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

91–100 of 201 posts

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#91

Post by 7952 »

synecdoche wrote: post #81
elcritch wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay great, you've established some measure of credibility. But given the number of medical treatments and established methods of with zero actual backing evidence, could you cite some decent support for LNT? Currently TFA links to some interesting arguments in favor of a time-rate dependent factor that incorporates cellular repair mechanisms. At first glance that seems plausible, especially below a certain threshold…

Claims based on arguments similar to "because I said so, and I should know" are dubious in my opinion, because how is one supposed to distinguish those claims from mere opinion? Instead arguments should point to evidence that provide new information or counter examples, if they are to have a chance to be convincing.

It is particularly difficult with nuclear as there are so many different professions involved. You may hear from a nuclear engineer about safety. But they are not a materials expert, or a human factors specialist, or a geologist, or a hydrologist. And safety depends on all of these things. And it depends on intimate understanding of the specific design and practices of a power station. Much of which will be confidential.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#92

Post by illiarian »

ainiriand wrote: post #71
illiarian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

But not by scientific community. Because what you are parroting is exactly what the media is saying.

30 years after Chernobyl https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899336/

Most affected are the crews on site.

Even people in the evacuation zone "received low radiation doses equivalent to approximately one whole-body computed tomography (CT) scan". The rest of Europe? "in Europe number almost 600 million people, with radiation exposure doses comparable to one annual background radiation dose"

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#93

Post by synecdoche »

bottlepalm wrote: post #83
synecdoche wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On top of that, nuclear power needs a lot of water. This means they can become less reliable, especially once they age. > Not only does it need water, but the water can't stop for any reason without resulting in a disaster. You have to keep that spent fuel cool otherwise it'll burn itself. I'd say your information is incomplete. Nuclear power does not necessarily need water. Modern reactor designs do not use water…

Modern? They’ve been talking about ‘modern’ fail safe designs for decades. Where are they? The problem is none of the existing 400 reactors are fail safe and none are being built. Don’t use fantasy reactors that don’t exist to support the status quo.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory MSRE that produced power safely from 1965-1969 is no fantasy, but a counter example, both to the fantasy claim and the water claim.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#94

Post by minebreaker »

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.

I'd say, Fukushima was the most successfully handled nuclear incident, given the magnitude of the earthquake. Thank god LDP was not the ruling party at the time.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#95

Post by piva00 »

throwbadubadu wrote: post #34
tooltower wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. If it was invented today, you'd have the same fear-mongering, the same lobbying from the coal industry. In addition, you'd also be lacking the decades of safety data that we can use to turn the tide.

We see again just how fearful and critical the situation is around Ukrainian plant... with climate change conflicts in the world will likely increase. So yeah, call me fearful, we don't need that and could have been long into enough multiple better alternatives. They are no option for most of the world.

> They are no option for most of the world.

It's the crux of the issue for me.

I'm not at all against nuclear reactors as part of the energy mix of some countries but the vast majority of countries do not have the infrastructure (socioeconomic included) to properly maintain dozens of reactors going with a stellar safety record.

It takes a lot of money, low corruption, stability, and properly following procedures to keep nuclear reactors safe. I can't see those conditions being met by a large set of countries over 5-7 decades to consider nuclear reactors as a solution. When you consider that even Japan with Fukushima had issues with designing a safe plant...

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#96

Post by piva00 »

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 keep piling on, adding costs and construction time, with no measurable benefit other than political expediency.

Isn't that expected for a technology that can poison a pretty large area of your country for hundreds of years if something go wrong?

As a member of the public I'd rather have strong regulations instead of lax ones until something bad happens and poisons a large swath of land... The potential damage is just too large, something has to imbue responsibilities and expectations on the ones exploiting the technology.

Could you expand on what type of regulation are you complaining about specifically?

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#97

Post by piva00 »

mpweiher wrote: post #80
cryptoneo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publi…

The cost is poisoning a large swath of land for centuries to come. It's not just politics and emotion, it's transforming a large area of a country into a completely unproductive land, for centuries, where no one can live or work at...

How can you not be a afraid when the potential damage is so large? And I'm an advocate for nuclear power, I believe we should've invested in it decades ago to avoid the worst of climate change to come, I just can't agree that the whole issue is "politics and emotion", that's just shoving the real problems with nukes under the rug. Cost of maintenance, cost of decommissioning, baseline factors required for safe operation (including the socioeconomic and political environment of the country a reactor is at), sourcing of fissile material, permanent deposits for nuclear waste, etc.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#98

Post by bjornsing »

This conclusion (i.e. that nuclear power is too safe) could very well be correct. But I’d like to see it underpinned with more solid economic reasoning. For example, while few people die from nuclear accidents they tend to be enormously costly. It may not be rational to spend billions of dollars to prevent one death, but it may well be worth billions of dollars to prevent the Fukushima disaster.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#99

Post by trog »

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 nuclear power was invented today, it would have been considered a breakthrough capable of changing the course of climate change dramatically.

This is pretty funny because we can look at 'AI' which is being called exactly that kind of breakthrough and it is wall-to-wall emotional reaction to its existence!

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#100

Post by austinjp »

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

Not quite

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56023895

Post reply on HN