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

Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 619 posts

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #30
LatteLazy wrote: post #12

With advances in long distance power transmission, I don't know why theyre not being build on desert coasts. Does anyone know? The Singapore-Australia line is about the se distance as a Western Sahara-UK line would be... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93ASEAN_Powe...

I would assume that transmission adds costs, and nuclear is already economically uncompetitive before you add that extra overhead.

Transmission distance adds capital costs, maintenance costs, and transmission losses; plus, nuclear tail risks aren't narrowly localized, so you don't get much mitigation with distance, especially if the distance simultaneously puts in a less securable, including political stability, location.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#42

Post by hrktb »

sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

I can’t think of a single instance of a technology where we thought that failure wasn’t an option, were supposed to put everything behind it to succeed and had a 100% clear success.

Dams fail. Rockets fail. Medical devices fail. Do you see any that doesn’t fail, whatever the cause is ?

It’s natural to assume power plant at some point will fail. If we’re fine losing a gigantic living area for half a century each time a plant fails, perhaps you are right. But looking at Fukushima that doesn’t seem like a tradeoff people are fine with.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#43

Post by read_if_gay_ »

dv_dt wrote: post #39
raffraffraff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whereas with lovely coal and oil we get to ignore the problem. It's just smoke until... Catastrophic climate feedback loops, mass extinction, hundreds of millions of climate migrants escaping uninhabitable parts of earth, coral and shellfish disappear in acidic oceans, entire ecosystems collapse and etc etc. But nuclear had costs. Sure. But we could at least begin to calculate those costs.

Why does the answer always reply with coal and oil instead of Renewables and storage?

If you’re German for one, then it’s justified, because Merkel has been shutting down nuclear plants which forced a switch back to more coal.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#44

Post by tonyarkles »

jwilliams wrote: post #35

This article implies radiation is the only objection to nuclear power, which isn’t true. It also fails to mention any alternatives (renewables) at all. Both seem major omissions.. especially from the BBC, which I always found was a bit more balanced on these topics.

So far the largest solar plant in the world is about 1500MW in China. That’s still only a fraction of the largest nuclear facilities in the world. And solar plants only work during the day, to a first approximation (yes, there are storage approaches that sort of work, in some parts of the world.) Overall, most renewables don’t really come all that close to nuclear as far as generation capacity goes...

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#45

Post by jbverschoor »

sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

It' because we can't see it. It's also unknown to most what reactors actually do. They're basically steam reactors.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#46

Post by matthewmacleod »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #32
matthewmacleod wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that you don’t get to opt out of the “human bullshit”. Nuclear power comes with a massive and unavoidable cost from these matters.

Does it, though? A large portion can definitely be avoided with design and technology. Chernobyl happened because it was a positive feedback loop, in the West it was an obsolete design even before it was built. And Fukushima was quite literally acts of god (in the actuarial sense.)

Yes, it does. Humans lie and cheat and steal and misrepresent. Contractors use inappropriate materials or cut corners. Regulators demand unreasonable operational constraints because of political pressure. Insurers demand unaffordable costs. Protestors fight construction because of unfounded fears. Political stasis prevents sensible waste management strategies. And so on.

I absolutely think it would be possible to build a safe future on nuclear power - in an ideal world. But the world is very very far from ideal; the impression I get is that that effort which would be required to actually deliver a modern nuclear strategy is unattainable.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#47

Post by matthewmacleod »

raffraffraff wrote: post #36
matthewmacleod wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that you don’t get to opt out of the “human bullshit”. Nuclear power comes with a massive and unavoidable cost from these matters.

Whereas with lovely coal and oil we get to ignore the problem. It's just smoke until... Catastrophic climate feedback loops, mass extinction, hundreds of millions of climate migrants escaping uninhabitable parts of earth, coral and shellfish disappear in acidic oceans, entire ecosystems collapse and etc etc. But nuclear had costs. Sure. But we could at least begin to calculate those costs.

Nobody said otherwise. What point are you trying to make?

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#48

Post by nabla9 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #24
sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

Problem is that you don’t get to opt out of the “human bullshit”. Nuclear power comes with a massive and unavoidable cost from these matters.

Those costs are negligible compared to climate change.

Fukushima every 5 years for next 1000 years, or gradually leaking long term nuclear waste, are several orders of magnitude less harmful for humanity or life on earth than climate change.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#49

Post by Gibbon1 »

sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

What I think? I think for countries like Elbonia you can say 'here are your solar panels and batteries, have a nice day'. Can't do that with a nuke plant.

Notable I'm starting to see residential HVAC equipment and EV battery chargers that tie directly to solar panels.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#50

Post by pfdietz »

tonyarkles wrote: post #44
jwilliams wrote: post #35

This article implies radiation is the only objection to nuclear power, which isn’t true. It also fails to mention any alternatives (renewables) at all. Both seem major omissions.. especially from the BBC, which I always found was a bit more balanced on these topics.

So far the largest solar plant in the world is about 1500MW in China. That’s still only a fraction of the largest nuclear facilities in the world. And solar plants only work during the day, to a first approximation (yes, there are storage approaches that sort of work, in some parts of the world.) Overall, most renewables don’t really come all that close to nuclear as far as generation capacity goes...

> So far the largest solar plant in the world is about 1500MW in China. That’s still only a fraction of the largest nuclear facilities in the world.

Why is this a problem? If solar plants can be cheap without being big, that's a feature, not a bug.

Post reply on HN