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

I changed my mind about nuclear waste

zionlights.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 428 posts

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#401

Post by natmaka »

pvaldes wrote: post #343
LarryMullins wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "the Japanese government approved the dumping of radioactive water of this power plant into the Pacific Ocean over the course of 30 years." A minuscule amount of tritium, dumped into an ocean that has billions of tons of uranium dissolved in it. This Fukushima water issue is a perfect example of people letting emotions overrule rational thought.

> A minuscule amount of tritium, dumped into an ocean that has billions of tons of uranium (And then marine life enters the room, accumulating this while ignoring that, and all those carefully raised math models, simulations and speeches fall like a house of cards).

The "National Association of Marine Laboratories" publishes a Position Paper titled "Scientific opposition to Japan’s planned release of over 1.3 million tons of radioactively contaminated water from the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster into the Pacific Ocean."

https://www.naml.org/policy/documents/2022-12-12%20Position%...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#402

Post by natmaka »

dirkt wrote: post #376
Accujack wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point - it's not that weapons reactors produce fundamentally leakier waste than civilian reactors, it's that the military has a long history of not disposing of dangerous chemicals the right way. It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too and a lot of bases and the areas around them are contaminated. No, it's a plain statement, not a "tactic". Power plant wast…

> disposing of power plant waste has never been a real problem. Germany has been trying to find a location to safely dispose power plant waste for about 40 years or so. All the solutions so far didn't work out [1], they are still searching. If you have a recommendation that actually works, I am sure they'd be happy to hear it... [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlager_(Kerntechnik)#Endlage...

The "Asse II" mine case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#403

Post by natmaka »

troupe wrote: post #224
rndmize wrote: post #58

While it's good the author has gained a better understanding of nuclear waste, I feel that they're almost repeating their mistakes in their discussion of renewable waste. I'm fairly sure that everything they listed - solar panels, turbines, batteries - can be recycled; the question generally is whether its cost-effective to do so. (Another important question is probably on whether we want to spend the money on develo…

Saying that a turbine can theoretically be recycled, but at such a high cost that people simple bury them in a field is pretty much the same as saying they can't be recycled.

In some nations (France being one) recycling is mandatory (save extreme-case exceptions), by law.

French ahead: https://factuel.afp.com/le-socle-des-eoliennes-resteront-dan...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#404

Post by natmaka »

Krssst wrote: post #351
AlanSE wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I agree with the "organized civilian protestation" entirely. While NIMBY did play a role historically, this seems out-of-touch when I consider the mothballed & troubled builds which are currently in South Carolina. I do believe regulators have their foot on the brakes, and there are some really telling stories from people in the actual industry. The level of paperwork and scrutiny are hard to fathom f…

> Solar is modular, proven, and roaring. Nuclear has been proven in France for decades. I've yet to see a medium-sized country with solar as the backbone of electricity production.

In France approximately 2/3 of the final energy consumed (don't get fooled by statistics expressed upon primary energy, they are misleading) is produced by burning fossil fuels.

"In 2008, nuclear power accounted for 16% of final energy consumption in France" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Operat...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#405

Post by natmaka »

wirrbel wrote: post #400
ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our national energy company EDF has been the largest energy exporter in Europe for ages, in 2019 it was the largest in the world. In addition to that it's made us the cleanest country in the continent for close to 40 years (along with hydro-rich countries). The notion that 2022 is a smoking gun for nuclear is ridiculous. All it reflects is the past 12 years of successive liberal governments writing laws and reforms t…

that is if La Hague isn't leaking nuclear waste

Even if it doesn't leak... France seeks strategy as nuclear waste site risks saturation point. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/france-seeks-st...

Moreover the long-term deposit site (dubbed 'Cigéo') isn't ready.

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#406

Post by natmaka »

ptilt wrote: post #154
wirrbel wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Controversial opinion: by scaremongering about nuclear power—which the west could have started adopting in the 1970s like France did—the naked tree huggers did as much to set back climate change mitigation efforts as the oil lobby. You would have thought that France would have supplied the European continent with electricity now that Russia cut its gas supply, but it turns out that France received electricity from…

What you don’t know is that in the 2010’s the left wing had a agreement with the Green Party to stop all nuclear by 2050. That’s why we stop financing and maintaining a lot of nuclear plants. It turned out it was a bad idea..

No.

The sole closed nuclear plant (Fessenheim) was the oldest one, disputed by neighboring nations Germany and Switzerland (all owning stakes in it!) for seismic-related risks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fessenheim_Nuclear_Power_Plant...

A new reactor (Flamanville-3, an EPR) was ordered in 2004, work began in 2007 for a delivery in 2012, it is not delivered yet and 6x times over-budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

A huge program (55 to 95 billions euros) aiming at upgrading all existing reactors in order to run them for 60 or even 80 years was launched and runs: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage

Governments adopted sustained nuclear R&D budgets. See «Graphique 1», French ahead: https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/energie-recherche-et-developpem...

Governments also sold reactors to Finland (running project, way over-budget and delay), China (2 reactors, over-budget and delay, and they stayed offline or at low-power for a full year after an incident) and the U.-K. (this is a running project, already late and over-budget).

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#407

Post by natmaka »

shortcake27 wrote: post #214
ptilt wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you don’t know is that in the 2010’s the left wing had a agreement with the Green Party to stop all nuclear by 2050. That’s why we stop financing and maintaining a lot of nuclear plants. It turned out it was a bad idea..

While I don’t know anything about that agreement, I assume it would have had been a push for renewables. By 2050 it will be easily possible to power the world using renewables. Ending nuclear at that point doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me.

Some references: https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1557466581185224704

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#408

Post by natmaka »

shortcake27 wrote: post #398
Krssst wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway: large hydro resources, low population. Costa Rica: 80% hydro. Scotland: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-56530424 says that renewable met 97% of energy demand, which does not mean that clean electricity was produced when it was needed in Scotland. Considering that this means the country could run at 97% of its production potential with only RE is what I consider "creative accounting". (the article does no…

Keep in mind it is also possible for countries to export electricity; for the world to be powered by renewables each country needs not produce 100% of it’s own energy demands.

This is of paramount importance. Add storage (V2G...) and clean backup (green hydrogen...).

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#409

Post by natmaka »

wirrbel wrote: post #384
ohgodplsno wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fessenheim was amongst the top performing nuclear plants, and had no issues being given a 10 year renewal because of how safe it was before it was closed for political reasons. The EELV/Die Grunde kool-aid is not a good thing to drink considering how anti science they are. And as always, the same awful arguments about "don't overheat the rivers", when the limits set by the safety regulations are way under anything th…

Energiewende was cancelled by the Merkel governments in favour of nuclear until they made a turnaround with regards to nuclear after Fukushima.

Exactly, the phase-out plan was initially delayed in late 2010: the government decreed a 12-year delay of the schedule. Then something unpleasant happened at Fukushima.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Closu...

Re: I changed my mind about nuclear waste

#410

Post by concordDance »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #392
concordDance wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In deaths per KWh nuclear is king, with a thousandth of the deaths of gas and ten thousandth of coal. Until recently even solar was worse due to installers sometimes falling off roofs! E.g. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... I really do not understand why almost no one bothers to spend a couple of minutes looking up the actual numbers and analysis that people have been doing for decades..…

Because the 'actual numbers' were protested against even by the scientists on whose work they are based and represent (or rather misrepresent) what an industry that is constantly trying to cut corners does when there is enough attention and scepticism to go around to stop them before they do anything critically stupid. In spite of various plant operators' attempts, no serious accident has ever occured because there a…

Of course they cut corners! They're so overburdened with endless overly cautious regulations that see spending a billion man hours as better than letting a single curie of material get loose into the wider environment (which is incredibly stupid given how much more good a billion man hours can do in, say, healthcare). If they didn't cut corners nothing would get done.

And once corner cutting starts it doesn't distinguish well between the actually important rules and the ineffectual or overly cautious ones. Overregulation is an actual safety threat.

Post reply on HN