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

Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 554 posts

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#531

Post by natmaka »

godelski wrote: post #525
natmaka wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union. Source: https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019 > There is no free lunch here Indeed, however the risk induced at run-time and by its waste seems higher with nuclear than with renewables. >> Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option. >This relies on two things happening (one of, or a combination). 1) The grid…

> Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union. I'm not sure why this is relevant. France has constantly been one of the best in Europe and Germany has been one of the worst (revisiting my link[0]). I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. That everyone can improve? Of course. That Germany cares more than France? Well probably. It is a much larger problem then them for France. France left…

The Germany/France ratio of emissions is relevant because the real difference of emissions if much lower than your graph shows (at worse 1.4 instead of 1.7), and I described (above) why: France has less industry ( emissions for stuff is done elsewhere), is less rich (less stuff) and its climate is less cold. It is pertinent because it shows that nuclear power isn't a major factor there. But we both already agree on this (nuclear cannot solve the climate challenge) because you wrote other CO2-emitting sectors "land use and agriculture, heat, industry".

I don't think you are anti-renewables, please quote any sentence of mine letting you believe it. I don't think that nuclear is part of a solution, that's my point here, and my arguments are in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381421

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#532

Post by natmaka »

godelski wrote: post #524
natmaka wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all we are fighting for is that nuclear is __part__ of the solution (not __the__ solution. Big difference). It seems to me that all this is about the balance between the relative importance of nuclear in the solution and its costs, along with the risks it induces. Having nuclear as part of the solution implies mass-production of plants parts (building a few plants is much more expensive and projects are nearly alwa…

Well it isn't like there is any other technology that can d it. The idea that renewables can do 100% is still theoretical. Likely, but theoretical. I'd rather not put all my eggs in one basket. Rather I'd look at Sweden and France which have some of the lowest CO2eq/capita (for energy). We should look to the future, but we should also follow what is already working. We can figure out how to burry a few dozen six pack…

I would rather reduce the energy I consume than tolerate all burden induced by nuclear power (risk, waste for our descendants, overcentralization...).

I repeat: after 70+ years of nuclear power exploitation there is no active and sufficient long-term waste repository. This doesn't seem to be a trivial problem. It is "solved in this thread", but not IRL.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#533

Post by ses1984 »

p1mrx wrote: post #499
ses1984 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your intense short sightedness and complete lack of imagination actually the same quality or two different ones?

I don't lack imagination; my imagination just has enough structure to distinguish between realistic and unrealistic scenarios. We should be orders of magnitude more worried about all the carbon dioxide we're dumping into the atmosphere, than the failure modes of an engineered hole in the ground.

Thinking that nuclear safety just comes down to digging a big hole and filling it with water is such a gross over simplification that I honestly can't believe you are arguing in good faith.

Maybe a particular reactor design could use such a mechanism as one failsafe, but that alone is not enough, and no design is perfect, and the people operating it are not perfect.

I think some of the risks of nuclear are acceptable, I am actually very pro nuclear, but we should acknowledge them instead of pretending they don't exist. The only way risk can be properly managed is if it's acknowledged.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#534

Post by Reason077 »

godelski wrote: post #308
pvaldes wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the designers imagined many of the events you mentioned and more Designers are awesome. Sadly they were also unable to find some time in 50 years to raise a wall a few m so it can stand a Tsunami. It seems that the extra scrutiny, was not so extra in the real life when the company will need to allocate real money.

The event you are referring to was also a freak event. The Tohoku earthquake was the 4th largest _ever_ recorded and the largest ever recorded in Japan (by 0.2M, it is a log scale btw). The closest earthquake to that, in the region, in the previous 100 years was 0.7M lower (and the 6th largest ever recorded, in the area). The Tohoku earthquake also resulted in one of the largest tsunamis ever recorded. We should note…

> "The event you are referring to was also a freak event. The Tohoku earthquake was the 4th largest _ever_ recorded and the largest ever recorded in Japan"

There is no doubt that the 2011 earthquake was an extreme event, but it's incorrect to say that it was not foreseeable or that the plant's safety systems could not have prevented the disaster.

Further up Japan's coast, the Onagawa nuclear plant was much closer to the earthquake's epicentre. It was subjected to extreme shaking, far more than any other nuclear plant in history, and like Fukushima was also flooded by the tsunami.

Yet it was able to shut down safely as designed in the hours that followed, and its structure was "remarkably undamaged" considering the extreme magnitude and duration of the shaking. 2 of its 3 reactors are expected to be restarted soon following structural repairs and seismic upgrades.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#535

Post by Reason077 »

natmaka wrote: post #522
godelski wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apples and oranges... I can change that to CO2eq/capita/kWhr and it is still true ([1] above shows that). > Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous, I'm not trying to dismiss that. But you also shouldn't dismiss the impacts of other resources. There is no free lunch here. For example, heavy metal contaminants are stable and stay toxic forever. We likely have to deal with these contaminants similarly to nuclear…

Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union. Source: https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019 > There is no free lunch here Indeed, however the risk induced at run-time and by its waste seems higher with nuclear than with renewables. >> Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option. >This relies on two things happening (one of, or a combination). 1) The grid…

> "Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union."

Yes, but this is possible because Germany's emissions are amongst the highest in the EU to begin with.

Although Germany is making progress and can be commended for it's investment in renewables, more than 30% of it's electricity is still produced from coal (hard coal and worse, lignite), which results in one of the highest grid carbon intensities amongst it's European peers.

Building new nuclear is one thing (there are valid economic and environmental arguments against this), but Germany's decision to close existing nuclear plants, some with many years of life remaining, was a political and emotional one rather than rational and scientific.

Keeping existing nuclear plants operating would have allowed more time to develop and expand renewables, enabling coal plants to be closed earlier and reducing CO2 emissions faster.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#536

Post by godelski »

natmaka wrote: post #531
godelski wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union. I'm not sure why this is relevant. France has constantly been one of the best in Europe and Germany has been one of the worst (revisiting my link[0]). I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. That everyone can improve? Of course. That Germany cares more than France? Well probably. It is a much larger problem then them for France. France left…

The Germany/France ratio of emissions is relevant because the real difference of emissions if much lower than your graph shows (at worse 1.4 instead of 1.7), and I described (above) why: France has less industry ( emissions for stuff is done elsewhere), is less rich (less stuff) and its climate is less cold. It is pertinent because it shows that nuclear power isn't a major factor there. But we both already agree on t…

You seemed to miss the part where I, twice, referenced CO2eq emissions per capita from energy along and not country wide.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#537

Post by drran »

godelski wrote: post #486
drran wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was involved in closing of case, when terrorists wanted to create dirty bomb and throw it at Ukraine. S*it happens.

Wanted to is very different than doing. As far as I'm aware there has never been a dirty bomb attack. You could effectively create a dirty bomb with less radiation with more easily obtainable materials (still pretty expensive and labor intensive). The threat would be similar to a more radioactive substance because the biggest damage is the fear (that's what terrorism is about. They could do MUCH more _damage_ if they…

There is plenty of people which want to kill themselves for few, but common reasons, like cancer. It's not a stopper for terrorists.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#538

Post by godelski »

Reason077 wrote: post #534
godelski wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The event you are referring to was also a freak event. The Tohoku earthquake was the 4th largest _ever_ recorded and the largest ever recorded in Japan (by 0.2M, it is a log scale btw). The closest earthquake to that, in the region, in the previous 100 years was 0.7M lower (and the 6th largest ever recorded, in the area). The Tohoku earthquake also resulted in one of the largest tsunamis ever recorded. We should note…

> "The event you are referring to was also a freak event. The Tohoku earthquake was the 4th largest _ever_ recorded and the largest ever recorded in Japan" There is no doubt that the 2011 earthquake was an extreme event, but it's incorrect to say that it was not foreseeable or that the plant's safety systems could not have prevented the disaster. Further up Japan's coast, the Onagawa nuclear plant was much closer to…

I am not trying to say that things couldn't be designed better. They could (that is never _not_ true). But it is also important to remember that this was a crazy accident as well and several uncommon things had to go wrong at once. The reactor was designed to withstand 100 year earthquake and tsunamis (that's equivalent to flipping almost 7 heads in a row) (we're also not accounting for the odds of the tsunami). But what I am suggesting is that there is a limit. Sure, we could foresee 100 heads landing in a row, it is certainly possible, but at the end of the day you have that end up with an acceptable amount of risk. I do not think 100 year events (1:99 probability) is correct as climate change is changing those odds, but it isn't like this was engineers being lazy and dumb. You are using post hoc analysis to justify actions made without that knowledge. As they say, hindsight is 2020. I do want to remind you that this was the largest earthquake to EVER hit Japan. That's much harder to predict and extremely reasonable to believe such an event is unlikely during the expected lifetime of the reactor.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#539

Post by pvaldes »

guscost wrote: post #443
kgabis wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And governments are known for not over reacting to anything related to nuclear power /s

And in this case, the government of a country whose primary export is oil .

Don't fool yourselves, we are talking about one of the richest extant fisheries of Atlantic cod. This is pretty serious stuff for Maine, Newfoundland or Massachusets, for example.

We are talking about trying to keep your "fish and chips" safe to eat, or maybe not.

Last time the fisheries collapsed in 90's 37.000 people lost their job only in Newfoundland and the social impact was massive. It has not recovered still after almost 30 years with a record of lowest captures registered in 2016.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#540

Post by p1mrx »

ses1984 wrote: post #533
p1mrx wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't lack imagination; my imagination just has enough structure to distinguish between realistic and unrealistic scenarios. We should be orders of magnitude more worried about all the carbon dioxide we're dumping into the atmosphere, than the failure modes of an engineered hole in the ground.

Thinking that nuclear safety just comes down to digging a big hole and filling it with water is such a gross over simplification that I honestly can't believe you are arguing in good faith. Maybe a particular reactor design could use such a mechanism as one failsafe, but that alone is not enough, and no design is perfect, and the people operating it are not perfect. I think some of the risks of nuclear are acceptable…

They didn't just drop a reactor in a pool; they also eliminated a bunch of pumps and other failure-prone components from the system.

I would prefer to see inherently safe designs like LFTR gain traction, but NuScale has one of the few designs likely to be built in the near term, where you could SCRAM and take a vacation without causing a meltdown. That is a major advancement in safety; let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.

Post reply on HN