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

Nuclear energy is clean

collectifission.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 709 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#111

Post by tremon »

stevenjgarner wrote: post #94

Before we get all gung-ho on nuclear power, perhaps we could try solving the existential nuclear problems we already have. FACTS [0]: 1. The nuclear industry still has no solution to the 'waste problem'. 2. The transport of this waste poses an unacceptable risk to people and the environment. 3. Plutonium is the most dangerous material in the world. 4. Nuclear waste is hazardous for tens of thousands of years. This cl…

1. The fossil fuel industry still has no solution to the 'CO2 problem'

2. The continuous emission of this gas poses an unacceptable risk to people and the environment.

3. There are many compounds more dangerous than plutonium, which we happily use in day-to-day life: botulinum, ricin, hydrazine.

4. A runaway greenhouse effect is hazardous for tens of thousands of years, if not permanent. This clearly is unprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations.

5. Many known geological repositories of carbon-based compounds (permafrost, bogs) are unstable; given the right triggers, the captured methane might emerge and threaten future generations.

6. Nobody knows the true cost of climate change. The costs are so high that fossil fuel use can never be economic.

Yet we make fossil fuel use economic to the tune of 6 trillion dollar in subsidies per year. So please, stop using your "facts" to delay action against fossil fuel use.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#112

Post by solardev »

joebob42 wrote: post #102
solardev wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, we live in an age when a few dozen well placed missiles can kill millions and destroy entire countries, not just their electrical grid. A few retaliatory strikes later and an entire region is gone, if not the world as a whole. That doesn't sound like a very useful way to make decisions about anything except maybe missile defense and second strike capabilities. Anything can be destroyed with sufficient violence.

While this is technically true, I think a developed-ish nation might blow up your electric facilities before it would destroy a city.

There are many juicy targets like that, whether it's power plants or airports or dams or bridges or whatever. We don't typically worry about hardening them against smart munitions. If you're in a hot war with an adversary like that you're pretty screwed regardless.

There's just no practical way to harden all of it against attack. And a tiny chance of some hypothetical future war isn't a good reason to choose a technology (combusting fossil fuels) that's gonna kill your own citizens every year, guaranteed. Why do your hypothetical future enemy's job for them?

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#113

Post by epistasis »

TheDudeMan wrote: post #48
epistasis wrote: post #3

> But the amount of concrete and steel for sun and wind is striking. This has to do with the low energy density of these two. No, it's not striking at all, and this is just as BS argument as the people arguing that nuclear isn't clean. As far as the energy density, include all the steel and concrete used outside of the reaction chamber, and you will find that nuclear and solar are pretty much on the same order of mag…

> willing to take the financial risk of nuclear There are multiple nuclear (fission) startups in the last decade or so. My understanding is that financial backing is not their problem; outdated regulations are. And fear stokes outdated regulations.

It's one thing to spend a fraction of $1B backing a startup that says it has a new small modular design that will finally turn around the economics, and have a big upside.

It's a far far more difficult thing to risk $10B on a reactor that may or may not actually ever complete construction, and has no potential for growth in value.

People never seem to cite which regulations they want to change. The NRC allowed the AP1000 at Vogtle and Summer to be constructed under a new regulatory regime at the request of industry, but the industry still seemed to mess up their construction process. And France at Flamanville has also had terrible construction problems despite having different and friendly regulatory processes.

My main problem with the nuclear industry is that it continually fails to focus on what would actually deliver nuclear, and just complains about everybody else instead of improving process or becoming accountable for results.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#114

Post by credit_guy »

epistasis wrote: post #3

> But the amount of concrete and steel for sun and wind is striking. This has to do with the low energy density of these two. No, it's not striking at all, and this is just as BS argument as the people arguing that nuclear isn't clean. As far as the energy density, include all the steel and concrete used outside of the reaction chamber, and you will find that nuclear and solar are pretty much on the same order of mag…

Here's the real reason nuclear power did not succeed in the US (I can't speak of other countries). It was opposed by the Democrats, and the Republicans, although some in favor of it, decided they don't want to spend whatever political capital they had on this. Now both Democrats and Republicans are pro nuclear power.

You may not like it, but nuclear power is having a comeback.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#115

Post by orwin »

yawaramin wrote: post #103
mah4k4l wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has affected millions of peoples health already and whole ecosystems. And the consequences will cumulate from this thousands of years. Count that in your equation and get more informative numbers.

Whose health? Any actual data?

I think GP was talking about CO2 (affect millions already, will still be present in a thousand years)

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#116

Post by dxdm »

GuB-42 wrote: post #83
vlunkr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it going to get inside your body?

Mostly from dust you breathe in, or contaminated water or food. And in one famous case, injected by a secret agent using an umbrella.

> And in one famous case, injected by a secret agent using an umbrella

I think you're mixing up the Litvinenko murder, which used polonium in a beverage, and Makenko, who got injected with poision with the tip of an umbrella.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#118

Post by dongobongo »

bad_alloc wrote: post #9

We saw another downside of nuclear power in Ukraine: When Russian troops attacked towards Enerhodar and there was shelling in the area the safety of the reactor could not be guaranteed. In the end, containment can be guaranteed w.r.t to internal accidents but no facility can ever be safe from outside issues like war, natural disaster or politics. Solar has less single points of failure and if it fails not much happen…

In some respects, vulnerability to attack is a feature, not a flaw for promoting peace and collaboration instead of violence. A country with nuclear reactors is less likely to piss neighbors off enough to lead to an invasion. If invasion occurs, everyone will be extra careful. A country with nuclear reactors is less likely to be bombed to shit by other countries due to the reactor's radioactivity inventory potentially containing other countries as well as the country in question - ie. don't spoil the prize.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#119

Post by epistasis »

credit_guy wrote: post #114
epistasis wrote: post #3

> But the amount of concrete and steel for sun and wind is striking. This has to do with the low energy density of these two. No, it's not striking at all, and this is just as BS argument as the people arguing that nuclear isn't clean. As far as the energy density, include all the steel and concrete used outside of the reaction chamber, and you will find that nuclear and solar are pretty much on the same order of mag…

Here's the real reason nuclear power did not succeed in the US (I can't speak of other countries). It was opposed by the Democrats, and the Republicans, although some in favor of it, decided they don't want to spend whatever political capital they had on this. Now both Democrats and Republicans are pro nuclear power. You may not like it, but nuclear power is having a comeback.

The last time to start nuclear to address climate change was the mid-2000s.

And we did start four reactors, with many more planned! However they are all construction failures, and the two at Summer were actually even abandoned half completed, it was so bad. And executives our going to jail for their lies during the construction process.

That's what I mean when I say nobody knows how to build it. We will likely never attempt another new 1GW reactor in our lifetimes, because even is some brave EPC firm thinks they could tackle the challenges, getting the money for that is nearly impossible.

Oh, did I mention that the only reason the four reactors were attempted at all in the mid-2000s is that the two utilities captured state legislatures and changed the law so that they could charge rate payers whether or not construction completed? Utilities memory of stopping nuclear in the 80s isn't because of protestors, it because of bankruptcy.

In any case, the only hope for nuclear is SMRs from new startups. But we can't depend on them because we don't know the costs. Fortunately nuclear is no longer our only hope, and we have other options that we didn't have 20 years ago.

Politics has nearly nothing to do with stopping nuclear. It all came down to construction mucking it up.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#120

Post by lstodd »

cesarb wrote: post #107
TheDong wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroelectric dams typically cause even more damage when they fail, but I rarely see people worrying about whether using them for power will lead to war-time issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure Of course, the Geneva Convention bans attacking dams, just like it bans attacking nuclear power plants. The pollution from burning coal has already killed more people than nuclear disasters conceivably could. If…

> Hydroelectric dams typically cause even more damage when they fail, but I rarely see people worrying about whether using them for power will lead to war-time issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure I believe the reason people worry less about hydroelectric dam failures is because, if they fail, they do not leave behind a contaminated area. Besides, it's just water; many people are used to floods caused by…

Rio Doce was 43.7 million cubic metres and 18 deaths.

If someone blows up Kakhovka dam in Ukraine, it'll be about 18e9 m3, hundreds of thousands dead, wholesale destruction of everything downstream, shutdown of every energy plant that uses the resevoir for cooling, not to mention the hydroelectic station, and untold damage when winds blow the exposed sediment all over the steppe. Which is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world.

So? This Kakhovka dam is a legitimate military target as the last remaining supply route for russian troops in/around Kherson.

Post reply on HN