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

Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

sciencealert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#11

Post by closeparen »

Pxtl wrote: post #8
CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

So the compounds released from burning coal and the compounds found inside natural fog – an aqueous medium made of, you guessed it, water – work together to make droplets of sulphuric acid, the same stuff that makes 'acid rain'. Remind me again why we can't have nuclear power?

Because it's insanely expensive and if we're going to go with the insanely expensive solution we should go with the one that's fully green and has lower start-up costs.

Uh, nuclear costs about the same as conventional coal [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#12

Post by Nadya »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #9
labster wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nuclear leaves toxic waste that lasts over 10000 years in the best case; and because wind, hydro, solar, and tidal are better alternatives in most cases.

(Shrug) Put it in Antarctica. It'll be fine for 10,000 years there. No one will stumble across it accidentally, and we can get it back if we need it. I've never understood why this is considered a problem.

How do you route the power from Antarctica to where it needs to be? That'd be an impractically large expense.

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#13

Post by kahrkunne »

labster wrote: post #6
CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

So the compounds released from burning coal and the compounds found inside natural fog – an aqueous medium made of, you guessed it, water – work together to make droplets of sulphuric acid, the same stuff that makes 'acid rain'. Remind me again why we can't have nuclear power?

Because nuclear leaves toxic waste that lasts over 10000 years in the best case; and because wind, hydro, solar, and tidal are better alternatives in most cases.

Wind power kills more people per kWh than nuclear does. Hydro power often relies on dams that devastate ecosystems. Solar is expensive as hell. I don't even know about tidal, does anyone even do that?

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#14

Post by Nadya »

kahrkunne wrote: post #13
labster wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nuclear leaves toxic waste that lasts over 10000 years in the best case; and because wind, hydro, solar, and tidal are better alternatives in most cases.

Wind power kills more people per kWh than nuclear does. Hydro power often relies on dams that devastate ecosystems. Solar is expensive as hell. I don't even know about tidal, does anyone even do that?

For what it is worth the cost of solar is dropping - and pretty steadily at that, if I recall correctly.

Japan has researched and is working on developing tidal energy [0]. But that's the only case I know of off-hand even related to tidal energy at all... and it hasn't been built yet.

[0] http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2014/12/japan-develops-ti...

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#15

Post by db48x »

Nadya wrote: post #12
CamperBob2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Shrug) Put it in Antarctica. It'll be fine for 10,000 years there. No one will stumble across it accidentally, and we can get it back if we need it. I've never understood why this is considered a problem.

How do you route the power from Antarctica to where it needs to be? That'd be an impractically large expense.

You can put the waste there without putting the power plants there.

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#16

Post by Retra »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #9
labster wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nuclear leaves toxic waste that lasts over 10000 years in the best case; and because wind, hydro, solar, and tidal are better alternatives in most cases.

(Shrug) Put it in Antarctica. It'll be fine for 10,000 years there. No one will stumble across it accidentally, and we can get it back if we need it. I've never understood why this is considered a problem.

What gives you the ability to make a prediction on the 10,000-year scale? That seems wildly inappropriate. 10,000 years ago, you'd be the person saying "We should bury our magic artifacts in a big tomb in the desert! Nobody will find out what is inside for 10,000 years, because nobody can live in the desert and the sand is too hard to travel across..."

Any you'd be completely wrong about that. Because 10,000 years is far too long for some off-the-cuff calculation to draw reliable conclusions from. It's not even clear you could put this stuff safely on the moon once you start throwing around 10,000-year timescales.

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#17

Post by hyperpallium »

kahrkunne wrote: post #13
labster wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nuclear leaves toxic waste that lasts over 10000 years in the best case; and because wind, hydro, solar, and tidal are better alternatives in most cases.

Wind power kills more people per kWh than nuclear does. Hydro power often relies on dams that devastate ecosystems. Solar is expensive as hell. I don't even know about tidal, does anyone even do that?

> Wind energy kills a mere 100 people or so per trillion kWhrs, the majority from falls during maintenance activities

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-ea...

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#18

Post by JadeNB »

db48x wrote: post #15
Nadya wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you route the power from Antarctica to where it needs to be? That'd be an impractically large expense.

You can put the waste there without putting the power plants there.

But now you have the problem of transporting large quantities of nuclear waste for long time periods, with little tolerance for delays or stoppages.

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#19

Post by 205guy »

kahrkunne wrote: post #13
labster wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nuclear leaves toxic waste that lasts over 10000 years in the best case; and because wind, hydro, solar, and tidal are better alternatives in most cases.

Wind power kills more people per kWh than nuclear does. Hydro power often relies on dams that devastate ecosystems. Solar is expensive as hell. I don't even know about tidal, does anyone even do that?

France has had a tidal generator for 50 years, where have you been? I do recognize that model is limited, and other sites are few and fraught with the same issues as dams: natural flow is better for the ecosystem in those locations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

Also [citations needed].

Re: Scientists have figured out the reason London fog killed 12,000 people

#20

Post by CamperBob2 »

JadeNB wrote: post #18
db48x wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can put the waste there without putting the power plants there.

But now you have the problem of transporting large quantities of nuclear waste for long time periods, with little tolerance for delays or stoppages.

At some point you have to accept that all energy sources have drawbacks. Besides not making a whole lot of sense, this particular objection is pretty small potatoes compared to toxic fogs that kill people by the thousands, or other fossil fuels that appear to be altering the climate on a planetary scale.
Post reply on HN