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

Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 166 posts

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#31

Post by numpad0 »

ysleepy wrote: post #12
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? "Nuclear waste" is an artificial problem. It is possible to build reactors that use the "nuclear waste" from existing reactors as fuel, which destroys it forever. We haven't done this primarily because people keep refusing to build new reactors that do this until we figure out what…

In the same sense that we will all be saved by CO2 capturing devices? These kinds of reactors (Travelling Wave Reactor etc.) you mention are vapourware and have been for quite some time. And I highly doubt the "which destroys it forever" part, - really, no waste at all, magic you say? This is just more of "Future Tech will solve this" externalization of problems.

Recycling for spent fuels is a proven technology. Problem is ... it creates weapons grade Plutonium as the product, out of Depleted Uranium(stuffs so safe US military puts into tank shells as weights).

You know, Plutonium is a highly toxic heavy metal, and a bit radioactive, so,

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#32

Post by Yetanfou »

ysleepy wrote: post #8
gwbennett wrote: post #4

The US Navy has trained thousands of 18-25 year old men and women to operate hundreds of reactors around the world safety for over 60 years. I was one of them. I have not been an operator for many years, but the latest reactor designs are amazingly safe and reliable. The world needs more safe, clean, cheap and reliable power. Nuclear power is one of the answers.

Did they teach you where the nuclear waste goes too?

You feed it into a fast breeder reactor which both produces more fuel for conventional reactors as well as reduces the amount of waste. The resulting waste is lower in volume and needs less lengthy storage.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#33

Post by korantu »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #5
734129837261 wrote: post #3

Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy for both humankind and nature. Chernobyl was ancient and outdated, which caused issues. And Fukushima had to withstand an earthquake and tsunami. And even then the radiation only killed 1 person. Even wind-turbines cause more damage by killing many, many birds. They aren't as reliable and they certainly cau…

Are you accounting for costs of mining the source material? As I understand it the cost to acquire and safely handle the nuclear material is significant.

For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh

Also one has to consider how much energy needs to be spent to get certain amount of energy generated, so called EROI. Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options. For example for solar it is about 6, versus 75 for nuclear. [1]

Given the investment energy is mostly in shape of fossil fuels, one, for example, cannot fuel carbon capture with anything other than nuclear, as in balance it will not reduce co2.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-to...

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#34

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

734129837261 wrote: post #3

Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy for both humankind and nature. Chernobyl was ancient and outdated, which caused issues. And Fukushima had to withstand an earthquake and tsunami. And even then the radiation only killed 1 person. Even wind-turbines cause more damage by killing many, many birds. They aren't as reliable and they certainly cau…

Wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds compared to other threats.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc...

It's not actually known definitively how many people Fukushima killed, but it is known definitively that the final economic costs wildly outweighed the "cheap" energy it produced.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/12/1301/pdf

Nuclear is not clean. There is still no solution to nuclear waste, which makes it impossible to cost the TOC of nuclear.

And considering the number of accidents to date - and their economic cost - nuclear certainly isn't safe either. Is it really a good idea to create pools of extremely toxic heavy metal waste which is also radioactive?

It also isn't cheap. Renewables have been consistently undercut the cost of nuclear electricity, and that's without any significant push towards an improved smart grid, a combination of centralised and local distribution, and clean pumped storage facilities that would be possible with a Green New Deal.

As you say - these decisions should be left to smart people, and not to an industry which has consistently overpromised and underdelivered.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#35

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

mnemonicsloth wrote: post #29
paulryanrogers wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you accounting for costs of mining the source material? As I understand it the cost to acquire and safely handle the nuclear material is significant.

Significantly less than digging up millions of tons of coal. Note also that coal is somewhat radioactive too, and there is a lot more of it, so the radiation difference is small and might even favor nuclear

Coal is terrible. That doesn't make nuclear power the best option compared to all the others.

The radiation difference isn't small if you include accidents. (Are we somehow supposed to pretend they never happened, and no nuclear accident - even if it's "just" a fuel spill, or a small fire - will ever happen again?)

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#36

Post by korantu »

ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

Have you considered cost of NOT building nuclear? France's industry was decarbonized in 10 years, long ago. Imagine the cost for future generations of not doing the same to other industrialized economies.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#37

Post by acidburnNSA »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #34
734129837261 wrote: post #3

Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy for both humankind and nature. Chernobyl was ancient and outdated, which caused issues. And Fukushima had to withstand an earthquake and tsunami. And even then the radiation only killed 1 person. Even wind-turbines cause more damage by killing many, many birds. They aren't as reliable and they certainly cau…

Wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds compared to other threats. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc... It's not actually known definitively how many people Fukushima killed, but it is known definitively that the final economic costs wildly outweighed the "cheap" energy it produced. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/12/1301/pdf Nuclear is not clean. There is still no solution to nucl…

Renewables are riding on the shoulders of a gigantic fossil-powered grid that (usually) handles their intermittency for them for free. When you deeply decarbonize with intermittent energy sources you have to add in new costs: storage, new transmission, smart loads. These costs add $40-60/MWh of electricity, which brings the actual system cost right up to the cost of nuclear today. So nuclear is already economic with any other decarbonized grid. Related info in [1].

[1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006

"No solution to the waste" is a myth [2]. The waste is stored in dry casks which have never injured a soul. Meanwhile combustion waste from fossil and renewable biofuel kills 8 million/yr [3].

[2] https://whataboutthewaste.com

[3] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution

Yes, by those numbers, fossil and biofuel kill the same number of people every single week than have ever been attributed to nuclear accidents in the history of the industry.

Plus nuclear solves climate change. If fossil and renewable biofuel had to pay insurance for climate change, we'd be building nuclear like crazy.

Also, wind turbines kill large raptors and migratory bats, not songbirds.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#38

Post by acidburnNSA »

ysleepy wrote: post #8
gwbennett wrote: post #4

The US Navy has trained thousands of 18-25 year old men and women to operate hundreds of reactors around the world safety for over 60 years. I was one of them. I have not been an operator for many years, but the latest reactor designs are amazingly safe and reliable. The world needs more safe, clean, cheap and reliable power. Nuclear power is one of the answers.

Did they teach you where the nuclear waste goes too?

There are good nuclear waste solutions. The "no solution for waste" is a myth propagated by antinuclear institutions who one one hand claim it's infinitely hazardous and on the other block any and all attempts to move it out of the biosphere. They have proven to be quite cynical!

More info here: https://whataboutthewaste.com

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#39

Post by acidburnNSA »

sjwright wrote: post #21
semaj111 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. At some point we will need super long term storage, and it's true that there is no viable solution out there yet. Even the most sophisticated facilities can not guarantee that no leakage will contaminate the surroundings at some point. But as I said, I think finding a solution for this should not be o…

The longer it’s radioactive lifespan, the less dangerous it is.

Exactly! In the extreme, things like mercury have an infinite half-life and are toxic forever. Yet nuclear waste always gets the bad reputation because it becomes less dangerous with time. Odd.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#40

Post by quickthrowman »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #35
mnemonicsloth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Significantly less than digging up millions of tons of coal. Note also that coal is somewhat radioactive too, and there is a lot more of it, so the radiation difference is small and might even favor nuclear

Coal is terrible. That doesn't make nuclear power the best option compared to all the others. The radiation difference isn't small if you include accidents. (Are we somehow supposed to pretend they never happened, and no nuclear accident - even if it's "just" a fuel spill, or a small fire - will ever happen again?)

Which current option is better than nuclear? Please take into account the lack of battery storage capacity and water pumped storage capacity that makes an all solar and wind grid completely impractical, and that adding extensive hydro power would cause further degradation of our rivers. Nuclear power is our best option among coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear, if you believe that reducing carbon/methane emissions to slow or halt global warming is important.
Post reply on HN