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

221–230 of 252 posts

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

#221

Post by Hammershaft »

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…

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

People die from the operation & externalities of every energy source, it's just that Nuclear power has orders of magnitude fewer deaths per kilowatt-hour than the dirtier energy sources these regulations have pushed energy production towards.

I'm sure some lives would be lost if Nuclear Power faced the same regulatory costs that other energy sources do, rather than the egregious and absurd costs they face today.

But many many more lives would be saved by deregulating nuclear energy and making it more cost competitive with coal and natural gas.

Many children wouldn't contract asthma & the other respiratory illnesses they do today if nuclear energy hadn't been killed via overregulation and replaced by coal and natural gas.

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

#222

Post by Hammershaft »

inigyou wrote: post #204
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…

How can writing documents possibly cost $500,000,000?

https://www.nuscalepower.com/press-releases/2020/nuscale-pow...

"NuScale spent over $500 million, with the backing of Fluor, and over 2 million labor hours to develop the information needed to prepare its DCA application. The company also submitted 14 separate Topical Reports in addition to the over 12,000 pages for its DCA application and provided more than 2 million pages of supporting information for NRC audits."

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

#223

Post by cozzyd »

peterashford wrote: post #217
cozzyd wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the South Pole burns jet fuel. Not much wind and 6 months of darkness. The hut point peninsula is consistently windy though and the turbines are pretty! https://photos.app.goo.gl/goDVb7KuiKr6soHT6

So, larger batteries, then. Or produce hydrogen from excess wind power in the summer as a chemical battery.

yes, people (some of whom I know) have looked at this of course: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212...

but it's somewhat risky, since if the power goes out in winter, to first order, everyone dies. I think you'd always keep the generator on at low load, just in case.

Note that wind turbines at pole have not historically been very successful, maybe that will improve.

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

#224

Post by notabotiswear »

dofm wrote: post #180
notabotiswear wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't speak for Hungary specifically, but the problem with flat terrain wrt hydro storage isn't just elevation difference - which can be offset with flowrate - it's the large surface area to storage and to depth ratios. Large lake means more losses, mainly due to evaporation, but seepage is also to be expected. Now put this fact in the thread's context: water shortage/stress...

> Now put this fact in the thread's context: water shortage/stress… But doesn't adding a large reservoir mitigate both? You're not pumping the entire reservoir up and down hill every day.

It depends on the water balance. Reservoirs would help you smooth out variability/seasonality and mitigate infrequent, short term droughts, depending on its size. They would not help with a long term drought or if you are water stressed (i.e. you simply don't have enough to meet demand). Quite the opposite, they may exasperate the issue as they consume (or lose) water themselves.

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

#225

Post by Kon5ole »

leonidasrup wrote: post #210
Kon5ole wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Interesting but people die (or are severely injured) in all kinds of industrial accidents all the time. Very few other industrial accidents cause effects that have to be dealt with for decades over 1000 miles away, even across oceans. Nuclear power really is in a league of its own when it comes to risk. I am not aware of anything that comes close. Dam accidents have killed many more people and devastated towns, but…

You probably mean the Chernobyl accident. There are estimates that pollution from European coal power plants cause more deaths EACH year in Europe, than the total estimated deaths from Chernobyl accidents (most pessimistic estimate 4000-8000 deaths). For example, just the Great Smog event that affected London, England, in December 1952 caused by modern estimate 10,000–12,000 deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grea…

>There are estimates that pollution from European coal power plants cause more deaths EACH year in Europe,

First and foremost - coal sucks. Secondly - the choice isn't between nuclear or coal.

That said, the estimates you mention are not believable. Pollution as a whole causes lots of premature deaths, but coal burned in electricity plants are a very small part of total pollution.

Especially in Europe, where most countries no longer operate coal power plants. Not even the UK.

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

#226

Post by preisschild »

acdha wrote: post #185
themaninthedark wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not seen anyone arguing only nuclear to get rid of fossil fuels, what I see is people arguing that we need nuclear to supplement renewables to remove fossil fuel and the other side saying renewables and batteries(and maybe the occasional gas peaker plant or two...) or bust.

There are people who advocate for an all nuclear strategy but other than the ones whose non-profit gets fossil fuel industry contributions it seems to be much less common than a decade ago because the economics are undeniable now.

This seems like a strawmen. Most nuclear advocates I see online just want nuclear power given the same subsidies and chances that PV/Wind get.

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

#227

Post by preisschild »

vrganj wrote: post #2

This is happening all across Europe right now - Romania, France too. https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/07/13/france-shuts-do... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hungarys-paks-nuclea... We keep having folks here argue that nuclear, not renewables are the path to take to get rid of fossil fuels. I have strong doubts - it feels like that doesn't account for the sad realities of climate change.

Nuclear power plants can be equipped with cooling towers so the heated water doesnt go back to the danube directly.

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

#228

Post by preisschild »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #24
vrganj wrote: post #2

This is happening all across Europe right now - Romania, France too. https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/07/13/france-shuts-do... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hungarys-paks-nuclea... We keep having folks here argue that nuclear, not renewables are the path to take to get rid of fossil fuels. I have strong doubts - it feels like that doesn't account for the sad realities of climate change.

It can be, but you need water, just like for solar you need sunlight and storage and for wind power you need, well, wind. Coal and gas rely on natural resources, which can be disrupted through geopolitical tension, like Russia's gas supplies into Europe getting cut off / sanctioned. Every power source has their tradeoffs, and I don't think anyone is denying that. What I do think is that people are making up arguments…

You dont even need a huge amount of water with the right closed-cooling-cycle reactors. High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors for example.

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

#229

Post by acdha »

preisschild wrote: post #226
acdha wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people who advocate for an all nuclear strategy but other than the ones whose non-profit gets fossil fuel industry contributions it seems to be much less common than a decade ago because the economics are undeniable now.

This seems like a strawmen. Most nuclear advocates I see online just want nuclear power given the same subsidies and chances that PV/Wind get.

Nuclear power is massively subsidized already — those plants only get built with massive state support. Right now you can justify a solar rollout with traditional fins because it pays for itself in a couple of years but in the United States a new plant is subsidized at every step of the design and build, and fuel is subsidized from mining to disposal.

That’s the underlying problem: it’s not a question of whether nuclear can work at all ever but rather that for any given point since the early 2010s it’s been very hard to justify nuclear because you need to spend billions of dollars more than renewables upfront and accept higher CO₂ emissions for 1-2 decades before it makes any reduction in emissions. If we’d invested half a century ago like France it might’ve been very different but the cost and time differential now is so stark.

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

#230

Post by inigyou »

Hammershaft wrote: post #221
Kon5ole wrote: post #198

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. 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…

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... People die from the operation & externalities of every energy source, it's just that Nuclear power has orders of magnitude fewer deaths per kilowatt-hour than the dirtier energy sources these regulations have pushed energy production towards. I'm sure some lives would be lost if Nuclear Power faced the same regulatory costs that other energy sources do,…

Where would unregulated nuclear power go on that chart?
Post reply on HN