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

581–590 of 619 posts

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

#581

Post by 08-15 »

rgbrenner wrote: post #169
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…

Your post conveniently ignores solar/wind + batteries, which is even cheaper than coal.

And that's why electricity is so cheap in Germany, right?

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

#582

Post by phreeza »

m4rtink wrote: post #480
hannob wrote: post #315

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 Can you state in which country nuclear has to pay all the externalities up front? And if that country has any nuclear to begin with? (I know from Germany that the opposite was always a major point of criticism - the insurance nuclear plant operators need is limited, lots of the respon…

The nuclear power plants in Czech Republic set asside a fraction of earnings for every MW/h they sell to a decomissioning fund.

If I read this [1] correctly, the fund covers only technical decommissioning work, "liability resulting from spent-fuel management (e.g., costs for on-site interim storage) and all costs related to final nuclear waste disposal is not covered by these estimates".

Even only the decommissioning fund requires a payment of 5 cents/kWh, which just itself is a cost that solar can compete with.

[1] https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/26...

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

#583

Post by VBprogrammer »

dv_dt wrote: post #558
VBprogrammer wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong on nuclear. They operate in load following in France just fine.

Until it gets too hot and they have to ironically shut down the plants during heat waves.

The same would be true of any thermoelectric power station. They all need cooling of the condenser.

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

#584

Post by zurn »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #380
zurn wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 2 scenarios: 1. We drastically reduce fossils using regulation / legislation, in which case they become harder to get (eg more expensive) than the alternatives for most users. 2. We don't reduce fossils, in which case we're left with just trying to outcompete energy supply so nobody wants to pump the cheap oil and gas from the ground anymore. Option 2 is never going to work and is equivalent to just giving…

>Option 2 is never going to work and is equivalent to just giving up on fighting climate change. And option 1 is no better. You tax the crap out of fossil fuels forcing billions of people's standard of living to go substantially backwards, they start revolting, maybe have you lined up and shot, people like me say "told ya so" and we're left with shattered economies, refugee crisis and basically all the bad things cli…

Pretty gloomy view!

Taxing fossils yields revenue that has to be used for thngs like income transfers or breaking dependency on fossils to offset these steps back.

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

#585

Post by Lazare »

dv_dt wrote: post #512
Lazare wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My girlfriends oldest brother died in what was a wave of cancer infant deaths [..] That's horrible, and I don't want to diminish it in any way. Nuclear power has killed many people, and impacted many more others negatively. Thousands, certainly, possibly tens of thousands. Some (very disputed) estimates for Chernobyl range as high as hundreds of thousands of premature deaths. Each of those is a unique tragedy. On t…

Compare vs renewables not coal.

We're still building coal power plants right now. See, eg, "Japan Races to Build New Coal-Burning Power Plants" from Feb of this year (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-fukush...).

In many places, what replaced nuclear power plants we decommission or choose not to build is not renewables, so that's by no means the only relevant comparison.

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

#586

Post by avar »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #443
avar wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Netherlands has plenty of space for on-shore wind, what it doesn't have is sufficient space for them to get away from the NIMBY's. Hence building them off-shore.

Off-shore is of course a great way to have the benefits without the drawbacks. The Netherlands is quite full already and we should be careful with the small amounts of nature we have left. The added cost isn't a huge thing when your factor in it's clean energy without long term waste like nuclear.

Of course it has a huge drawback: opportunity cost.

If you look at two recently constructed wind farms in The Netherlands[1][2] then by a conservative estimate the offshore one costs around 5 million/MW compared to 2.5 million/MW for the (mostly) on-shore one.

That conservatively gives you a cost difference of around 1.5 billion for building it offshore. Or around 1 million EUR per the 150 turbines that make up Gemini.

So yes, I agree with you about the importance of preserving nature. I just think it's a better investment to place 150 relatively low-footprint turbines around the country and use the 1 million leftover EUR for each one to expand the public land around them into a park or outdoor area.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windpark_Noordoostpolder

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_Wind_Farm

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

#587

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

pvaldes wrote: post #564
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Wikipedia currently wrong on this with the sources listed there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... Deaths 0 from radiation,[3] 2,202 from evacuation,[4] Non-fatal injuries 37 with physical injuries,[5] 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns[6][7] "For evacuation, the estimated number of deaths during and immediately after transit range from 34 to "greater than 50".[12][17][1…

> Is wikipedia currently wrong on this...? Aye

Well, do you have any data or sources?

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

#588

Post by pfdietz »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #572
pfdietz wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geological formations suitable for storage of hydrogen are quite widespread. They're basically identical to the formations that are already used to store natural gas.

Storing hydrogen is much more complicated than storing methane. Not to mention the challenge of moving hydrogen from the production location (probably close to a river), to the storage site. Hydrogen rapidly corrodes metals, turning them into metal hydrides. Hydrogen molecules are small, and they permeate through metals effectively increasing surface area. Even if storage is widespread, transport is challenging. Hydr…

> Storing hydrogen is much more complicated than storing methane.

Not really. It has lower energy/mole. There is the possibility that if CO2 is present that microorganisms could react the two to make methane. But aside from that, where is this much greater complexity coming from? The equipment required for storing either is similar.

Hydrogen is already dealt with on a very large scale. If expanded to STP, the amount of hydrogen produced every year globally would occupy 700 cubic kilometers. This is not Power Point technology of the kind you find in pro-nuclear arguments.

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

#589

Post by monadic2 »

nicoburns wrote: post #343
monadic2 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the stakes are human existence on the planet. I don't know why you would turn away from solutions we already have with boundable risk.

Because I consider the renewables solution to have comparably bounded risk.

It's still not clear what basis you're bounding that risk on—it seems like optimism that one of the investments would pay off. I would strongly prefer pessimism in this case!

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

#590

Post by read_if_gay_ »

jhayward wrote: post #563
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your numbers also show that coal use went up by several TWh shortly after the Energiewende. I'll concur that the numbers improved much faster than I would have expected based on what I had in mind from previous years. But they still went up.

Anyone who describes the Energiewende nuclear draw down as having caused coal consumption to rise is propagating misinformation. While there may be some small, tightly qualified way in which the statement can be twisted to be true the impression that is conveyed is one that is in conflict with the facts. Misinformation often uses small truths to tell larger lies.

> Anyone who describes the Energiewende nuclear draw down as having caused coal consumption to rise is propagating misinformation.

Anyone who does that would be factually correct, as proven by your own numbers. And this accusation is especially ironic coming from someone who made a factually incorrect statement.

> there may be some small, tightly qualified way in which the statement can be twisted to be true

It was true for several years and for several TWh. It's not at all fair to call that "twisted and tightly qualified".

If you don't think so, note that from 2010 until now, the length of time in which coal use was elevated is about the same as the length of time where it decreased. So if my statement is twisted and tightly qualified, then so is your statement that coal use has been reduced by 35%. Not to mention your initial claim that it's been cut in half.

> the impression that is conveyed is one that is in conflict with the facts.

Since you insist, I'll amend my statement: getting out of nuclear forced an increase in coal use for several years.

But the main point remains untouched. From a climate standpoint, Germany would've been strictly better off with nuclear.

Post reply on HN