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

Nuclear's next generation

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#11

Post by hyperbovine »

nitrogen wrote: post #10
maksimka wrote: post #6

I like the idea, as long as it's very far away away from my house.

At least with nuclear power the byproducts are stored in nearly-indestructible containers. Where are the byproducts of coal-fired generation stored?

Actually that's not quite right. (I was just talking to an engineer who services nuclear reactors for a living about this.) Most of the spent fuel rods are left sitting in storage pools ("wet storage") next to the reactor. What you refer to, cask ("dry") storage, is the other option, but is not as prevalent due to cost and opposition to storing nuclear waste outside. Ironically wet storage is the less safe of the two, because mechanical failure could result in the coolant boiling off, at which point radiation would be released into the air. Apparently this scenario is outlined in one of those Discovery channel, "What would the world be like without humans" shows.

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#12

Post by earthboundkid »

cmelbye wrote: post #8
maksimka wrote: post #6

I like the idea, as long as it's very far away away from my house.

As the other poster said, it's better than living next to a coal burning plant. The coal burning plant would actually release more radioactive material into the environment than a nuclear power plant would.

I’ve heard this before, but is there any reason to think that the issue goes beyond the fact that CO2 has a higher natural level of radiation than H2O?

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#13

Post by dubcomesaveme »

u.s. nuclear reactors have always been safe: if a loss of coolant failure occurs the reaction is designed to slow down rather than speed up soviet cheronobyl style.

the concern is what to do with all the junk from processing\using fuel rods and depleted uranium besides dumping it on Iraqis via munitions.

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#14

Post by dubcomesaveme »

earthboundkid wrote: post #12
cmelbye wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the other poster said, it's better than living next to a coal burning plant. The coal burning plant would actually release more radioactive material into the environment than a nuclear power plant would.

I’ve heard this before, but is there any reason to think that the issue goes beyond the fact that CO2 has a higher natural level of radiation than H2O?

incomplete combustion\plenty of other stuff in the ground in it(heavy metals etc.). The smoke is not just CO2.

Plus " sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acid rain. In the US, About 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx comes from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal." http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.s...

and acid rain causes a number of environmental problems.

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#15

Post by bjelkeman-again »

dubcomesaveme wrote: post #13

u.s. nuclear reactors have always been safe: if a loss of coolant failure occurs the reaction is designed to slow down rather than speed up soviet cheronobyl style. the concern is what to do with all the junk from processing\using fuel rods and depleted uranium besides dumping it on Iraqis via munitions.

That doesn't always seem to work though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#16

Post by bjelkeman-again »

dubcomesaveme wrote: post #14
earthboundkid wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve heard this before, but is there any reason to think that the issue goes beyond the fact that CO2 has a higher natural level of radiation than H2O?

incomplete combustion\plenty of other stuff in the ground in it(heavy metals etc.). The smoke is not just CO2. Plus " sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acid rain. In the US, About 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx comes from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal." http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/acid_rain.s... and acid rain caus…

NOx also creates low level ozon when it breaks down, which has a number of nasty environmental and health side effects as well.

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#17

Post by dondraper »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #15
dubcomesaveme wrote: post #13

u.s. nuclear reactors have always been safe: if a loss of coolant failure occurs the reaction is designed to slow down rather than speed up soviet cheronobyl style. the concern is what to do with all the junk from processing\using fuel rods and depleted uranium besides dumping it on Iraqis via munitions.

That doesn't always seem to work though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

>In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."[31][52]

Read a bit closer

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#18

Post by teeja »

dondraper wrote: post #17
bjelkeman-again wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't always seem to work though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

>In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is…

IIRC the figures on TMI (not broken down into phantom per-capita exposures but to the environment) included millions of Curies released into the environment. Some credible researchers have found evidence that figure may be 10 to 100 times too small.

Not surprising; with all the money involved, the science gets 'adjusted'. The industry can afford the best PR.

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#19

Post by dondraper »

teeja wrote: post #18
dondraper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is…

IIRC the figures on TMI (not broken down into phantom per-capita exposures but to the environment) included millions of Curies released into the environment. Some credible researchers have found evidence that figure may be 10 to 100 times too small. Not surprising; with all the money involved, the science gets 'adjusted'. The industry can afford the best PR.

I think the per-capita exposures figure was simply to give a sense of scale not to obscure the figures. Do you have a source that backs that claim?

Re: Nuclear's next generation

#20

Post by sketerpot »

hyperbovine wrote: post #11
nitrogen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least with nuclear power the byproducts are stored in nearly-indestructible containers. Where are the byproducts of coal-fired generation stored?

Actually that's not quite right. (I was just talking to an engineer who services nuclear reactors for a living about this.) Most of the spent fuel rods are left sitting in storage pools ("wet storage") next to the reactor. What you refer to, cask ("dry") storage, is the other option, but is not as prevalent due to cost and opposition to storing nuclear waste outside. Ironically wet storage is the less safe of the two…

As I recall, wet and dry storage are not mutually exclusive. The usual scheme is to let the waste sit in wet storage until the shorter-lived isotopes have decayed away and the waste has become cool enough to move to dry cask storage.
Post reply on HN