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

141–150 of 619 posts

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

#141

Post by jhayward »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #77

I can’t really reconcile people who genuinely, in their heart of hearts, believe we’re on the precipice of doom because of carbon emissions, and are at the same time strongly against nuclear power. Can someone who feels this way chime in and help me understand? I’m genuinely curious how these two ideas fit together.

We can build a lot more carbon free generation, much quicker, and reduce the carbon load of the atmosphere quicker by never ever building anther nuclear plant and instead use that money for renewables, transmission, and storage.

It is simple. There are cheaper and quicker, and lots less risky ways to decarbonize generation.

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

#142

Post by p1mrx »

etimberg wrote: post #140
p1mrx wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're building a grid-scale battery storage system, isn't it a relatively straightforward engineering problem to emulate the inertia of a flywheel? I would be much more concerned about batteries' ability to respond on the days/weeks/months scale than the milliseconds scale.

What challenges do you foresee in responding over days/weeks/months?

The challenge is just having enough raw capacity to meet demand using intermittent renewable sources. Weather varies on the scale of days/weeks, and winter is cold because of limited sunlight. What energy source will we use to stay warm all winter?

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

#143

Post by MurMan »

jhayward wrote: post #137
jojobas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do. US Navy had zero nuclear accidents so far, simply because one Hyman Rickover was able to convince the government that safety overrides everything else.

Um, are you sure about that? I can think of at least two.

I assume that you're referring to USS Thresher and Scorpion. These weren't nuclear accidents.

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

#144

Post by ClumsyPilot »

steeve wrote: post #97
Lazare wrote: post #53

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…

Most of the cost of a MWh of nuclear comes from the cost of capital (interests). [1] Put differently, if capital is backed by the state, that the $/MWh could be a _lot_ less than it is. 1. https://imgur.com/a/4mAlUbO

I cannot stress this enough - we have people allergic to direct development paid for by the state because "it's socialist".

Instead we invent all kinds of stupid ways of financing power plants, such a guaranteed electricity price for 50 years ahead, guaranteed profits to attract 'free market investors' for a project thats specified, sited and planned by the government and where all risk is born by the government. Ao then, instead of 0.25% interest we get fianance at 3-5% interest.

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

#145

Post by BurningFrog »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #125
Lazare wrote: post #53

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…

Nuclear is only so relatively expensive because it’s the only fuel source that’s forced to pay up for all the externalities up front (and I’m not saying that is a bad thing to require). A nuclear plant can’t be built if the money to make it safe (as per some specification), insure against all health complications while it’s in operation, decommission it, clean up the site, securely dump all spent fuel, and return the…

> securely dump all spent fuel

Reminder that Coal and oil energy gets to dump their spent fuel in the atmosphere, and thereby our lungs!

The uneven treatment of different energy sources really is fantastic!

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

#146

Post by Consultant32452 »

yurlungur wrote: post #139
Lazare wrote: post #53

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…

To me the bummer of nuclear power is how much advocates try to underestimate the cost of handling the waste for decades and the potential risks. I think if you really think we need to go full speed ahead with nuclear power you need to ask how close a waste deposit to your home are you comfortable with? Often times these things just get transported to supposedly remote places which just mean a more vulnerable communit…

Modern nuclear power plants use waste from previous generation nuclear power plants as their fuel.

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

#148

Post by BurningFrog »

cwp wrote: post #74
Lazare wrote: post #53

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…

The problem with nuclear is that people are afraid of it. If we had spent the last 40 years trying to make it cheaper instead of trying to prevent accidents, it wouldn't be so expensive.

Sometimes I wonder if this ingrained fear is the biggest long term cost of Hiroshima.

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

#149

Post by rgbrenner »

BBC on nuclear: asking the questions that don't matter.

You know what the real problem with nuclear is? It's not economically competitive. What if I told you: you can invest in a project that will tie up your money for 10+ years and once it's completed will provide energy for 10x the current cost of solar/wind. And while youre building this plant, solar/wind and batteries will keep getting cheaper.. and by the time your ready to start selling energy, maybe no one wants to buy it at any price that ever returns a dime to you or the other investors.

Why don't you just go flush your money down the toilet today and save yourself 10 years of your life.

Until nuclear solves that issue... the rest of this just doesn't matter. These were the questions of last decade before solar/wind and batteries scaled up.

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

#150

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Retric wrote: post #82
hwillis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because its a bit of a bait and switch. When people pull that out, it's about keeping existing plants running- extending them to run for 60+ years. That's pretty cheap, since the cost of fuel is tiny and you just need to pay for the ~1000 people onsite. The issue there is risk- you can't just open up all the valves to check how worn out they are, or if all the computers still have nice transistors and clean re…

That’s just part of the story, annual nuclear refueling is also surprisingly expensive. The raw material is cheap, but you need to refine it to reactor grade, creating fuel rods, and only use ~6% of it before replacing the rods. So on net it ends up being quite costly before considering long term storage. You also need to shutdown the reactor for refueling. Other costs like maintenance starts to really add up over ti…

What is "quite costly", compared to wha? The statement is so vague its not informative - how much is it actually?

It's cheaper than millions of tons of coal needed to produce an equivalent amount of energy, or any other fossil fuel. Only renewables have lower running costs.

Nuclear is not expensive in Russia , France or China

Post reply on HN