Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

nytimes.com

101–110 of 731 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#101
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the small nuclear waste issue. Managing waste for a period far, far, far longer than any state has historically lasted continuously (or even since the dawn of human civilization) seems really optimistic. Very few states have lasted continuously more than a few centuries without some kind of partial or total collapse (military defeat, revolution, bankruptcy of government, etc), ant these waste will need…

The consensus solution to nuclear waste is to put it in geologic repositories where it will be safely out of the biosphere until well after it decays to stability. This issue of a toxic but carefully handled substance is very small compared to the looming threat of climate change. As far as I'm aware, commercial nuclear waste in storage has never injured a single person.

>As far as I'm aware, commercial nuclear waste in storage has never injured a single person

You'd be surprised:

By October several thousand shipments were illegally dumped at the landfill in north St. Louis County, in violation of federal standards; they contained an estimated 43,000 tons of radioactive uranium processing wastes and contaminated soil. (...) No strangers to advanced statistical tools, within two years, Wright, an accountant, and Schanzenbach, an economics professor at Northwestern University, documented 700 cases of cancers and immune system diseases within a four-square-mile area. Some of these cancers have a one-in-a-million chance of occurring. (...) Wright and Schanzenbach updated their survey and reported in August 2015 that the number of diseases, including rare cancers, had increased to 2,725 cases.

Or how about:

A few days before I visited the rather scruffy Hospital of Saint Anna and Saint Sebastian in Caserta, southern Italy, a boy aged 11 arrived complaining of headaches. Doctors feared the worst – and sure enough, he was rapidly diagnosed as another child with brain cancer. Some of these young patients arrive in agonising pain, others mystified by falling over all the time; they do not know that lethal tumours are swelling up inside their heads. Yet more turn up with cancer in their blood, their bones, their bladders. There are so many cases that not all can be treated in the hospitals of Campania, a largely rural region. (...) Tosti explained that the Mafia dumped huge quantities of contaminated industrial waste there, then obtained backdated permission for their actions. (...) A criminal investigation was launched 18 months ago, but local people do not expect convictions. This was far from an isolated incident. (...) There are thousands of similar dumps all over this once-paradisiacal slice of Italy: in canals and caves, in quarries and wells, under fields and hills, beneath roads and properties.

Or worse:

Fonti said he had been involved in sinking three vessels, and that the 'Ndrangheta made millions of pounds illegally dumping radioactive and other toxic waste from businesses in Italy and other parts of Europe. A regional prosecutor, Bruno Giordano, said that if the exploration of the wreck does produce evidence of toxic waste, authorities will start a hunt for more sunken vessels. They believe there could be up to 32 in Italian waters. The introduction of more stringent environmental legislation in the 1980s made illegal waste disposal a lucrative business for organised crime groups in Italy. "The problem of ships loaded with radioactive waste and sunk deliberately is an Italian mystery that should have been resolved years ago," said Ermete Realacci, an opposition MP.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#103
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a month before Chernobyl happened, the staff at the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II in Idaho successfully demonstrated something new and incredible: passive shutdown. They had the reactor at full power and killed the pumps. It shut down and started cooling itself with natural circulation (no external/backup power needed). No control rods were inserted. This state would last indefinitely. Then they did it again,…

I wonder why nuclear rectors were ever built without the ability to shutdown passively in case of power and equipment failure.

Because as a society we continually overestimate our ability to control nature. i.e. "We have multiple layers of redundancy. It's all under control."

Which is true, until it isn't.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#104
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't just count deaths and conclude that a nuclear catastrophy isn't that bad. Far more people had to evacuate their home, having to leave most of their belongings behind. And most times with no or too little compensation. Sure, nuclear is prefferable to coal but that doesn't mean that both shouldn't be gotten rid of.

But that kind of reactor is never going to be built again - its design was very outdated and outright bad. Today we can build reactors where any failure that would result in an explosion of any kind is physically nearly impossible.

Maybe we won't build those reactor types any more. But they are still operational, and this is what matters. There is a huge incentive in keeping them operational as the major cost of nuclear energy is building the reactor. Already built reactors don't incur that cost any more so they make loads of money for their operators, especially when they are old and "mortage free". Due to this gigantic incentive, every political support of new nuclear plants will be misdirected into prolonging the operational life of existing highly dangerous reactors.

As to your "physically near impossible": people said about the titanic that it was unsinkable. This only led to a major shortage of lifeboats once it sank because why would a unsinkable ship need so many lifeboats.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#105
post #48

>Germany’s rate of adding clean energy relative to gross domestic product, it would take the world more than a century to decarbonize, even if the country wasn’t also retiring nuclear plants early. Why doesn't the article explain why the Germans are retiring their plants? I think these articles should go more in-depth regarding the pro's and con's. From what I read and hear Nuclear power is a great source of energy b…

Also the beginning of this statement is not really true: > Germany, which went all-in for renewables… This might have been the case more than a decade ago with the green party being part of the government but the political climate changed. Angela Merkel talks a lot about saving the climate but actual policy is the opposite slowing down the switch to renewable energy as much as possible. > From what I read and hear Nu…

> Uranium mining is an often overlooked environmental disaster

[citation needed]. It was in the 1950s, for sure, before we knew that you should ventilate the radon. Today a lot of it is done in ways that's much cleaner than mining for resources for coal, fracking, or heavy metals for millions upon millions of battery banks, wind turbines, and solar panels.

Remember E=MC2 is the key excitement about nuclear energy. There are 2 million times more Joules in a kg of uranium than in a kg of coal/gas/diesel/lithium. Thus you don't have to mine all that much of it to power the planet.

In fact, with breeder reactors and reprocessing (super expensive, but that's another story), you could power the entire US for a few hundred years off the depleted uranium sitting in the yard of an enrichment plant in Kentucky.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#106
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as a result of the Chernobyl accident, southern Germany is sufficently contaminated, that food from the forests, like mushrooms and wild boar are still not completely safe to consume. Each killed animal has to be checked with a radiation detector, whether its radiation is low enough for it to be eaten, otherwise it has to be disposed as radioactive contaminated. With Fukushima, it was increadible luck that e.g. T…

Can we get a citation on the unsafe food in Germany from Chernobyl? That flies in the face of a lot of current progress in understanding the health effects of low-dose radiation. Precisely how high above natural background radiation levels is the stuff in Germany?

Sure, here you are: https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/umwelt/lebensmittel/pilze-w...

The short version is, that mushrooms accumulate cesium-137 which contaminates the soil in Bavarian forests. Equally affected are animals eating the mushrooms, mainly wild boar.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#107
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a month before Chernobyl happened, the staff at the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II in Idaho successfully demonstrated something new and incredible: passive shutdown. They had the reactor at full power and killed the pumps. It shut down and started cooling itself with natural circulation (no external/backup power needed). No control rods were inserted. This state would last indefinitely. Then they did it again,…

I wonder why nuclear rectors were ever built without the ability to shutdown passively in case of power and equipment failure.

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#108
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much just going by feels. Not exactly good governance.

nuclear was being phased out before fukushima anyways in germany, it was just accelerated a few years. New nuclear power plants are just way too expensive - take a look at Flamanville, Hinkley point C, Olkiluoto 3, Wylfa Newydd and Hanhikivi and you'll see that they are just too expensive. You can argue for having the old ones run a bit longer but the older the plants become the more maintenance issues arise.

It's well established that the West has forgotten how to build nukes. But Hitachi, KEPCO, and the Russians have not forgotten, and can build them effectively today. Perhaps with some effort the West can re-learn how its done from these modern success stories.

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#109

Nuclear is not a viable solution, due to public opinion. A nuclear reactor has an incident once every 10.000 years. If we divide that with the number of reactors we get an accident every 30 or so years. (Harrisburg, Chernobyl, Fukusima, ligns up well with that) Every time there is an accident, the public turns against nuclear for 5-10 years. Add to that that it takes a decade to plan and build a reactor, and you real…

In the US, public opinion has nearly nothing to do with the lack of new construction. The problem is far simpler here: nobody can build a reactor reliably without going vastly over budget, or off schedule. Going off schedule also means going off budget because costs are front loaded over the 40-60 year lifespan and therefore every year of delay costs massive amounts of interest. There are plenty of viable sites for n…

> There's a great historical article about this management failure from the 1980 in Forbes that is escaping my web searches at the moment

https://www.backissues.com/issue/Forbes-February-11-1985

Re: Nuclear power is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions, decarbonize

#110
post #46
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much because Merkel decided so in the days following Fukushima. Not exactly the result of long term strategy.

That's too simplistic. Retiring nuclear power plants has been the long term goal of the German anti-nuclear movement since the 70s. They were an important faction in the founding of the Green Party. When the Green party came into power in 1998 in a coalition government, they passed a law to retire all nuclear power plants by restricting the remaining energy output they could produce. BTW, this was done in consensus w…

> a Green-led government won the elections in a historically conservative state, and Andrea Merkel changed her opinion.

Chronologically was the other way around, and her "Our party now consider nuclear harmful" stance didn't change the outcome post-Fukushima. But it's typical Merkel of the time, changing her tune to whatever's politically advantageous.

Post reply on HN