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

Nuclear power is too safe

jackdevanney.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 201 posts

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#51

Post by goodpoint »

coldtea wrote: post #9

LOL. He laments how billions are spent for nuclear reactor safety and then uses the casualty numbers based on those billions being spent [1], to calculate the casualty impact of building nuclear factories with more abandon and without such spending (as if the numbers would be the same). Also hidden in the small print, the assumption that future accidents would be "no worse" that previous ones. Because, you know, that…

> Also hidden in the small print, the assumption that future accidents would be "no worse" that previous ones.

This is spot on. This is like saying "driving is safe because I never died so far".

Besides, it neglected to mention many other problems, including nuclear proliferation, centralization of power etc.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#52

Post by cryptoneo »

epups wrote: post #6

If nuclear power was invented today, it would have been considered a breakthrough capable of changing the course of climate change dramatically. Since it exists for long and people formed an emotional reaction to incidents that were not that serious, while dying constantly from things they cannot see (like air pollution from coal), we are in this weird scenario where otherwise educated people say absolutely stupid th…

If there is such good evidence it shouldn't be hard to get nuclear plants insured. Insurance companies usually don't decide based on ´emotional reactions to incidents that were not that serious´ but look at the facts.

As long as the cleanup cost is externalized and paid for by my tax dollars you're damn right I'm reacting emotional. Wouldn't you, if they set up the plant in your backyard (think Europe's population density)?

The sun gives us 10,000 times earths energy demand, so maybe we stop discussing nuclear industry marketing blogs and shift focus on energy storage technology.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#53

Post by joshjob42 »

coldtea wrote: post #9

LOL. He laments how billions are spent for nuclear reactor safety and then uses the casualty numbers based on those billions being spent [1], to calculate the casualty impact of building nuclear factories with more abandon and without such spending (as if the numbers would be the same). Also hidden in the small print, the assumption that future accidents would be "no worse" that previous ones. Because, you know, that…

I've ran the numbers and based on the actual run experience of the RBMK it will end it's life as a reactor design having killed less than half as many people per TWh as American coal did in recent years using the 4000 expected dead number estimate from the WHO and EPA numbers for coal. There were some upgrades to the RBMK post Chernobyl but fundamentally simple operational changes would've prevented any further catastrophes.

If the worst designed reactor of all time and the only one subject to the only accident in nuclear history to kill a large number of people is significantly safer per unit electricity than coal, it's not crazy to say that all the plants that are radically safer than said reactor design probably are spending too much on safety.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#55

Post by goodpoint »

perbu wrote: post #19
vpaulus wrote: post #13

I never understand why the "man in the street" with their zero knowledge will decide if which type of power plant is safe/sustainable/economical. Imagine if they would be also allowed to tell your car mechanical what is wrong and how to fix that.

Democracy. Sounds banal, but it's all we got. Nuclear triggers some primal fear. The safety regulations have become table stakes, unfortunately.

Some people might be fearful but the real problem remains:

Nuclear can be safe, cheap and built quickly. Pick two at best.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#56

Post by illiarian »

xeyownt wrote: post #40

Nuclear fission reactor are intrinsically dangerous, no matter what amount of safety procedure or technology you throw at it. Touting nuclear is safe is like saying asbestos is safe. I don't understand the motivation of some trying to argue that nuclear is safe, while ignoring all the obvious and huge risks that must be continuously addressed either in the technology, in the procedure or even in laws (eg. trading of…

Fukushima was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. While the earthquake was below the plant's design basis, the tsunami was significantly above.

There's 1 (one) death that is the direct result of the Fukushima incident.

The plant was built in 1982.

I don't think we have anything as safe as nuclear plants.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#57

Post by RC_ITR »

coldtea wrote: post #38
RC_ITR wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you do your research about fallout. It decays about 1 order of magnitude for every 7^n of time. That’s the idea behind fallout shelters, you wait until the fallout is no longer dangerous. The atmosphere is a very harsh place for radioactive particles. We’ve gleaned this from real world testing. Please don’t be afraid of made up things. Be afraid of real things like climate change.

Similar non-chalance and assurances about previous technologies is how climate change came about..

No, we’ve known about the greenhouse effect for well over a century.

It’s not non-chalance, it’s indifference.

EDIT: the cause of the indifference is in part because it’s harder to get scared about! Our brains aren’t perfect risk estimators, especially when it comes to radiation and atmospheric dilution.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#58

Post by RC_ITR »

coldtea wrote: post #37
RC_ITR wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that can kill millions Did the inverse square law stop working recently or do they all take turns touching it?

Do you need to take turns touching it for it to be mishandled, stolen, have some accident during transport, leak in the biosphere, the soil, rivers, or underground waters, spread as air particles, be used in a dirt bomb, and several other ways besides?

Again, you can be afraid of imagined scenarios or you can do research.

Uranium in power plants is dangerous because there are literal tons of it in one place.

Any amount that could be feasibly moved has a low overall level of radiation (uranium has a super long half life, which means pound for pound it emits very little).

Don’t people wonder how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still cities where people live today (hint, the ~10lbs of uranium in the bombs aren’t actually that much on a time scale of years)?

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#59

Post by illiarian »

minebreaker wrote: post #42

I'm pretty sure nuclear power plants are safe if operated properly. I'm pretty sure they are not and will not be operated properly. Especially in Japan, where I live. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents

Note how the total deaths directly attributable to Japan's worst nuclear incidents (including Fukushima) is... three.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#60

Post by illiarian »

osobo wrote: post #22

It's not just about life-years. It's about the risk of making significant stretches of land uninhabitable for a serious amount of time. 26 Chernobyl-like releases would have punched some serious holes in the map of the Western world. Furthermore, the 30-year argument sounds disingenuous ("LNT-Worshipping"? Really?) and the CO2 waste issue is mentioned where the nuclear waste issue is not. Honestly, the whole thing fe…

First, we'd need to have 26 Chernobyl-level incidents that you assume are a given.

Second, there's very little issue with nuclear waste. Way, way, way less than the media make it out to be

Post reply on HN