Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by mpyne » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 3:52 PM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #144

mpyne wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For baseload power? There effectively isn't. Renewable energy generation requires a substantial investment in energy storage systems if you don't have thermal power generation (such as nuclear or fossil-fueled plants), as having rolling blackouts just because the wind unexpectedly isn't blowing as hard is not good for business.

The thing is that nuclear isn't really good at this. Nuclear plants don't have much in the way of a throttle - they're just "on" or "complete shut-down and it will take substantial measures to start it up again". Fossil fuels or some sort of capacitive system (even just using the peak surpluses to pump water into a reservoir above a turbine) would do that task better. The panicky nay-sayers of nuclear power are too o…

> The thing is that nuclear isn't really good at this. Nuclear plants don't have much in the way of a throttle - they're just "on" or "complete shut-down and it will take substantial measures to start it up again".

Nuclear can certainly be designed to ramp power output up or down in response to demand. After all there are many applications of nuclear technology in fields that require rapid and immediate changes in power output.

Nuclear power generation plants are not typically designed to do this, but it's not because nuclear can't, it's because nuclear doesn't have to. The plants are built by the utility companies to act as baseload power generation and can normally afford to take hours to change power output if they wish. But if utility plants wanted a nuke plant that would change power output quicker, that could be arranged as well.

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

#152

Post by _mulder_ » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 4:02 PM UTC

astine wrote: post #99

_mulder_ wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 heal…

No, not really. That article would indeed be a problem, but only if it ignored either Volvo manufacturing deaths or BMW driving deaths. An article comparing total Vovlo and BMW related deaths as a measure of the make's cost to society would present a valid argument. Granted, generally when someone calls and automobile make "safe," they mean safe to drive, and that's what matters to car buyers, but part of the point o…

That article would indeed be a problem, but only if it ignored either Volvo manufacturing deaths or BMW driving deaths

Which is exactly what that article does. I see no reference to the deaths from uranium mining, or the deaths from industrial accidents at coal power plants.

I'm not saying these figures don't exist and certainly not suggesting they suggest nuclear isn't quite so squeaky clean. Other HN commenters have supplied links suggesting uranium mining is much safer. My original point was that misleading comparisons, like the one mentioned, don't help pro nuclear arguments because they are frankly desperate, sensational and don't hold up to scrutiny.

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

#153

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 4:02 PM UTC

astine wrote: post #99

_mulder_ wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 heal…

No, not really. That article would indeed be a problem, but only if it ignored either Volvo manufacturing deaths or BMW driving deaths. An article comparing total Vovlo and BMW related deaths as a measure of the make's cost to society would present a valid argument. Granted, generally when someone calls and automobile make "safe," they mean safe to drive, and that's what matters to car buyers, but part of the point o…

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 4:03 PM UTC

astine wrote: post #99

_mulder_ wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 heal…

No, not really. That article would indeed be a problem, but only if it ignored either Volvo manufacturing deaths or BMW driving deaths. An article comparing total Vovlo and BMW related deaths as a measure of the make's cost to society would present a valid argument. Granted, generally when someone calls and automobile make "safe," they mean safe to drive, and that's what matters to car buyers, but part of the point o…

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by sentenza » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 4:28 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #151

Pxtl wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that nuclear isn't really good at this. Nuclear plants don't have much in the way of a throttle - they're just "on" or "complete shut-down and it will take substantial measures to start it up again". Fossil fuels or some sort of capacitive system (even just using the peak surpluses to pump water into a reservoir above a turbine) would do that task better. The panicky nay-sayers of nuclear power are too o…

> The thing is that nuclear isn't really good at this. Nuclear plants don't have much in the way of a throttle - they're just "on" or "complete shut-down and it will take substantial measures to start it up again". Nuclear can certainly be designed to ramp power output up or down in response to demand. After all there are many applications of nuclear technology in fields that require rapid and immediate changes in po…

It's likely that baseload and renewables will meet half way. Supposedly, adding a small amount of battery capacity to wind turbines dramatically increases their power output predictability.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514331/wind-turbines-ba...

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

#156

Post by Xylakant » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 4:50 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #53

tome wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Quote from the article "The problem may intensify with the approaching winter." and "The coming winter can be critical,". The article dates vom october 2012 and the winter is over, no large-scale blackout in europe so far.

Renewable energies require updates to the network infrastructure - granted - but should that be a reason not to push technology and try to improve?

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

#157

Post by Xylakant » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 5:13 PM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #10

Xylakant wrote: post #7

So now we're all back to "nuclear power is perfectly safe and cheap." The article fails to take into account that radiation is not like poison where you either die or don't. It's a statistical effect and how large the effect is can only be answered in a couple of decades. I'd not want to bet my life on that. Also, the radiation spills are not over yet. Radiated water still leaks from the reactors and flows into the g…

Every single statement you made, with the exception of handling radioactive waste, applies more to coal than it does to nuclear power. Coal pollution doesn't "kill outright" - but does so slowly, over many years, and many, many more people than nuclear power. Coal waste continues to leak into the air, and into water systems. I'm not arguing that Nuclear power is "safe" (nothing, is - even solar power kills many peopl…

See, most energy consumed is actually not consumed as electricity but for heat, for traffic etc. Nuclear power produces a mere 13%-14% of the worlds energy (less than hydro power btw.) and by no means can replace all uses of coal (or generally fossil fuel) unless you pop a nuclear plant in every city or village. A lot of coal plants in germany for example produce electricity as well as heat for buildings - something that a nuclear plant can in theory do, but it's just not something you'd want to stick to the edge of the city.

If you want to save on CO2 and energy, there's far better ways than building new coal or nuclear plants: reduce energy consumption and - most importantly - reduce it where it can be cheaply done. Go to developing countries and replace inefficient stoves, air conditioning and fridges. It's dead cheap compared to what we can squeeze out here - but it's a political nightmare. It's simple to support buying an efficient freezer in germany or better insulation for buildings or solar collectors on the roof, it's very hard to do so in africa.

I agree that that solar and wind are currently no perfect solution and alone probably will never be, but that's no reason not to invest money and do research. The progress that has been made so far is impressive. We're nerds, we all love a good challenge.

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

#158

Post by Symmetry » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 5:19 PM UTC

Udo wrote: post #48

The article reads as if it was commissioned by Tepco directly. Nuclear power is not risk-free. Plants need to be operated with competent designs under the watchful eyes of competent engineers. None of which was the case at Fukushima. The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct but misleading: it doesn't mean people get to ignore the dangers. Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukus…

Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukushima meltdowns were a huge catastrophe that severely impacted a whole region. Ask the people who live(d) there if they think the impact of this thing was overstated in the media - they're likely to tell you if anything consequences were buried not exposed.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that there wasn't a huge catastrophe that affected the region least of all this article. It was very clear on the thousand deaths that the evacuation caused beyond those caused by the Tsunami. What it argues is that the radiation from the disaster wasn't a huge catastrophe that people worried it was.

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

#159

Post by JanezStupar » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 5:30 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #156

jacquesm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Quote from the article "The problem may intensify with the approaching winter." and "The coming winter can be critical,". The article dates vom october 2012 and the winter is over, no large-scale blackout in europe so far. Renewable energies require updates to the network infrastructure - granted - but should that be a reason not to push technology and try to improve?

Why would Poland need to update their infrastructure so that Germany can force their excess production upon them.

Do you even understand what you are saying here?

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

#160

Post by JanezStupar » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 5:31 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #87

JanezStupar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar and wind are ways off replacing nuclear and fossil fuels. There is no way we could switch to solar/wind without moving to the 1800's. There are many technological and economic issues with large scale solar/wind. We need to build better grids, we need storage for when sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow... Realistically we are at least 20 years from the point where renewables could overcome fossil. And that…

"There is no way we could switch to solar/wind without moving to the 1800's." That is false in that the system currently cannot do it because we've promised 100% uptime and all the users have designed around perhaps 99% uptime. Lower uptime on the coasts, much higher in civilized areas (Dang near 100% by the great lakes, for example, where interestingly AC power has been much more reliable than UPS/generator transfer…

So we just deprecate all the existing machines, factories and infrastructure?

Your proposal is as impractical as proposals for urban hydroponics.