going to have to disagree. But I'll give a caveat, it is a sample size of 1. A major accident would cost much more, but they are extremely unlikely.

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

#536

Post by mrb »

Tomte wrote: post #273
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.

No, you're wrong. The statistics are based on "what happened so far" and "what we think could happen if things got really bad". The last part has been proven untrue time and again. Every single time nuclear proponents said "that cannot happen" and after it happened they found a new fallback position "okay, that could happen, but it cannot ever get worse".

No. Statistics are based on actual deaths. They don't extrapolate "what could happen in the future". Go read the actual source, table 2 of: http://www.scotianwindfields.ca/sites/default/files/publicat...

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

#537

Post by KVFinn »

chris_va wrote: post #321

There are a couple of things everyone should know when it comes to energy production: 1) Energy investment is primarily driven by cost, not perceived/actual safety. Safety regulations do affect cost, but not enough to significantly change investment (at least in the US, with the current conditions). 2) Base load power and intermittent (e.g. solar/wind) power are not the same thing, and are not comparable. The concept…

>Base load power and intermittent (e.g. solar/wind) power are not the same thing, and are not comparable.

>Barring some energy storage miracle, we'll eventually end up with ~35% renewables, 15% hydro, 50% natural gas in the US, with HVDC interconnect. No nuclear, no coal.

Does this scenario look any more promising with a massive government project to build HVDC? That reduces the intermittent aspect of solar/wind (weather comes in band and sun and wind are somewhat anti-correlated, more true over larger distance). Could we push that renewable percentage up higher and use gas more for peaking?

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

#538

Post by godelski »

Mz wrote: post #534
godelski wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average time from final designs to shovel in the ground is about 10 years. So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building. I do agree there should be TIGHT regulations, but there certainly is a limit. Also, it has a lack of subsidies, compared to the other sectors.

So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building. Cutting edge tech tends to be unproven and unreliable tech. When you can lose an entire city if things go wrong, worrying about having the latest tech is the wrong priority.

Who said anything about cutting edge? I don't care what you're building, but 10-20 years between when you start to design and have a finished product is too much time.

They have a lot of research reactors, but honestly, the only way you're going to get bigger and safer reactors is if you scale up those research reactors. There is literally no other way. And we WANT to improve safety. Don't we? I'm not saying to use cutting edge. I'm saying use what has been proven at smaller scale and is well tested. Not two generation old technology.

> When you can lose an entire city if things go wrong

This is EXTREMELY unlikely. Even when things go wrong.

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

#539

Post by godelski »

contravariant wrote: post #512
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some of the recently-touted small reactor designs try to omit a containment vessel on the grounds that their design couldn't possibly melt down. That's probably not a good approach. Agreed, but, fail-safe and walkaway-safe designs coupled with moderate containment vessels seem like a good medium. It is all about mitigating risk. I don't think we should ever accept that a design has actual 0 risk for meltdown, but,…

>design containment for a moderate level of failure What on earth does this mean? When would an (as of yet) uncontained failure be considered moderate?

In a nuclear disaster case, it isn't nothing or Chernobyl. Like all things in life, there is stuff between the extremes.

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

#540

Post by Mz »

godelski wrote: post #538
Mz wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So already your tech is obsolete by the time you start building. Cutting edge tech tends to be unproven and unreliable tech. When you can lose an entire city if things go wrong, worrying about having the latest tech is the wrong priority.

Who said anything about cutting edge? I don't care what you're building, but 10-20 years between when you start to design and have a finished product is too much time. They have a lot of research reactors, but honestly, the only way you're going to get bigger and safer reactors is if you scale up those research reactors. There is literally no other way. And we WANT to improve safety. Don't we? I'm not saying to use c…

This is EXTREMELY unlikely. Even when things go wrong.

It may currently be extremely unlikely -- due to the very regulations and processes you are decrying. But, if people like you get their way, the odds go up of seriously bad things happening.

Post reply on HN