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

Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 619 posts

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#151

Post by drivebycomment »

colordrops wrote: post #92
Lazare wrote: post #53

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…

> it kills a very low number of people per TWh This is a grossly naive and over-simplistic way to judge safety and efficacy. Yes, perhaps fewer people die in a major accidents, but then you've left a large swath of land unusable for hundreds or thousands of years. And the cost for managing the disasters is astronomical. In a place like Japan, they lose a not insignificant portion of landmass to an accident. While oth…

Which large parcel of land in Japan is unusable for hundreds of years ? I am not aware of any large area declared unusable that way.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#152

Post by AI_WAIFU »

Lazare wrote: post #53

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…

The first working nuclear reactor was hastily cobbled together in a tennis court. It's literally just a critical mass of inexpensive magic rocks, a control system, and some way to remove the heat.

The only reason it costs so much is precisely because everyone is paranoid, so we demand expensive security systems and protocols. If the regulators got out of the way you could probably put one together for a few million dollars.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#153

Post by Retric »

titzer wrote: post #132
HarryHirsch wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the nuclear waste problem. Nuclear reprocessing looks nice on paper, but the technical implementation is problematic, it's chemistry but in a radioactive environment. If something catches on fire there's problems.

France has successfully processed 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or 14 years worth. With zero incidents. In fact it works so well, they process other countries' spent fuel, too. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/recycling-nu...

That article shows the issue. “The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French.”

Reprocessing is simply not cost effective due to how cheap reactor grade Uranium is.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#154

Post by pfdietz »

pdonis wrote: post #122
icedistilled wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does that mean nuclear is just a totally great idea? No; the issue with nuclear is cost. Oh don't forget the other issue: It takes decades to build a new plant. We don't got that time. For the $6 Billion or more it takes to build a nuclear plant that will then take 15 to 20 years to license and build before it generates a single Watt, we could have had a $6 Billion of solar and wind deployed and operating for 12+ ye…

> It takes decades to build a new plant. No, it doesn't. It only takes a few years. What takes decades is resolving all the NIMBY lawsuits.

Vogtle, Summer, Flamanville 3, and Olkiluoto 3 weren't delayed by NIMBY lawsuits. They were delayed by construction screw ups. Nuclear power plants are complex, and if they are required to be constructed to high standards, delays and overruns are almost inevitable.

A PV field, on the other hand, is much simpler, with much more inherent redundancy, and can tolerate construction mistakes without either safety implications or substantial loss of capacity.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#155

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dv_dt wrote: post #54
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re German for one, then it’s justified, because Merkel has been shutting down nuclear plants which forced a switch back to more coal.

Then why isn't the argument that Germany should build more solar and wind generation? Nuclear plants take decades from start to finish - if they even finish in the West. Vs months to a few years for many renewable projects.

Becayse germany has been very rapidly ramping up wind and solar, and still they are struggling to replace the reactors. They have made no progress in decarbonising the grid because rhey've been replacing one zero-carbon source with another zero carbon source, instead of removing coal.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#156

Post by ClumsyPilot »

jhayward wrote: post #136
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re German for one, then it’s justified, because Merkel has been shutting down nuclear plants which forced a switch back to more coal.

Germany has cut coal use in half since the wind-down of the nuclear fleet began. Please do not repeat misinformation.

And they would have cut it to zero by now if they left nuclear plants alone.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#157

Post by pfdietz »

steeve wrote: post #97
Lazare wrote: post #53

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…

Most of the cost of a MWh of nuclear comes from the cost of capital (interests). [1] Put differently, if capital is backed by the state, that the $/MWh could be a _lot_ less than it is. 1. https://imgur.com/a/4mAlUbO

Things are much cheaper when someone subsidizes them. If the state funds nuclear at below the rate the market would give, that's a subsidy. It could mean, for example, that the state is taking on financial risk that would otherwise have been accounted for in higher interest rates.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#158

Post by Balgair »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #146
yurlungur wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the bummer of nuclear power is how much advocates try to underestimate the cost of handling the waste for decades and the potential risks. I think if you really think we need to go full speed ahead with nuclear power you need to ask how close a waste deposit to your home are you comfortable with? Often times these things just get transported to supposedly remote places which just mean a more vulnerable communit…

Modern nuclear power plants use waste from previous generation nuclear power plants as their fuel.

Doesn't that then make it easier to get to the bomb?

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#159

Post by strulovich »

Lazare wrote: post #53

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…

This death per TWh calculation is naive. In reality modeling and averages are not enough here.

If can tell a coal plant kills X people per year, then I can pretty safely deduce it will kill somewhere between 0.9X and 1.1X people next year. (Made up numbers, but the point holds)

For nuclear, we can easily estimate with the same models the damage. One miscalculation, or one disastrous outcome can cause 50000 deaths, or turn the entirety of New York City to radiated ground that has to be avoided for decades.

As long as the extrapolations for nuclear are prone to extreme outcomes, nuclear is more unpredictable and therefore has more danger potential. This is why small nuclear reactors which fail independently are the way to turn nuclear plants into common energy source. They can reduce our fragility to extreme Chernobyl like outcomes.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#160

Post by pfdietz »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #146
yurlungur wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the bummer of nuclear power is how much advocates try to underestimate the cost of handling the waste for decades and the potential risks. I think if you really think we need to go full speed ahead with nuclear power you need to ask how close a waste deposit to your home are you comfortable with? Often times these things just get transported to supposedly remote places which just mean a more vulnerable communit…

Modern nuclear power plants use waste from previous generation nuclear power plants as their fuel.

No, they don't, in most cases. And when they do (MOX fuel in some thermal reactors) it's a net economic loss. MOX fuel is difficult to fabricate; the Pu used has negative value compared to just using fresh enriched uranium.
Post reply on HN