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

81–90 of 166 posts

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

#81

Post by patmorgan23 »

qayxc wrote: post #76
macspoofing wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Go ahead and keep arguing about whether or not nuclear is a good idea. Earth doesn't care. The water will be lapping at your feet soon. How's that for externalizing a cost to future generations? Agreed. The reality is there is nothing like nuclear energy. We lost (and continue losing) decades of nuclear development and deployment due to the anti-nuke movement (environmental or otherwise). This resulted in hundreds o…

> The diesel-powered carrier needs to refuel every few weeks, while nuclear-powered carrier needs to refuel every 20 years. True, but while refuelling only takes hours, ROH operations on a naval reactor are usually scheduled to last 46 months [edit] and cost several billion dollars [/edit]. That's just insanity :D

A lot of that can be reduced by innovative designs, such as having a modular reactor when you can slide out the vessel(or some other sub set of the reactor, not a nuclear engineer here) with the spent fuel and slide in a new one. Then you can refuel the old vessel to be ready for the next swap. You can gain economics of scale if you build a lot of plants in a region with the same modular design and have a central refueling facility. (yes I know I switch from ships to plants, same benefits accrue though)

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

#82

Post by apple4ever »

Many arguments for handling bad things often do not take into account the unintended consequences of that specific handling. This is one of them.

The lockdowns for Coronavirus is another. I don't know which way it actual falls (lockdowns still extended life expectancy or the reduced life expectancy) but I will be curious in a couple of years what the data will show us.

Some people are absolutely certain X will be the best way and either don't take into account the downsides or hand-wave away the concerns. I wish we could have actual debates to come to a solution instead of making it person or political ("YOU WANT TO KILL PEOPLE" vs "YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE"). But tis life I s'pose.

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

#83

Post by manfredo »

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…

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors?

Bury it in bedrock with no aquifer. The only scenarios where this results in waste being exposed are borderline hyperbolic: somehow society collapses, all knowledge of radiation is lost, and some future civilization decides to dig up a waste disposal site. The US already built one of these, but then the government killed the project for political reasons [1]. Europe is building a facility in Finland [2].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...

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

#84

Post by manfredo »

roenxi wrote: post #58
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…

> It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem... You might change your mind on that after a bit of reflection; it doesn't make sense. We produce a bunch of things that are going to be hazardous forever - I always point to lead when nuclear comes up. The only reason anyone talks about nuclear waste is because 1 football field is small enough that we could contain it forever. Most industrial processes…

> You might change your mind on that after a bit of reflection; it doesn't make sense. We produce a bunch of things that are going to be hazardous forever - I always point to lead when nuclear comes up.

This is actually a particularly apt comparison, because Uranium is a toxic heavy metal that affects the body much like lead. Nuclear waste is toxic forever - but it was toxic before it was used as nuclear fuel, too.

I portray it this way: buried in the ground there's toxic uranium in unknown locations. We're taking all this toxic material and putting it in a known location where we can monitor it. And in between we use it to generate carbon free energy.

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

#85

Post by DangitBobby »

IIRC we were incredibly lucky that Chernobyl didn't turn into a much more severe global disaster. What happens in a worst-case scenario meltdown? I know we have a very pro-nuclear crowd here, so I am ready for an onslaught of information.

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

#86

Post by Factfull »

tinus_hn wrote: post #75

Is there also research available on applying this method to COVID-19 and the countermeasures?

You're in luck. The lead author or the nuclear J-value author also applied the method to COVID-19: http://jvalue.co.uk/covid-19.php

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

#87

Post by BBergdahl »

semaj111 wrote: post #19
ethanwillis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not right about the waste. High level radioactive waste will fit in a space about 7 meters high and the area of a football field. That's all nuclear waste since we started operating nuclear reactors... worldwide.

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…

We do have a final long term storage solution for spent swedish waste. Location selected and approved, method tested and the cost has been covered by a nuclear waste fund fee on the produced power. In short it's copper clad steel capsules put in holes surrounded by bentonite clay down in deep shafts dug in stable bedrock. It's probably a waste of good breeder fuel. But it won't leak due to any natural occuring incident in a very, very long time. I think there is information in english here for the curious. https://www.skb.com/ (They have a nice guided tour down in the research mine the did dig to study water flow and chemistry, can recommend it.http://www.skb.com/research-and-technology/laboratories/the-... )

There is probably other ways of doing it, but saying there is no method ready is wrong. I would prefer to burn it again in a breeder and get 500yr waste instead of 50k yr waste. But if we're going to bury it, this will keep the stuff safe for the time needed.

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

#88

Post by godelski »

bb88 wrote: post #17
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…

So this falls into the category of the solution of "X" is more "X". I'm usually skeptical of arguments like these especially when "X" is complex, potentially harmful, or offered as a magic bullet. In your case in order to validate claims, I have to be a nuclear scientist to understand the potential ramifications of your argument before I can fully understand the pros/cons. If as an engineer, I cannot afford the time…

> If as an engineer, I cannot afford the time to do it, how our are politicians supposed to?

I'm not fond of this line of reasoning. Politicians are by definition not scientists and engineers. Their job is to listen to different experts, not to understand nuances of a technology.

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

#89

Post by godelski »

korantu wrote: post #36
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.

And because of it they have a better way to renewables (+fusion). As renewables become better they can replace nuclear but because of their standing they don't have to worry about many of the issues that other countries do: base load, long term energy storage with renewables, etc. Because of this France is starting with an emission level that is lower than most countries goals. If all the major countries had went the way of France we wouldn't be in a climate crisis, though it would still be a worrying event for the future (just not a crisis).

It is also worth mentioning that almost 20% of France's energy is produced from recycled nuclear (not 20% of nuclear energy, 20% of total).

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

#90

Post by labawi »

StreamBright wrote: post #69
andbberger wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waste was never really a problem and has been definitively solved. You bury it in a deep unmarked hole. [1] Go ahead and keep arguing about whether or not nuclear is a good idea. Earth doesn't care. The water will be lapping at your feet soon. How's that for externalizing a cost to future generations? I am, and will continue to be blown away that the world found out how to make rocks so spicy they can power our civil…

Yep. It is quite unbelievable how we use a 1 million old technology (burning stuff) and try to argue that the new way of producing energy (which is already much safer if you check number of deaths per twh) is somehow dangerous and bad. In 50 years of nuclear energy we already made is super safe. Now we can make it safe for being used in location which have pretty serious earthquakes or as a resource for flying (even…

> 1 million old technology (burning)

AFAIK nuclear is older than oxidation/burning.

On a more serious note, burning has been a source of power only since about the steam engine, so about 300 years.

Post reply on HN