Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear energy is clean

collectifission.nl

561–570 of 709 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Political will aside, finding a place to store this stuff doesn’t seem like a massive problem. How about your backyard?

I don't have a backyard, but if it turned out to be the most effective and safe solution to, let's say, dig a deep borehole under my hypothetical lawn, drop the waste down there and seal it back up, why not? From what I know of deep geological storage, I wouldn't mind living in a house on top of one of these sites. Since they're usually in the middle of nowhere, it would probably be even safer than living in a pollut…

> I don't have a backyard

How convenient

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a backyard, but if it turned out to be the most effective and safe solution to, let's say, dig a deep borehole under my hypothetical lawn, drop the waste down there and seal it back up, why not? From what I know of deep geological storage, I wouldn't mind living in a house on top of one of these sites. Since they're usually in the middle of nowhere, it would probably be even safer than living in a pollut…

> I don't have a backyard How convenient

wow, yes, so convenient that the prospect of having a house is nothing but an unrealistic dream for my generation...

What's your point??

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#563

This article perfectly exemplifies the arguments in discussions. Lets just concentrate on the waste discussion. The article says heavy metals in solar panels are a problem (I kind of agree, although the way it is described makes it out like we are talking about huge amounts, in reality the lead in solar panels is largely from soldering so very small amounts. Orders of magnitude more are being used for other applicati…

It's not a matter of "some development in the future". We know how to do it now--the obstacles are political. The problem is a reactor + fuel recycling plant look an awful lot like a weapons grade plutonium production plant. People see that word "plutonium" and get scared.

The reality is nobody uses power reactor for making bombs. The desired reaction is U-238 + n -> U-239, decay to Np-239, decay to Pu-239. However, if you leave the fuel in for too long you get an increasing amount of Pu-239 + n -> Pu-240. Pu-240 is a neutron emitter that gives bombmakers big headaches. If someone were to make off with a load of plutonium from a reprocessor they're going to have a hard time turning it into a working bomb.

However, there's another approach to avoiding theft: Most of these isotopes don't matter. The fuel is "spent" because of a few neutron absorbers. Remove those, don't clean up the rest of it. Leave stuff like that Ba-133. The resulting fuel works just as well but unlike fresh fuel it's very nasty to deal with. The industry will have no problem with it--it's no nastier than the rods were when they came out, they have the machinery to handle it safely. The thief doesn't. You're not walking out with a gamma emitter in your pocket without setting off a bunch of alarms and if you try to steal much it will kill you before you manage to make off with it.

There still is one political headache, though--a reprocessor plant + a reactor built for quick fuel changes is the heart of a plutonium bomb program. It's hard to say we can have such plants but places like Iran can't.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy , the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium . And we went pretty heavy on Nuclear. Overall, I wouldn't say the problem is insignificant. But it is certainly a small problem, compared to building, maintaining, and renewing all the nuke plants themselves.

> The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy, the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium. Which is surely just the fuel. Which itself is a tiny amount of the whole amount of waste a nuclear reactor is responsible for in his lifetime.

But most of that waste is very low level. It's called "nuclear" waste but it's mostly stuff that is at best mildly contaminated.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#565
post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody knows what storage would cost because there is no technology that currently exists to make storage possible. Battery technology helps a lot to stabilize the grid over seconds to minutes or even hours, but the kind of storage that would be needed to be 100% solar and wind just doesn't exist. Pumped hydro is great but there are not many places where it is feasible. So the reality of the current situation is that…

Storage is trivial. It will be built after there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from.

Ask anyone with an off-grid solar installation how trivial it is.

Hint: The storage costs more than the power. Considerably more last time I looked at the numbers.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#566
post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also not been able to find relyable datapoints on the total insurance cost of a nuclear fascility. I'd love to talk to someone in the insurance industry how they calculate this because that'll probably be a decent indicator of the risk involved.

It is not possible to insure a nuclear power plant. The Fukushima cleanup is currently estimated to be somewhere in the range of $200B - $1T. [1] For US the insurance is capped at $450M per site and $131M per reactor because that's what been decided that the market can bear. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup [2]: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n...

Fukushima is an exercise in politics. They've already killed several hundred people in the name of politics, I haven't seen data on what the cleanup entails but I suspect it's as stupid as the evacuation. (Hint: The expected death toll from staying put was zero.)

The problem is nuke plants generally produce no hazard and rarely make a mess--and we go insane about said mess. We don't do much of anything about the much greater deaths from the other sources because they're more distributed and thus not noticed.

Instead of obsessing about maximum safety and cleanup etc, what we should be doing is saying nuke plants must have a better safety profile than their closest competitor--note that that is natural gas which currently has 100x the death rate. (Wind and solar are intermittent, until you count the storage systems you don't have a number at all. Hydro is capacity-limited. Biomass is limited.) And I think the chart in the article is allocating the Fukushima evacuation deaths to nuclear rather than to the politicians.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see. You are handwaving away the nonexistent storage tech required to stand up a power grid. Please stop. The fact is that without inventing new storage tech, which might or might not be possible, the only options for powering the world are nuclear or burning more carbon. Personally, I'd rather humans still have a viable habitat in a century.

Batteries don't exist? Pumped hydro doesn't exist? Hydrogen doesn't exist? All these storage technologies exist. The churn right now is to figure out what flavor of storage is going to win, and how much they will end up costing after they go down their experience curves. But if some aliens held a gun to our heads and insisted we build storage now, it could be done. The weirdness from you guys, thinking that obviously…

Batteries are more expensive than the power itself.

Pumped hydro is severely capacity limited and is likewise limited by available water--even if you have a place to pump it you have to have spare water to pump there. Realistically, pumped hydro exists to allow powering up slower generators, not as a meaningful energy storage.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#568
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see. You are handwaving away the nonexistent storage tech required to stand up a power grid. Please stop. The fact is that without inventing new storage tech, which might or might not be possible, the only options for powering the world are nuclear or burning more carbon. Personally, I'd rather humans still have a viable habitat in a century.

> You are handwaving away the nonexistent storage tech required to stand up a power grid. Please stop. This isn't true. If you accept 5% non-renewable power generation (which - lets face it - will be with us for a while!) you need storage at $150/kWh to use renewables for everything else[1]. This price is available now (and forecast to drop below $100/kWh next year)[2]. [1] https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4…

Your first article is all hypothetical about the costs of storage tech rather than reality based.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#569
post #120
post #107

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 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 a…

There's a dam in the US that's an even bigger issue if it were to go.

Re: Nuclear energy is clean

#570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those accidents combined killed less than 10% of the people that are killed by fossil fuel pollution every single year. Most nuclear accidents are entirely hypothetical.

If we remove Chernobyl from this list, we'll find that probably just 1 person died from radiation after power plant accidents. Fossil plants are killing millions of people every year. During heatwave this year, when we had temperatures around 43C for almost 2 weeks, hundreds of people died in my country because our energy grids were overloaded and ACs turned off. And many people can't even afford to pay for AC energy…

SL-1 killed three people. However, it was a military reactor, not civilian.
Post reply on HN