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

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#121

Post by otherme123 »

austinjp wrote: post #100
otherme123 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Please:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Electric...

I guess while there's a guy in UK doing a barbeque with coal, I can't say "UK got rid of coal" here.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#122

Post by mpweiher »

rdiddly wrote: post #54
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.

He means too costly, because of the level of safety we demand.

And because it's too costly, we use other forms of energy production that are far less safe instead.

So making nuclear ultra-extra-special safe actually kills more people and is more costly than having slightly less safe nuclear would.

Or as I tend to put it: fear of nuclear is far deadlier than nuclear.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#123

Post by illiarian »

Gwypaas wrote: post #115
illiarian wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. > A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 Severe as in: exploded? people died?

> Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. Typical nuclear proponents, trying to shift blame. The $2T is for the nuclear side of things.

Typical nuclear fearmongers throwing nonsensical number about.

"Japan has spent roughly 1 trillion yen ($7.3 billion) annually on the damage caused by the meltdowns at the Fukushima "

That amounts to 84 billion dollars. That includes everything, including compensations and decomissioning. The cleanup itself is roughly 30 billion dollars.

While the costs are still huge, note: this is for a plant that was both hit by an earthquake and flooded by unprecedented tsunami.

Also note: even with all that in mind only one person died as the result of direct radiation exposure, and radiation levels in Fukushima region are normal or below average levels.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#124

Post by Ekaros »

goodpoint wrote: post #120
Ekaros wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if we had let's say 20 or 30 years ago started with the safe and cheap. Where would we be now with CO2 emissions? Or would have it been even slower? If it can be cheap and safe shouldn't we have started massive scale yesterday?

It already started 50 years ago, and the results are here for everybody to be seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... The chart is clear. Nuclear is in no way competitive. Not to mention all the other issues around nuclear proliferation, centralization of power, risks in case of war and terrorism. And lack of cooling water due to climate change etc.

Does that include storage for 100% of demand for 1 year at 95% capacity? Pretty reasonable ask for

And nuclear proliferation would be a good thing. More nations have nukes the more peaceful world would be. Only those who want to invade other countries are against it.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#125

Post by eddyg »

bottlepalm wrote: post #33
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…

Maybe if it were designed today they wouldn't stop at 'good enough' and actually commercialize a design that is fail safe. Current reactors around the world only have a limited amount of backup time, days/weeks, before the spent fuel pool boils off and the fuel burns resulting in a massive disaster spreading radioactive ash across wide swaths of land.

Passive “fail safe” designs have been around for quite a while, like the GE ESBWR, which is a Gen III reactor. This[1] data sheet is from 2011.

Newer reactors, like the pool-type, metal-fueled, small modular Sodium Fast Reactor [2] are significantly more efficient, are air-cooled, automatically shutdown without human, electronic or mechanical intervention, and by using electro-metallurgical separation, can recycle up to 96 percent of the fissionable material.

[1] https://nuclear.gepower.com/content/dam/gepower-nuclear/glob...

[2] https://nuclear.gepower.com/build-a-plant/products/nuclear-p...

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#126

Post by otherme123 »

roenxi wrote: post #78
otherme123 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

UK was explicit in this: they regulated the National Grid to be carbon neutral by 2030 or so. That target effectively shutsdown coal generation, harder than any regulation that affects nuclear or any other energy source. Unless a coal plant discovers a magic way to produce while being carbon neutral, coal is gone.

Nuclear power at least can keep going in the UK. It's not getting bigger, but is not falling either. Imagine they say today "National Grid targets being Nuclear free by 2040", like in Germany: it would hit harder than any safety regulation you could write, not just halting new plants, but shuting down existing ones.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#127

Post by Schroedingersat »

illiarian wrote: post #111
Schroedingersat wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the scientific community is absolutely in agreement with evacuation from the plume being unnecessary /s

Yes, the scientific community is in agreement about the overstated risk of these incidents.

That wasn't your statement. It's real weird how any pro nuclear argument always seems to be followed up by this exact same slimy deflection tactic and a never ending stream of lies.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#128

Post by illiarian »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #127
illiarian wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the scientific community is in agreement about the overstated risk of these incidents.

That wasn't your statement. It's real weird how any pro nuclear argument always seems to be followed up by this exact same slimy deflection tactic and a never ending stream of lies.

This is my statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35383560

This applies to the whole fearmongering about nuclear energy with actual slimy tactics.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#129

Post by goodpoint »

Ekaros wrote: post #124
goodpoint wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It already started 50 years ago, and the results are here for everybody to be seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... The chart is clear. Nuclear is in no way competitive. Not to mention all the other issues around nuclear proliferation, centralization of power, risks in case of war and terrorism. And lack of cooling water due to climate change etc.

Does that include storage for 100% of demand for 1 year at 95% capacity? Pretty reasonable ask for And nuclear proliferation would be a good thing. More nations have nukes the more peaceful world would be. Only those who want to invade other countries are against it.

> Does that include storage for 100% of demand for 1 year at 95% capacity? Pretty reasonable ask for

Also a unicorn, pretty reasonable.

> More nations have nukes the more peaceful world would be.

Yeah sure, look how well it's been working.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#130

Post by Ekaros »

goodpoint wrote: post #129
Ekaros wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that include storage for 100% of demand for 1 year at 95% capacity? Pretty reasonable ask for And nuclear proliferation would be a good thing. More nations have nukes the more peaceful world would be. Only those who want to invade other countries are against it.

> Does that include storage for 100% of demand for 1 year at 95% capacity? Pretty reasonable ask for Also a unicorn, pretty reasonable. > More nations have nukes the more peaceful world would be. Yeah sure, look how well it's been working.

Why, should not electricity be cheap all the time. Like when it is produced from nuclear powerplants. And not go for considerable periods to multi euro range per kwh like from solar and wind.

Horribly badly, just look at countries like USA, Britain, France invading countries like Afganistan and Iraq. Just imagine if either of those could have delivered nukes to NYC or Washington DC.

Many of the invasions might not have happened if the countries had realistic and effective tools to fight against the bad guys and cause considerable combatant losses at their home soils.

Post reply on HN