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

U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#81

Post by Baeocystin »

colordrops wrote: post #69
gtirloni wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say that about anything humans have ever built.

Exactly, so how is everyone so sure that "modern nuclear reactors" will encounter no problems?

To use one example: Nuclear fuel is in liquid form, in a vessel that has a frozen plug of material being actively cooled at the bottom. If the reactor ever loses power, the plug melts, and the fuel drains into a collection pool, where due to simple geometry it cannot reach criticality.

Something bad (earthquake, tsunami, etc) could still happen that causes a plant shutdown. But there's no pressure vessel (other than regular steam on the generating side) to worry about breaching. And unlike current generation reactors, where even a full scram of control rods still requires some hours of active cooling to prevent core meltdown, if the liquid-type loses power, the core drains, and that's the end of it in terms of potential radiological release. That doesn't mean it isn't a complex, difficult system to design and operate. But it's a much, much safer design by its very nature.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#82

Post by gaze »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #80
wnkrshm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that nuclear power generation has been relatively safe over almost a century exactly due to systems engineering, incorporating procedures and the potential for human error. I also think that you are right that some of the systems surrounding nuclear energy are suboptimally managed in places (and are often intransparent for the public, which I think is one of the factors why people are still afraid). And I thi…

> In engineering and safety culture, iteration is necessary to approach an optimal system - the problem is here: How can we learn from what happened decades ago when the cause wasn't a part, a design or a process, something that can be simulated with a high degree of confidence? But a decision necessarily based on lots of unknowns? What can we do to be able to learn from it next time? The answer is that you design sy…

The thing is that we have a decent idea of how to engineer things well. That's easy. Throw money and factors of 2 at it until the cows come home. That's not my concern. How do we know they'll actually do the proper engineering? How do we not have another Boeing 737 situation but for a nuclear reactor?

I know as engineers we want to turn everything into an engineering problem but sometimes there are just humans who don't understand the severity of their actions to cut costs or defer maintenance or something and I don't know if it's possible to ever fully engineer these people away or engineer away their influence or engineer away their incentive to do the wrong thing... as much as I'd love to do that.

Maybe I'm just being a naysayer. The thing is that I still believe nuclear power is the best interim solution in existence and that it's necessary to build more nuclear plants. I just don't buy the "totally safe" argument. It's like chemo or amphotericin or something. It'd be great to not have to use it... buuuuut....

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#83

Post by Tade0 »

Shivetya wrote: post #13

PDF of report done in 2013 [1] which basically says and leaks will rapidly dilute. The key to remember is the lagoon and surrounding areas are already far more polluted than what this dome may leak. Besides, if ever want a real scare go look at the maps for all the chemical munitions dumped in our oceans that we know about [2] - does not include normal munitions and such. So while it is a problem it is not the real p…

FTA on the town’s main drag proudly advertise fish and chips made with Baltic-caught cod on their menus.

My friends from this area generally advise against eating at any place which advertises this too strongly. To the locals it's actually a turn off to begin with.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#84

Post by colordrops »

DuskStar wrote: post #72
asp12357 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its "worst case" pales in comparison to fossil fuel's "guaranteed outcome by 2100." I'm fairly certain nuclear catastrophe is far worse than global warming.

Chernobyl made around 1,000 sq mi 'uninhabitable' for around a century. (Some of the area will be safe to occupy in far less time, some in far more) If we learned nothing from that accident and had one such accident per decade while providing all the world's electricity, we would lose about 10,000 square miles of land to radioactive contamination. Those assumptions seem extremely unfavorable to me - accidents should…

Chernobyl only took out 10,000 square miles because they got lucky. If they didn't drain water tanks it could have exploded making a huge portion of the continent uninhabitable.

Also, using 17,500 square miles doesn't equal damage. The land could be reclaimed in negligible time by removing the panels, unlike nuclear contamination.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#85

Post by colordrops »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #77
Dduuggrr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true. They used same words before... But after Chernobyl and Fukushima... How they can expect we believe them?

Proponents: Newer reactors are safer than older designs. The old designs are still safer than any other alternative and much safer than fossil fuels, but the newer designs are even better and we should build those. Opponents: Don't build new reactors. Opponents: See? See? You said... Proponents: ...that newer designs are safer than older ones and even older ones are safer than alternatives. Which remains true. ... Po…

> impossible standard

Not the case. The worst case with nuclear is much worse than with solar, even if the possibility is unlikely. We expect insanely high standards for airplanes and the standards should be even higher for nuclear plants. We should account for the possibility that civilization collapses or an unexpected event reduces a plant to rubble. In both of those cases solar is fine but nuclear is not.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#86

Post by OrgNet »

Someone1234 wrote: post #6
781 wrote: post #4

More FUD. Nuclear energy is the safest energy.

This is waste from nuclear weapons testing, it was concreted over as a "temporary measure" and now it seems like a more permanent solution needs to be found. Unclear why you believe nuclear energy (by which I assume you mean nuclear power generation) is relevant.

Maybe they need to learn how to blow up their weapons all the way so that no radioactive waste is left (for testing)

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#87

Post by calibas »

ccffph wrote: post #27
calibas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we ship all the nuclear waste to your house? Don't worry, it's the safest kind of energy there is. Or maybe "safe" isn't the right term for something that also produces some of the most deadly substances that we know of? It's "safe" so long as nothing goes wrong, and everything is stored correctly. Of course, that regularly proves to not be the case: https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...

It's very worrying to see comments like this become more and more common on HN. Yes, I will take the waste. If it's in the containers we've developed specifically for this purpose, yes. It beats the current situation in the US where everyone stores waste on site because politicians can't decide where to put it because of people like you. Modern waste, with proper precautions, is safe for long term disposal and storag…

What did I say that is even remotely misinformation?

Nuclear power is safe "with proper precautions", I completely agree. The problem is that it hasn't even been a week since we've proven proper precautions are not being taken.

https://www.newsweek.com/ohio-school-closed-enriched-uranium...

And anti-nuclear sentiment isn't something new, don't pretend like it's some kind of worrying trend.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#88

Post by gjm11 »

colordrops wrote: post #84
DuskStar wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl made around 1,000 sq mi 'uninhabitable' for around a century. (Some of the area will be safe to occupy in far less time, some in far more) If we learned nothing from that accident and had one such accident per decade while providing all the world's electricity, we would lose about 10,000 square miles of land to radioactive contamination. Those assumptions seem extremely unfavorable to me - accidents should…

Chernobyl only took out 10,000 square miles because they got lucky. If they didn't drain water tanks it could have exploded making a huge portion of the continent uninhabitable. Also, using 17,500 square miles doesn't equal damage. The land could be reclaimed in negligible time by removing the panels, unlike nuclear contamination.

> it could have exploded making a huge portion of the continent uninhabitable

Some details and references for this would be nice. I find it hard to believe, though of course sometimes things I find hard to believe turn out to be true :-).

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#89

Post by DuskStar »

colordrops wrote: post #84
DuskStar wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl made around 1,000 sq mi 'uninhabitable' for around a century. (Some of the area will be safe to occupy in far less time, some in far more) If we learned nothing from that accident and had one such accident per decade while providing all the world's electricity, we would lose about 10,000 square miles of land to radioactive contamination. Those assumptions seem extremely unfavorable to me - accidents should…

Chernobyl only took out 10,000 square miles because they got lucky. If they didn't drain water tanks it could have exploded making a huge portion of the continent uninhabitable. Also, using 17,500 square miles doesn't equal damage. The land could be reclaimed in negligible time by removing the panels, unlike nuclear contamination.

> Chernobyl only took out 10,000 square miles because they got lucky.

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is a tenth of that - 1,000 square miles. 10,000 square miles is the total from one accident per decade and an average exclusion zone duration of 100 years.

> If they didn't drain water tanks it could have exploded making a huge portion of the continent uninhabitable.

It would have made a large part of the continent have higher radiation doses, but even with linear-no-threshold I don't think that France/UK/Spain/Italy would have been uninhabitable. Or even close to that. And the point was, even with the most incompetent leadership we've seen at a nuclear power plant, that didn't happen.

> Also, using 17,500 square miles doesn't equal damage. The land could be reclaimed in negligible time by removing the panels, unlike nuclear contamination.

Well, sure - you can take the solar panels and move them somewhere else if you want. But if you're using solar for power, you can't really get rid of them - just move them around.

Re: U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open

#90

Post by sailfast »

omegaworks wrote: post #52
sailfast wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a nice thing to do, but per the article in 1983 the Marshall Islands traded US liability for nuclear issues as part of their move to self-government. That is not to say that some Federal-level support is not warranted like other Superfund sites, but that it may not be the total and complete responsibility of the US Federal government to resolve the issue, as agreed to legally by both parties.

>the Marshall Islands traded US liability for nuclear issues as part of their move to self-government. This is classic over-the-barrel negotiating tactics used by colonizing nations over their former colonies. The Marshall Islanders had few options here. Continue to have their sovereignty dictated from and literal lands and lives ruined by a foreign nation, or take liability for the colonizer's experimentation and so…

I completely agree with you.

It is unfortunate, however, that states do not often act out of ethical or moral obligations unless it serves some other, broader interest. It's my fervent hope the United States chooses to act on its ethical and moral obligations, but overall a regression to the mean of state behavior can also be expected from time to time.

My more cynical self sees many more pressing and dangerous environment disasters domestically that are readily apparent and not being dealt with properly - in places where people actually vote for US politicians. This indicates to me that a fix in a United States associated state will unfortunately likely not merit the expenditure for awhile unless some legal case could be brought.

Post reply on HN