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

251–260 of 619 posts

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

#251

Post by doikor »

pfdietz wrote: post #193
fshr wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three of the plants you mentioned were 40+ years ago, right? Seems a bit outdated to point to in 2020.

None of the plants I mentioned were 40+ years ago. They are all contemporary. Vogtle is still under construction, Summer was cancelled a couple of years ago ($9B down the drain), Flamanville 3 is still under construction, and the last is near completion. You may be confused with earlier reactors at some of those sites.

Olkiluoto 3 is a new design though. Making a second exact same one again will be much faster and cheaper as you have now worked out most of the issues.

Olkiluoto 1 and 2 were both built quickly and on schedule. Mainly because they were already proven designs with tens of other units already built around the world (and the second reactor is practically identical with the first one)

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

#252

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

pojzon wrote: post #115
nicoburns wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but this isn't exactly irrational. Nuclear only has such a good safety record because we have been so careful with it. Nobody seriously thinks "move fast and break things" nuclear reactors are a good idea.

Its about time a lot of nuclear power plans will reach their life-expancy. I wanna see how countries like France, Japan, Germany, Russia, China are going to deal with that. Fukushima was not a good example of “how to treat reports of damaged facility”. Goverment knew and did nothing. Newer nuclear reactors are safe, but older designs are a ticking time bombs.

Not a single person has died directly of radiation from the Fukushima accident. That's in the context of a tsunami wave that has directly killed large number of people by impact. So in general, Fukushima should be a very good example for promotion of nuclear power.

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

#253

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

AI_WAIFU wrote: post #152
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 first working nuclear reactor was hastily cobbled together in a tennis court. It's literally just a critical mass of inexpensive magic rocks, a control system, and some way to remove the heat. The only reason it costs so much is precisely because everyone is paranoid, so we demand expensive security systems and protocols. If the regulators got out of the way you could probably put one together for a few million d…

We could, but we shouldn't.

The fact that we can is probably the reason for the fears around the reactor. People don't fear the technical limitations of a well-build and well-managed safe reactor, and those can be built. But they fear the danger of the corruption and corner-cutting in some countries which is very difficult to constrain, which will lead to building an unsafe reactor.

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

#254

Post by ncmncm »

arrosenberg wrote: post #229
pfdietz wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, not all land is the same. I think people who worry about land are thinking about the land they see every day, which is in populated areas. They don't think about the vast quantities of very cheap land outside those urban areas. > How many ecosystems should be destroy by covering it in panels, Many fewer than were destroyed covering far vaster areas with farms. > How do you figure? You are going to have transmiss…

> Many fewer than were destroyed covering far vaster areas with farms. How is that relevant? You can't eat solar power, and we can't grow enough food indoors to replace farms. It doesn't make sense to compare the energy, agricultural, or land use needs of early 1800s America to 2020 America. Completely different ballgame. > That doesn't contradict the point I made. Your point require more explanation than you've give…

Numerous crops benefit from sharing the field with solar panels, by reduced peak heat exposure. (And, of course, numerous farms are happy to rent out a bit of space for wind turbines.)

Not to mention parking lots, factories, and warehouses that benefit from protection against sun exposure.

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

#255

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

colordrops wrote: post #92
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…

> it kills a very low number of people per TWh This is a grossly naive and over-simplistic way to judge safety and efficacy. Yes, perhaps fewer people die in a major accidents, but then you've left a large swath of land unusable for hundreds or thousands of years. And the cost for managing the disasters is astronomical. In a place like Japan, they lose a not insignificant portion of landmass to an accident. While oth…

> they lose a not insignificant portion of landmass to an accident.

After a tsunami wave. That was the reason for losing large land mass and a lot of destruction and death. It would have largely been the same way with or without the nuclear plant there.

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

#256

Post by read_if_gay_ »

jhayward wrote: post #136
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Germany has cut coal use in half since the wind-down of the nuclear fleet began. Please do not repeat misinformation.

That’s misinformation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

You can clearly see how coal is on the rise shortly after 2010. So it is factually true to say they switched back to coal. You would be correct to point out that coal use has gone down since, but not by half. Not even close.

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

#257

Post by VBprogrammer »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #234
manfredo wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting this claim? Natural gas costs somewhere between $40 and $70 per MWh [1]. Storage costs for batteries range from $100/KWh (very optimistic) to $300/KWh [2]. But that's per kilowatt hours. That's $100,000 per MWh to $300,000 per MWh. Solar and wind's dispatchability remains its key weakness. Storage at anywhere near the required amounts remains a fantasy. That's why Germany and California are stil…

You can use batteries more than once! If you cycle them once per day for ten years to store solar power until night, your numbers given mean they add $30-100 per MWh to the cost of that stored power (but not daytime use). Not cheap, but in no way a "fantasy". Certainly not in a world with sane carbon pricing.

So the cost of storage would exceed the cost of generating the same power via a CCGT plant?

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

#258

Post by ncmncm »

AngryData wrote: post #242
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…

Even Fukushima was a human problem, they had the warnings, the designs, the technology, the reviews, and the equipment to prevent a meltdown. But newer safety features were never implemented due to political problems and concerns. They knew Tsunamis bigger than the plant was designed for could happen, they knew earthquakes bigger than the plant could handle could happen, they had the technology and knowledge to reduc…

And there is no reason to think anybody else would bother, either.

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

#259

Post by read_if_gay_ »

jimmcslim wrote: post #61
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #9

I think it's definitely true people are overly anxious about radiation, and irrationally so. For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays but not about flying even though it gives you roughly the same amount of exposure. I know I was pretty anxious when I had a chest xray as a kid. It's just the invisible nature of radiation. Coupled with the real and brutal effects of extreme doses, it just lend…

I’ve just had approximately 7 weeks of radiation therapy as post-surgery treatment for a cancer in my neck. 2 grays each treatment (I think) and 33 treatments, 66 grays in total. My skin in the treatment area held up fine until the last week when it basically gave up, so I’m looking forward to a couple of weeks of applying gel and changing bandages... So even quite moderate exposures can have significant effects, I c…

I wish you all the best.

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

#260

Post by rich_sasha »

BurningFrog wrote: post #145
ComputerGuru wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I wonder if a fairer cost comparison would thus be coal power plus carbon capture? IIRC that works out at similar costs, though I never looked much into it.
Post reply on HN