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

71–80 of 201 posts

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#71

Post by ainiriand »

illiarian wrote: post #59
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.

Sad thing is that some consequences are only seen after a decade, like cancer incidence in a population.

A similar thing happened in East Palestine derail, mortality is 0 by the accident itself and the long-term consequences are ignored. I guess you cannot produce an argument in favor of just not maintaining rail tracks just because nobody dies from those accidents...

But I guess all of that tends to be forgotten by the media.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#72

Post by lispm »

illiarian wrote: post #59
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.

Note how long reactors have been offline since the earthquake.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#73

Post by beefield »

cryptoneo wrote: post #52
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 de…

Insurance companies work typically by sharing risk between insurers. Against risks that are relatively common in aggregate, so that you can calculate a reasonable price for the risk.

The occurrence of nuclear accidents is so rare and the potential cost so high that a typical insurance company business model can't accommodate that risk.

You could try develop some kind of insurance bond scheme where nuclear power plant needs to raise a capital buffer to protect against accidents, and in case of an accident, bond investors lose their money. But even this kind of a scheme would be pretty difficult to pull off in a scale that would cover all potential losses, and someone (government) would need to take the tail risk.

And just to be clear, even now, nuclear plants do not go completely uninsured.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n...

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#74

Post by lispm »

illiarian wrote: post #56
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.

But still most of the reactors were taken offline and a lot are not coming back. I would invest into a technology which would not take out all similar systems for months and years on a strong earthquake - something which is to expect in Japan.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#75

Post by BoppreH »

eftychis wrote: post #63
thaumasiotes wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while dying constantly from things they cannot see (like air pollution from coal) Air pollution from coal has many problems. But invisibility is not one of those problems. You can see it.

Not 100% true. Here is a counter-example. First, guess what is one of the most abundant element on earth. Uranium. [1] Now consider what is a common pollutant when we mine coal or burn it. Uranium. [2,3, 6] Saying that we should burn coal because we are afraid of nuclear/radioactive waste is ad absurdum. And unlike nuclear plants it is questionable if we process the radioactive waste in question [4 & 5 show the contr…

> First, guess what is one of the most abundant element on earth. Uranium.

Your source says it's the 48th most abundant element in crustal rocks. Doesn't sound that common to me.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#76

Post by Puts »

According to Wikipedia there is about 422 commercial reactors in the world and so far in history about 18 meltdowns. So statistically 4% of reactors will have a meltdown. To me that is crazy, and does not sound safe. Even if these accidents have not lead to direct deaths each one is an environmental catastrophe that is impossible to clean up. And that is just meltdowns - the most serious of all accidents.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#77

Post by eecc »

bboygravity wrote: post #4
eecc wrote: post #2

That’s backwards: it actually means that protecting against nuclear hazards is astronomically expensive, that nukes are borderline unmanageable in the long term

Yeah, that was not what I read in that text. The point the author is trying to get accross is that nuclear is being made unnecesarily expensive. Not nececarily expensive like you seem to claim with no substantiation.

A point that is a spin on the data. In the 60s they also used to cover homes in asbestos and lead, do we need to do that again? Also flying airplanes was much cheaper, and safety systems were much more crude; should we go back to LOS navigation?

I am not making any unsubstantiated claim, it’s a fact that over the decades risk analyses have determined that such measures were necessary. You’re the ne claiming it was just tree-hugging hysteria.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#78

Post by roenxi »

otherme123 wrote: post #29
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…

Regulations are also hitting coal hard, at least in Europe. UK got rid of coal. The article is making it sound like coal plants can do whatever they want, while nuclear have it worse. I don't think the way is to lower the safety for nukes, but to raise the safety requirements of coal. This article sounds like someone claiming that airbags are barely used, and removing them is a good way to get cheaper cars for all at…

> UK got rid of coal.

Consult this graph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Coal_Production.png

And then reflect on the fact that it probably wasn't regulation that resulted in them ceasing to use coal in the 2010s. It was predictable from the 60s by anyone equipped with a ruler.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#79

Post by sonzohan »

calderknight wrote: post #25

Can someone spoon feed me here? I read the article but didn't notice the part where the author explains why nuclear power is too safe.

A great example is radiation testing for plant workers. Consider under current regulations the allowable radiation levels for entering/leaving the plant is so low that workers have sounded radioactivity alarms for eating bananas.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#80

Post by mpweiher »

cryptoneo wrote: post #52
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 de…

The problem is that the cost of an accident is also not driven by facts but by politics and emotion.

And that makes the cost of an accident not just much higher, but also essentially incalculable. "How irrational are the public and the pandering politicians going to be this decade?" is a difficult variable to price into your models.

And since the costs are, in fact, largely driven by the politics and irrational public fears, it actually makes sense to have the public bear those costs...in a weird way.

Post reply on HN