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

Ultra Safe Nuclear

usnc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 536 posts

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#521

Post by loeg »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #65
3pt14159 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deaths per joule are the lowest out of any major fuel source except for maybe wind, which is debatable depending on your assumptions about the future.

That's deaths per joule so far. How would nuclear compete if far more renewables were installed, producing far more joules? How about clean-up costs? Estimates for Fukushima vary from $76bn to $660bn depending who you ask. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi... How about general carelessness? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-weapons-s... This is not unusual for the nuke indu…

> That's deaths per joule so far. How would nuclear compete if far more renewables were installed, producing far more joules?

I'd expect wind and solar deaths to increase more or less linearly with joules output. These deaths are mostly related to maintenance activities that will scale with deployment.

Whereas: nuclear deaths from reactors built after 1970 are what, zero? That isn't to say that there aren't a lot of very old reactors still online, but nuclear deaths are all outliers rather than modal. And we should expect fewer outlier events per joule with newer designs.

> How about clean-up costs?

All clean-up is relatively inexpensive compared to climate change. That said, wind and solar require expensive cleanup; it isn't clear that this is any less expensive than burying or processing waste.

Fukushima is an outlier, rather than the mode.

> This is not unusual for the nuke industry, both civil and military.

This is a very big jump from a single incident to a generate characterization of a global industry.

> Especially given increasing risks from extreme climate change events.

Climate change will only get worse as we continue to consume more and more electricity, and avoid building out nuclear power.

Wind and solar require a lot of labor and land per joule compared with other energy generation. They also have relatively short generation lifetimes and generate disposal waste at the end of their operating lifetime. Land isn't something we think of as especially finite in the US, but it is more precious in denser regions like Europe.

To the extent that wind and solar displace existing coal and gas generation; great, I support that. But the emphasis on wind and solar over the past decade has resulted in increased oil and gas energy generation, worsening climate change. Wind/solar and oil/gas are the classic "bootleggers and baptists" combination.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#522

Post by loeg »

7952 wrote: post #410
loeg wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the major incidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima) were reactors designed in the era of slide-rules. Neither is a 3rd or 4th generation design. Chernobyl was a bad design, and the incident resulted from Soviet mismanagement (keeping known RBMK reactor flaws secret) in tandem with local mismanagement (the test protocol was completely fucked). Fukushima required active cooling and could not cool itself using its own po…

You haven't answered the question though. How do you get the public on board?

It'd help to stop repeating mostly false stories (and leading questions) about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima every time nuclear comes up.

But how to persuade the general public that science and statistics matter when even HN is skeptical? You're right, I don't know how to do that.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#523

Post by projektfu »

lucb1e wrote: post #515
projektfu wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s really no reason why Netherlands can’t import power from its allies. It already does.

Huh, where did I give the impression that we can't ? I'm saying that we'd be dependent, implying that we can because otherwise we couldn't be dependent. Today we might import power because it's cheaper, but we can build another coal or nuclear plant and produce that 10% we're currently importing. Building enough solar panels or wind turbines, on the other hand, to produce 1093TWh/year (2014 figure) is going to be dif…

I guess I think if the Netherlands are at risk of being cut off by the UK, France and Germany, then the situation in the world is much more dire than it should be. Interdependence is the nature of the European project.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#524

Post by commonturtle »

xibalba wrote: post #3

Assuming nuclear truly can be ultra safe, how do you convince a public that has seen Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima to get on board? Particularly when the "competition" (solar, wind, etc) has such a strong tailwind.

This is the key question. Even if nuclear is made ultra safe, a single bad event (which is likely if we build hundreds of thousands of reactors world wide) can raise so much paranoia that future investments in nuclear can be affected.

I have no idea how you could solve a problem like this.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#525

Post by hairytrog »

hairytrog wrote: post #304
walrus01 wrote: post #300

Wasn't something very similar in size proposed for use in Alaska? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

Seems like they used a sodium coolant - great thermal properties as it allows for atmospheric pressure loop. But sodium introduces the chemical hazard and all the associated maintenance and materials woes and accident scenarios. Also, the power density on the 4S was relatively high.

also they used a strange control system. No control rods. Instead they moved the whole core up and down to change reactivity. wtf?

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#526

Post by lucb1e »

projektfu wrote: post #523
lucb1e wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, where did I give the impression that we can't ? I'm saying that we'd be dependent, implying that we can because otherwise we couldn't be dependent. Today we might import power because it's cheaper, but we can build another coal or nuclear plant and produce that 10% we're currently importing. Building enough solar panels or wind turbines, on the other hand, to produce 1093TWh/year (2014 figure) is going to be dif…

I guess I think if the Netherlands are at risk of being cut off by the UK, France and Germany, then the situation in the world is much more dire than it should be. Interdependence is the nature of the European project.

Yeah that's fair. I am not very afraid of that happening indeed, it's not as if any of our neighbour's armies could not do whatever they want with us anyway.

The USA is in a good spot to do it themselves, but I did want to make people here think a bit about the decision and realize how they'd feel in this position. If you had to get your power from Mexico, Canada, and/or Russia (those places seem large and have realistic distances for cables off the top of my head), and be dependent on those three countries for your energy needs. Would that be desirable and worth the slightly higher price of fission energy? The situation is not comparable for multiple reasons but it seems like a factor to weigh in, even if it's a small factor and mainly applicable to my small-European-country scenario.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#527

Post by projektfu »

lucb1e wrote: post #526
projektfu wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I think if the Netherlands are at risk of being cut off by the UK, France and Germany, then the situation in the world is much more dire than it should be. Interdependence is the nature of the European project.

Yeah that's fair. I am not very afraid of that happening indeed, it's not as if any of our neighbour's armies could not do whatever they want with us anyway. The USA is in a good spot to do it themselves, but I did want to make people here think a bit about the decision and realize how they'd feel in this position. If you had to get your power from Mexico, Canada, and/or Russia (those places seem large and have reali…

Oh definitely. Russia’s threat of gas embargoes, even if never stated, is very scary for a lot of countries.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#528

Post by EmilioMartinez »

Reedx wrote: post #132
xibalba wrote: post #3

Assuming nuclear truly can be ultra safe, how do you convince a public that has seen Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima to get on board? Particularly when the "competition" (solar, wind, etc) has such a strong tailwind.

Data and statistics aren't getting through, so maybe the answer is to rebrand it. Drop the word "nuclear". Chernobyl is too powerful of an association. All the data in the world is just no match for that story and imagery.

>rebrand it. Drop the word "nuclear".

I laughed at the thought of A/B testing new names of fundamental forces across different demographics.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#529

Post by 7952 »

loeg wrote: post #522
7952 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't answered the question though. How do you get the public on board?

It'd help to stop repeating mostly false stories (and leading questions) about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima every time nuclear comes up. But how to persuade the general public that science and statistics matter when even HN is skeptical? You're right, I don't know how to do that.

Science works because you are able to control most of the variables. It simplifies the world into something that can be modelled. Major decisions like energy policy are just more complicated than that. It is hundreds of overlapping considerations that have no good single answer. Yes science still matters, but there are deeper political questions at play. You just need to accept that if you want to build big complex things in the environment.

Of course these kind of issues can often be ignored with sufficient political support. Which is exactly what wind and solar have done in Europe.

Try using science to prove that a wind turbine isn't ugly. Or that it is worth killing some bird of prey to get clean energy. Try using science to explain why a coal miner should lose their livelihood. Or why you should stop eating so much red meat. It does not work.

At the heart of this debate is not scepticism of science, but scepticism of scientists and engineers. Scepticism that they really are as good as they say they are.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#530

Post by DoctorOetker »

DennisP wrote: post #469
sbierwagen wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Night time Why does electricity at night need to cost the same as electricity during the day? Would Western civilization collapse if it cost twice as much? Three times as much? How much trouble do we need to go to so aluminum smelters can run at 100% capacity at 2 AM?

If you're going to shut down factories at night, that itself is a cost that should be accounted for. If you're shutting down for eight hours a day, you increase capital costs by a third. That's worth paying if it's the only option to address climate change, but if the main argument against nuclear is cost, it's not a fair comparison if renewables externalize cost to the customers. (Also, aluminum smelters in particul…

why don't they store the cheaper day time electricity by melting extra on site aluminum during the day? this aluminum could stay on site indefinitely?
Post reply on HN