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

Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 252 posts

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#191

Post by cinntaile »

acdha wrote: post #179
cinntaile wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unsafe so it's never a good fit? That kind of reasoning is just noise. Unsafe for what? Compared to what? What alternatives, given the constraints, exist?

Finding something ideologically inconvenient doesn’t make it noise. There is simply no level of new carbon emissions which isn’t guaranteed to cause expensive problems around the world. That doesn’t mean we can’t switch everything instantly but that means we shouldn’t be building anything new which has a safe alternative — and in the case of electric power generation or cars, that’s especially clear because burning f…

I don't find it ideologically inconvenient, I just don't think it's a realistic take. There are situations for power generation where fossil fuels are the only viable alternatives hence why I mentioned them. Now if you had infinite resources and infinite money then that's probably not true, but we don't live in a world like that.

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#192

Post by chermi »

TitaRusell wrote: post #169
Kon5ole wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we cannot build them anywere in Europe due to plain stupidity. Economics I think. Nuclear power has gone bankrupt in France already (arguably more than once) and gotten bailed out. Now they produce electricity at a price that's often above market price, with losses covered by the taxpayers. This despite relying on cheap cooling from rivers. Adding more expensive cooling won't help. We've quite recently reached mass…

Solar panels keep getting better and cheaper every year. Can't say the same for nuclear.

A nice way to guarantee that is not not try.

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#193

Post by chermi »

number6 wrote: post #30
comrade1234 wrote: post #8

Here in Switzerland during some heatwaves they have to shut down nuclear plants too because the river water is too warm and adding warm water to it would kill the fish.

And it's not cold enough to cool the reactor

Lol no. Latent heat is basically all that matters

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#194

Post by chermi »

I ask once again: why is everyone so convinced that nuclear is the one technology that somehow doesn't get cheaper and better with advancing tech and scale? And don't tell me learning curves are proven to not apply. The preconditions for learning curves are arguably only now being met in China.

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#195

Post by chermi »

comrade1234 wrote: post #16
deepsummer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In countries with dark winters and without enough hydro power, the only reliable alternative are fossil fuels...

Iceland has no nuclear power plants.

He/she said no reliable alternatives.

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#196

Post by ZeroGravitas »

pojzon wrote: post #154
blitzar wrote: post #150

Where have all the "what do you do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine" commenters gone?

Where are the comments about „molten-salt reactors dont need any of that”. And a closed water loop. China builds them on a desert and we cannot build them anywere in Europe due to plain stupidity.

China mostly builds them on the coast to use sea water cooling.

The desert one you refer to is an experimental prototype I think:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMSR-LF1

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#197

Post by a34729t »

Hammershaft wrote: post #190
inigyou wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is why the USA recently declared that it's no longer going to follow the "linear no-threshold model" and "as low as reasonable achievable" principle of radiation exposure. In other words they're declaring that a small amount of radiation is good for you. Building a reactor without shielding and with a single open-cycle water loop should reduce costs, right? (Do you know what else reduces costs? Apparen…

The harms of radiation are massively overhyped. Nobody from the Fukushima accident died from radiation sickness or radiation syndrome, and so far there's been no evidence of long term elevated cancer rates either. Meanwhile the nuclear industry has been drowning for 50+ years from egregious layers of overregulation. It costed NuScale $500+ Million just to write the documents required for regulatory approval for a new…

Country of lawers vs country of engineers

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#198

Post by Kon5ole »

Hammershaft wrote: post #190
inigyou wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is why the USA recently declared that it's no longer going to follow the "linear no-threshold model" and "as low as reasonable achievable" principle of radiation exposure. In other words they're declaring that a small amount of radiation is good for you. Building a reactor without shielding and with a single open-cycle water loop should reduce costs, right? (Do you know what else reduces costs? Apparen…

The harms of radiation are massively overhyped. Nobody from the Fukushima accident died from radiation sickness or radiation syndrome, and so far there's been no evidence of long term elevated cancer rates either. Meanwhile the nuclear industry has been drowning for 50+ years from egregious layers of overregulation. It costed NuScale $500+ Million just to write the documents required for regulatory approval for a new…

>The harms of radiation are massively overhyped.

>Nobody from the Fukushima accident died from radiation sickness or radiation syndrome, and so far there's been no evidence of long term elevated cancer rates either.

You say these two things as if the second statement supports the first, but it doesn't.

The dangers of radiation are very well known and don't change at all based on what happened at Fukushima. If you fire a gun and miss, the gun is still dangerous.

>Meanwhile the nuclear industry has been drowning for 50+ years from egregious layers of overregulation.

Here's an account of two gruesome deaths caused by poor regulation of nuclear materials in Japan. It happened 12 years before Fukushima.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/hisashi-ouchi.htm

Re: Danube's record low levels force shutdown of Hungary's only nuclear plant

#200

Post by herewulf »

Kon5ole wrote: post #198
Hammershaft wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The harms of radiation are massively overhyped. Nobody from the Fukushima accident died from radiation sickness or radiation syndrome, and so far there's been no evidence of long term elevated cancer rates either. Meanwhile the nuclear industry has been drowning for 50+ years from egregious layers of overregulation. It costed NuScale $500+ Million just to write the documents required for regulatory approval for a new…

>The harms of radiation are massively overhyped. >Nobody from the Fukushima accident died from radiation sickness or radiation syndrome, and so far there's been no evidence of long term elevated cancer rates either. You say these two things as if the second statement supports the first, but it doesn't. The dangers of radiation are very well known and don't change at all based on what happened at Fukushima. If you fir…

Interesting but people die (or are severely injured) in all kinds of industrial accidents all the time. Unfortunately, with or without regulation it comes with the territory of a modern industrial society.
Post reply on HN