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

Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 262 posts

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#41

Post by WalterBright »

marze wrote: post #33

When I see a story like this, it reminds me that the events in Japan represent the biggest PR challenge the nuclear industry has faced in many years. Fifty billion dollars of nuclear reactor US taxpayer-backed loan guarantees hang in the balance. The industry has been working for the past few decades to rehabilitate the image of nuclear power after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, and now they have to contend with vi…

There are a lot of parallels with airliner design. From reading articles about the nuke plant design, I think they could learn a lot from aviation engineers about how to build safe systems.

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#42

Post by GFischer »

michaelchisari wrote: post #18
danenania wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1,000 upvotes. Nuclear power is inherently UNSAFE . It takes a lot of hubris to claim otherwise. It harnesses intense fundamental forces of nature that we can never control without a small but inevitable risk of horrible damage and harm to unlucky populations. In controlling power of this magnitude, it is inevitable that there will be mistakes or freak events that allow this power to seep out of whatever is the lates…

What is that reason, exactly? When Banqauio kills 171,000, Bhopal kills 10,000, and 30,000 people die every year from coal pollution, why exactly don't we give energy production methods like that the kind of scrutiny we're giving Fukushima?

I had to look up the Banquiao dam disaster:

"the 1975 Banqiauo Dam collapse in China killed 171000 people"

"The dam failure killed an estimated 171,000 people; 11 million people lost their homes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

I did remember the Bhopal gas disaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#43

Post by danenania »

michaelchisari wrote: post #30
waterlesscloud wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Bhopal had nothing to do with energy production? And are you claiming Bhopal didn't get massive media coverage? Because it did.

I know, Bhopal was a chemical processing plant. But it was a massive disaster, that killed thousands, and nobody came out of that saying we should never process chemicals.

Perhaps we shouldn't mass produce deadly environmentally destructive pesticides either? Would that be a bold statement?

Why do you keep changing the subject? Quit talking about coal and pesticides and explain why it's okay to risk the lives of entire cities of people for the sake of extra electric output?

Edit: I never disagreed with the article's title. I was agreeing with the parent post's sentiment that regardless of the numbers, downplaying the suffering of the people in Fukushima and the risks they still face is wrong. Nuclear power is dangerous and can have terrible costs. It's entirely reasonable not to view it as a praiseworthy technology.

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#44

Post by michaelchisari »

danenania wrote: post #37
burgerbrain wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The only coal incident that has gotten anywhere near the amount of attention it deserves is Centralia Pennsylvania. ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Centralia,_Pe... ) That's just a dramatic case that makes for good soundbites though, unbelievable more places have been rendered effectively uninhabitable by coal mining, to say nothing of the damage it does to local food sources (acid rivers an…

So now the point is that coal disasters aren't being talked about? I thought we were discussing whether nuclear power is safe. Are you actually going to stand up and on the record proclaim that in general, free of context, nuclear energy is safe. Just that one sentence: nuclear energy is safe. No it isn't. It's fucking dangerous. Air pollution killing lots of people doesn't change this. Radiation kills people too.

The title of this article is that nuclear power is the safest, relative to other sources of power currently capable of scaling to needs.

That's a very important distinction, so I would ask you to please consider that.

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#45

Post by burgerbrain »

danenania wrote: post #37
burgerbrain wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The only coal incident that has gotten anywhere near the amount of attention it deserves is Centralia Pennsylvania. ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Centralia,_Pe... ) That's just a dramatic case that makes for good soundbites though, unbelievable more places have been rendered effectively uninhabitable by coal mining, to say nothing of the damage it does to local food sources (acid rivers an…

So now the point is that coal disasters aren't being talked about? I thought we were discussing whether nuclear power is safe. Are you actually going to stand up and on the record proclaim that in general, free of context, nuclear energy is safe. Just that one sentence: nuclear energy is safe. No it isn't. It's fucking dangerous. Air pollution killing lots of people doesn't change this. Radiation kills people too.

Bringing up coal when people start bitching about nuclear is no different from bringing up car accidents when people start bitching about flying.

Danger is relative, and relative to the rest of the power industry, nuclear is absurdly safe.

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#46

Post by burgerbrain »

danenania wrote: post #43
michaelchisari wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, Bhopal was a chemical processing plant. But it was a massive disaster, that killed thousands, and nobody came out of that saying we should never process chemicals.

Perhaps we shouldn't mass produce deadly environmentally destructive pesticides either? Would that be a bold statement? Why do you keep changing the subject? Quit talking about coal and pesticides and explain why it's okay to risk the lives of entire cities of people for the sake of extra electric output? Edit: I never disagreed with the article's title. I was agreeing with the parent post's sentiment that regardless…

"Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity"

In case you are unversed in the nuanced English being used here, "safe" != "safest", nor are their meanings equivalent. So why do you keep changing the subject?

Nuclear isn't 'safe', but it is the 'safest'. Modern society assumes some amount of risk, get over it.

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#47

Post by phlux »

philwelch wrote: post #38
phlux wrote: post #29

What is difficult to reconcile is that we all know that nuclear meltdowns are catastrophic events, that the resultant fallout/radioactive contamination is utterly horrible. Yet it seems that we dont build reactors with the types of failsafe systems that truly are needed should meltdown occur. Obviously this reactor is old, and was not built during a time when we really knew what a meltdown looked like in real life. A…

Why do we not have a global energy task force whose singular job it is is to plan, produce and protect the worlds energy? Large parts of the world actually tried this, not just for their energy needs but for all other goods and services, too. It doesn't actually work that way in reality.

I understand. However - I am curious - energy is the fundamental resource we now are 100% dependent upon for survival. Obviously the energy industry knows this , thus the fact that they have successfully staged a coup on global politics.

I do find it interesting though, that there is not really any apolitical/civilian organizations that seek to guide/set/create global energy policy. I mean real apolitical orgs - not a shill think-tank such as CFR BS.

God I'm getting cynical.

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#48

Post by michaelchisari »

danenania wrote: post #43
michaelchisari wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, Bhopal was a chemical processing plant. But it was a massive disaster, that killed thousands, and nobody came out of that saying we should never process chemicals.

Perhaps we shouldn't mass produce deadly environmentally destructive pesticides either? Would that be a bold statement? Why do you keep changing the subject? Quit talking about coal and pesticides and explain why it's okay to risk the lives of entire cities of people for the sake of extra electric output? Edit: I never disagreed with the article's title. I was agreeing with the parent post's sentiment that regardless…

why it's okay to risk the lives of entire cities of people for the sake of extra electric output?

Do you not understand, that's the exact reason why people are bringing up coal.

If we were to switch off of coal and onto nuclear, scores less people would die and get sick. A massive amount. Not to mention the benefits of halting climate change.

That doesn't mean nuclear is all sunshine and rainbows, and nobody who reasonably supports nuclear over coal thinks that.

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#49

Post by kscaldef »

jedsmith wrote: post #32
kscaldef wrote: post #26

"Nuclear power is the safest way to make electricity"... so long as you pretend the only other option is fossil fuels.

At scale, right now, those are the only two options.

Well, for that matter, we don't have enough nuclear power production capacity to meet our needs either, so I don't entirely see your point. Reducing the amount of power we're producing with fossil fuels will mean needing to increase our production from other sources, but it doesn't mandate that we have to increase it from a particular source.

Re: Nuclear Power is Safest Way to Make Electricity

#50

Post by kscaldef »

mtogo wrote: post #40
kscaldef wrote: post #26

"Nuclear power is the safest way to make electricity"... so long as you pretend the only other option is fossil fuels.

What are the other options, then?

Hydro-electric, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, to name the ones that come immediately to mind.
Post reply on HN