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

Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

theage.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 188 posts

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#51

Post by mseebach »

antr wrote: post #41
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #15

Nobody dead or sick, yet tens of billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet -- with all the environmental costs associated with that. The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the physics of energy production.

I'm all for renewable energy. In fact, I own/operate a 200kWp solar plant. I put my money where my mouth is. Having said that, in the mid-term I'm also pro-nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the greenest, least polluting energy sources right now. It's the only technology that emits zero CO2 and can be used as baseload. All other technologies, be it CCGT/natural gas, fuel cells using natural or bio gas, coal pow…

The "cost" of decommissioning is in the destruction of production capacity. If you decommission a plant that has 20 years at 800MW lifetime yet, it's not the fixed amount to actually demolish the plant that's the problem (this money is, as you correctly say, already set aside for this purpose), it's the cost of getting those 20y x 800MW from somewhere else, both in purely financial terms, but also environmental: The only way Germany can replace their nuclear capacity is with coal and gas.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#52

Post by onli »

JanezStupar wrote: post #26
onli wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation! I know he writes that, but the numbers used aren't mentioned and not easily to research, as far as i saw. I heavily doubt that statement. An article talking about "two failures" of nuclear plants isn't believable, there were quite a few more.

All the benefits of solar/wind are not easy to research, as far as I saw. I heavily doubt that statement. Can you see what I did there?

Not really. I think you try to shift who has to give sources for what, evading to try to disprove my articulated doubt of your citation with another source, like by citing which numbers were used.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#53

Post by jacquesm »

tome wrote: post #42
JanezStupar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German renewables keep on threatening to collapse European power grid, which is much more advanced than any other power grid on the world. If other countries would be as aggressive with renewables as German are we would see a lot of Europe wide blackouts.

Collapse how?

Overload. Specifically Czech and Polish grids suffer from this because they're old and can't deal with the fluctuations. For more info see for instance: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/windmills-overload-...

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#54

Post by qb45 »

onli wrote: post #43
qb45 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are Still really aren't and definitely weren't when Fukushima was built. > Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. Care to elaborate?

Sure. When calculating the CO2 output, it happens too often that not the real numbers are used. Nuclear energy shines in that regard when focussing only on the power generation itself. But if you count it all together: Mining uranium, building the power plant, transporting to the uranium to the plant, operating the powerplant (from workers who drive to that plant) and in the end, shipping the nuclear waste to an endl…

The energy costs you are talking about are laughably small compared to nuclear plant's power capacity.

You need quote some good sources to convince me that a nuclear plant wouldn't be able to power uranium mines, transportation trains and all its supporting infrastructure by itself and still have over 99% of its capacity left for other purposes.

And BTW, wikipedia claims [1] that California has plans to use up to 180 square miles to generate 7.3GW of energy. This is slightly less power than capacity planned for Fukushima after building two new reactors in 2016 and slightly more area than has been permanently closed after Fukushima plant failure.

So you can take area intended for a solar plant, build a nuclear plant instead, cover the rest with forest and have:

1. Higher power output.

2. Probably negative CO₂ balance, thanks to big forest.

3. No evacuation even in case of Fukushima-size disaster.

4. You can even allow tourists to use this forest for recreation as long as the plant hasn't failed, and most plants have never faled in their history. Try letting tourist into a solar plant.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojav...

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#55

Post by antr »

mseebach wrote: post #51
antr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for renewable energy. In fact, I own/operate a 200kWp solar plant. I put my money where my mouth is. Having said that, in the mid-term I'm also pro-nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the greenest, least polluting energy sources right now. It's the only technology that emits zero CO2 and can be used as baseload. All other technologies, be it CCGT/natural gas, fuel cells using natural or bio gas, coal pow…

The "cost" of decommissioning is in the destruction of production capacity. If you decommission a plant that has 20 years at 800MW lifetime yet, it's not the fixed amount to actually demolish the plant that's the problem (this money is, as you correctly say, already set aside for this purpose), it's the cost of getting those 20y x 800MW from somewhere else, both in purely financial terms, but also environmental: The…

You are 100% correct. My comment did focus on the financial cost, but your "cost" implying a change in the generation mix towards CO2 emitting technologies is probably a far bigger one. Thanks for bringing this up.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#56

Post by _mulder_ »

ars wrote: post #5
_mulder_ wrote: post #2

Never mind that coal mining kills almost 6000 people a year, or that populations of coal-mining areas have death rates about 10 per cent higher than non-mining areas, or that coal emissions drive global warming. I'm fully in favour of nuclear power but using partial evidence and misleading comparisons to back up arguments does not help the cause. You can't compare the death toll of mining coal to the death toll of a…

> They are completely different things having no common factors. No common factors? Really? They are both used to make energy. Coal is 1,888 times more deadly than nuclear power when measured in deaths per MW. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de... And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation! If you removed Chernobyl and used http://…

Yes there are no common factors between mining a product and an industrial accident occurring when using a product.

Agreed, they are all part of the mix when comparing the overall life-cycle dangers of different fuels, but the Author of the article is not comparing like-with-like. If you're comparing Coal vs Nuclear, you can only compare the death toll of mining coal with the death toll of mining uranium. Or the health effects from coal burning vs uranium fission.

An article claiming BMW's are safer than Volvos because nobody ever dies during their manufacture whereas Volvo's are dangerous because 1000 people crash and die in them per year would hold no wieght.

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#57

Post by onli »

qb45 wrote: post #54
onli wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. When calculating the CO2 output, it happens too often that not the real numbers are used. Nuclear energy shines in that regard when focussing only on the power generation itself. But if you count it all together: Mining uranium, building the power plant, transporting to the uranium to the plant, operating the powerplant (from workers who drive to that plant) and in the end, shipping the nuclear waste to an endl…

The energy costs you are talking about are laughably small compared to nuclear plant's power capacity. You need quote some good sources to convince me that a nuclear plant wouldn't be able to power uranium mines, transportation trains and all its supporting infrastructure by itself and still have over 99% of its capacity left for other purposes. And BTW, wikipedia claims [1] that California has plans to use up to 180…

That is not what we were talking about. We talked about the CO2-output of nuclear energy, and I added small remarks to costs. Power capacity wasn't mentioned at all. I don't see your point?

edit: The parent edited his comment

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#59

Post by jonmrodriguez »

yk wrote: post #24
jonmrodriguez wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say, though true, is borderline FUD. As AndrewDucker linked to further down the thread, this report http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener... shows that nuclear power has the fewest deaths per terrawatt-hour out of any energy source, and coal has the highest.

Since the link to the source of the first table in that blog post does not work: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull411/... (pdf, Wilson &al. IAEA Bulletin 41/1 1999) Additionally, I recall that there are some problems with the estimate. For example it assumes that there are no more major accidents after Chernobyl. And he uses the WHO study, which may underestimate cancer fatalities by an order o…

Thank you

Re: Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

#60

Post by JanezStupar »

onli wrote: post #52
JanezStupar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the benefits of solar/wind are not easy to research, as far as I saw. I heavily doubt that statement. Can you see what I did there?

Not really. I think you try to shift who has to give sources for what, evading to try to disprove my articulated doubt of your citation with another source, like by citing which numbers were used.

Isn't it interesting that you are commenting on a comment __with__ sources, while providing none yourself.

After I make a tongue in cheek comment to your comment. You flail more rethoric at me, demanding sources from me (?).

You also accuse me of trying to invert the burden of proof, while like I said you haven't really offered a source.

Here is a source for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Post reply on HN