[deleted]
Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
261–270 of 353 posts
Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people rightly fear a type of damage they can't see. Radiation is scary because you could get a dose of it and not even know it, or have no idea how bad it is. People are taking the devil they know.
> I think people rightly fear a type of damage they can't see. Radiation is scary because you could get a dose of it and not even know it, or have no idea how bad it is. People are taking the devil they know. By this logic people should be deathly afraid of coal and what it puts into the air.
No. Coal danger is always marginal and diffuse if you can’t detect the pollution with your senses. Not so with radiation.
Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
#263Coal kills more than nuclear. Modern nuclear is safer and reliable. It's similar to the fear of planes vs the actual safety statistics of planes.
Never mind coal, nuclear is safer than even wind and solar - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities The problem, as you point out, is that people are generally very bad at understanding risk.
Future mortality seems not to be considered but I am afraid this is important. Numbers will be difficult to obtain, you know, clairvoyance is not easy.
But at least we know that we need to maintain nuclear waste for a long time. Or we create deep subterranean disposal sites, and this will be dangerous work.
Coal is probably even a lot worse because of climate change effects.
Renewables seem to fare better for future mortality.
Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
That really hurts the crowd that lives paycheck to paycheck. Price goes up: someone goes without.
What is electricity prices went up with usage? So you get X kWh per month for one price, then after that it's 1.5x the rate. You could just do this on residential rates only so businesses aren't affected.
why remove the incentive for businesses to optimize their energy usage? They have as much if not more external costs as a residential home.
Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think people rightly fear a type of damage they can't see. Radiation is scary because you could get a dose of it and not even know it, or have no idea how bad it is. People are taking the devil they know. By this logic people should be deathly afraid of coal and what it puts into the air.
No. Coal danger is always marginal and diffuse if you can’t detect the pollution with your senses. Not so with radiation.
If you're exposed to enough radiation for the effects not to be "marginal and diffuse" then you can detect it with your senses. High dose radiation will literally burn you.
People misunderstand the risk. The amount of radiation you need to be exposed to for a 50% chance of getting cancer would be a fatal dose from radiation poisoning. The way people end up with cancer isn't by one person getting a large dose, it's by a million people each getting a small dose, so that they each have a one in ten thousand chance of getting cancer and then a hundred of them do.
Which is exactly the same thing that happens with coal -- not least because coal is radioactive and burning it puts the radioactive materials into the air.
Except that coal does it as a consequence of normal operation rather than only in the event of a catastrophic failure.
Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we've got right now is on the order of a million people dying prematurely every year because of the human issue of people worrying too much about concentrated risk (nuclear) and not understanding the diffuse risk (coal). Sure, we can improve fission in various ways, but this sort of skepticism is way riskier in the aggregate as it translates into public policy.
Indeed, coal is even worse than nuclear. So let's have neither but renewables instead :). Compared to europe, the USA is a big country and it is also further in the south which means more sun for solar collectors.
That is never the option.
You choice is either to switch to nuclear or continue using coal.
Arguing for solutions that are never going to happen, is equivalent to arguing in favor of the status quo (and the status quo is horrible).
Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even while you dont include deaths involved in construction and ongoing security required by nuclear plants, those deaths-per-Wh-so-far figures do not represent risk, which is much more complicated. Its not possible to fully insure nuclear plants - because no company can take on board liability for disasters which nuclear is demonstrably capable of but fortunately have avoided to date, with considerable expense on sa…
Thank you. Whenever I see someone compare nuclear deaths to solar deaths (lot of solar death are falling off a roof), I slap my forehead when they suggest full speed ahead with nuclear (despite it being too expensive, uninsurable without government backing, and no waste disposal plans) instead of...making it harder to fall off of roofs when installing rooftop solar.
By refusing to support an alternative solution, you are supporting the status quo.
It is easy to bring up problem after problem with alternatives. It is not easy to show why the status quo is somehow better, because it is not.
A death is a death. Someone dieing because they fell off a roof is equally as bad as dieing due to radiation.
Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, what about mining fissile materials? I worked with Rio Tinto (mining corporation) for some time, and happened to know a few people in management positions at the Ranger Uranium Mine. I can assure you it was one of the most environmentally conscious operations the group was managing, and super-senior management seemed to take the whole thing very seriously. It was a source of much frustration, because as a compa…
This is what I love about HN, instant access to experts in the field, so we don't have to argue our assumptions. I guess it's unsurprising that uranium operations run a lot cleaner than fossil fuel extraction, given the politics involved. I'm not against fission power itself, but being in California makes me kind of a NIMBY on the issue. All you need is somewhere with water and without active fault lines, and nope, n…
"I'm not against fission power itself, but being in California makes me kind of a NIMBY on the issue. All you need is somewhere with water and without active fault lines, and nope, not seeing a good spot."
The TerraPower design, and many other of the next-gen designs, don't require water cooling. That greatly expands siting options.
You could have the plants out in the desert, or on other less desirable real estate.
"The evacuation plans for San Onofre involved moving one to eight million people, or about eight million ways something could go wrong."
I'm originally from the area, and was sad to hear of San Onofre closing. However, its siting was terrible.
Given California's stance on climate issues, it should be the world's largest promoter of next-gen nuclear power.
Several very interesting designs are being pursued, I'm hopeful the government will eventually adopt a better policy stance. Bill Gates looks to be helping a lot there!
Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Coal danger is always marginal and diffuse if you can’t detect the pollution with your senses. Not so with radiation.
If you're exposed to enough radiation for the effects not to be "marginal and diffuse" then you can detect it with your senses. High dose radiation will literally burn you. People misunderstand the risk. The amount of radiation you need to be exposed to for a 50% chance of getting cancer would be a fatal dose from radiation poisoning. The way people end up with cancer isn't by one person getting a large dose, it's by…
I'm not so sure about that. Gamma radiation is one thing, getting a bunch of alpha and beta emitters more or less permanently stuck in your body, is another.
Re: Bill Gates promises to add his own billions if Congress does nuclear power push
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never mind coal, nuclear is safer than even wind and solar - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities The problem, as you point out, is that people are generally very bad at understanding risk.
Future mortality seems not to be considered but I am afraid this is important. Numbers will be difficult to obtain, you know, clairvoyance is not easy. But at least we know that we need to maintain nuclear waste for a long time. Or we create deep subterranean disposal sites, and this will be dangerous work. Coal is probably even a lot worse because of climate change effects. Renewables seem to fare better for future…
I do agree that the overall risk includes more factors than just past direct/indirect deaths, you are right. However, I would argue that simply furthers the cause for nuclear.
Firstly, renewables are great and we should of course be investing heavily. However, until we have the what is still non-existing storage tecgnology, we need a base load of either nuclear or fossil fuels. Insisting on a nuclear-free energy supply right now unfortunately means insisting on fossil fuels as a base load for the foreseeable future.
Given the greatest risk to humanity's survival is climate change, failing to secure a low-carbon energy supply is a risk that far outweighs any of the risk of using nuclear alongside renewables.
We can already see the results of foregoing nuclear - energy in now nuclear-free Germany is seven times as carbon-intensive as nuclear-heavy France[1].
[1] http://energyforhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Euro...