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

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#161

Post by LorenPechtel »

piva00 wrote: post #140
mpweiher wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basis of the cleanup and evacuation requirements is the Linear No Threshold model, which assumes that even the tiniest amount of radiation has adverse health effects. There is no empirical basis for the LNT model at very low doses, so it's essentially made up. And in fact, the LNT model greatly overestimated the casualties from Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There's tons of references for this on the web, see…

Wildlife has thrived due to a lack of humans, not because radiation isn't dangerous. There are mutations abound in animals from the CEZ. A question I'd have for you would be: are you willing to live with your family an extended period of your lives in a place with a radioactive event like the CEZ?

Most of the exclusion zone is back down to what is considered safe levels--and that by the LNT numbers which almost certainly overstate the risk. (The basic problem is that while we have many data points that suggest LNT is wrong to derive better data requires a *very* large test that would be extremely expensive.)

Don't grow food, take care when messing with the soil. There are areas you certainly don't want to be digging as the orcs found out the hard way last year. It's like asbestos--harmless in place, dangerous if messed with.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#162

Post by LorenPechtel »

choeger wrote: post #27

Is that the new hot take after "costs are too high because scale is too small"? There are many issues with the economics of nuclear power but too much safety isn't one of them. The Chernobyl comparison conveniently ignores the liquidators by only looking at residents. Residents that have been evacuated, mind you. Even if radiation is not as harmful long-term as the LNT model makes us believe, which might very well be…

Coal plants need a lot of water, also. Both coal and nuclear make power the same way--boil water, use the steam to run a powerplant. Nuke is set a bit cooler for safety reasons and thus uses a bit more water.

And note that the safety numbers (coal roughly 1000x as dangerous) are based on current standards, it used to be much worse.

As for PV + battery--get back to us when we have the batteries and the safety numbers involved. We don't, the comparison can't even be made. The closest we can come is solar + wind backed up with gas--something for which I have never seen the safety numbers. Note that the need for multiple generators makes this option a lot more expensive than straight gas.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#163

Post by LorenPechtel »

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.

Reactors aren't being built in the first place, the lack of building fail-safe designs says nothing.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#164

Post by eftychis »

BoppreH wrote: post #75
eftychis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry will clarify with the following Wikipedia citation to paint the difference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore

40 times more likely to find than silver. 500 more than gold.

There is this old 1981 article about how to recover uranium from lignite by the Oak Ridge National Labs https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030438...

P.S. (Because I have been digging and reading on all the issues related to how uranium is distributed on Earth’s crust; if someone else is interested) Also a bit random to non-Europeans citation but the concentration of Uranium (in its various forms/compounds) is causing issues when we access deeper aquifers. Perhaps, something to consider also in California https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489...

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#165

Post by LorenPechtel »

danw1979 wrote: post #28
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 not to mention that we’d have an additional 26 exclusion zones around blown up nukes. I’d like to see the authors back-of-the-envelope maths for the economic impact of the two or three in the UK alone.

Radiation releases don't mean exclusion zones.

Note that he included Three Mile Island amongst the radiation releases. Where's the exclusion zone?? It's not even a matter of cost, just look at the risks. You're at the fence of the reactor when it happens, you decide to walk away. Let's see how far you get before the risk of the trip exceeds the risk of staying. You come to a street--end of trip. It's more dangerous to cross the street than to stay put. (Admittedly, that's assuming an average crossing of an average street and streets vary. It's a lot safer to cross a 25 mph residential street than a 45 mph main street.)

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#166

Post by cwkoss »

Was this article written with the intention of nerd sniping?

Starts with an obviously ridiculous thesis, arguments with a bunch of numbers that don't quite make valid comparisons.

Cynically, I wonder if the author actually believes the thesis or is intentionally putting this forward for attention.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#167

Post by eftychis »

Ma8ee wrote: post #67
eftychis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It was a long time since the discussion was coal version nuclear. Today it is sun and wind and different storage solutions versus nuclear. Nuclear is losing due to slow building times and being too expensive. The nuclear industry is unhappy about that and tries to blame it on regulations.

Yes I agree. Was replying to burning coal/lignite.

We need to figure out storage and hopefully that doesn't involve lithium -- too scarce and its mining is destructive.

I support using nuclear too as a) there is a lot of improvements since the 60s - 80s -- e.g. nuclear reactor without the use of any water/steam -- using electromagnetic field deviations via plasma.

And b) it provides an option for a steady power basis -- a necessity in any electrical power grid. But not always available with non-fossil alternatives when the weather patterns and solar exposure of a number of countries do not conform with their power consumption. Europe is relatively lucky here. (Source studies/workshops/projects in undergrad + grad school. Don't think things have moved that much since then unfortunately.)

Another option is ensuring a robust and connected almost continent wide power grids. U.S. and Europe are getting there and has saved us from a lot of issues. Examples here of its usefulness -- UK power issues between Scotland and England, and ... Texas. That will help solar and wind adoption.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#168

Post by LorenPechtel »

goodpoint wrote: post #51
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.

Proliferation? Bogeyman!

Power reactors are basically useless for bomb production even if you reprocess the fuel. While it is actually possible to make a bomb from reactor waste it is *much* harder than making it from dedicated plutonium-production reactors.

The basic problem is Plutonium isn't all the same. For a bomb you want Pu-239. The desired reaction is U-238 + n -> U-239. Decays (half life 23 minutes) to Np-239, decays (half life 2.36 days) to Pu-239. The undesired reaction is Pu-239 + n -> Pu-240. Not only does Pu-240 not go boom, but it's prone to spontaneous fission, spraying neutrons around. This is a bad thing, making your bomb very prone to being a fizzle. You defeat this by changing the fuel frequently, minimizing the Pu-240 buildup.

Nobody has ever used power reactors in a bomb program. While it could be done it couldn't be done without it being apparent to observers.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#169

Post by LorenPechtel »

uecker wrote: post #49

As a physicist and full professor in medical imaging I can ensure you somewhat authoritatively: You can simply disregard every clown on the internet who dismisses linear no threshold out of hand. This is fairly sure sign that this person relies on pseudoscientific sources, also promoted by certain industries and shills which generally lobby against anti-pollution laws and sadly adopted by some pro-nuclear lobbyists.…

LNT is the only data we have but that doesn't make it right. All the data points for figuring radiation risk are based on high level exposures, LNT is the best fit line that passes through 0,0. The problem is that this makes the assumption that the line is straight.

The problem with this is we have many data points for lower level exposure that seem to almost all lie well below the line, but none have the statistical power to prove it even with very large sample sizes. Even the hottest of these data points shows nothing--why isn't there a cancer cluster in the people who live the lives in 20 rem/year??

And note that we aren't dismissing the LNT out of hand, we are questioning it in a certain realm. While I question the homeostasis argument it seems completely reasonable that the rate has something to do with it. In chemistry the norm is the dose makes the poison (you can breathe 3 psi of oxygen for a lifetime, 30 psi of oxygen and you'll be in trouble in less than an hour), what's so unreasonable about thinking that it might apply in this case? (And note that I don't think it applies much in your realm--while medical imaging isn't all that much radiation it's delivered quickly. Other than my one encounter with Tc-99m everything I've encountered has been in hold-your-breath type times.)

There's also the possibility the true line is a parabola. We have so few data points at the high end that the current data is completely incapable of excluding this case and it would fit the low data points better.

Re: Nuclear power is too safe

#170

Post by LorenPechtel »

Puts wrote: post #76

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.

The question is how serious the incidents are. Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown--and harmed nobody.
Post reply on HN