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

Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

civilbeat.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#161

Post by Pyramus »

SECProto wrote: post #143
Pyramus wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the issue with "safe" - it's difficult to capture in a single factor like number of accidents and for this factor, the distribution of the metric is very different. Here's a different metric that entails both: Market price to ensure a nuclear power plant against damages. Why are they so high as to make nuclear power creation uneconomical? A market inefficiency? It's very hard to explain away. So my point is: I…

> Market price to ensure a nuclear power plant against damages. Why are they so high as to make nuclear power creation uneconomical? A market inefficiency? Yes. The nonrenewable energies (coal, natgas, oil) in my source are constantly emitting carbon dioxide, an unpriced negative externality. This cost is entirely socialized - insurers don't pay for it, producers and users don't pay for it - it's largely being shifte…

Very unlikely. In this case 'the market' is not WallStreetBets, it's experts around the world who do nothing else but assess and estimate the risks.

There are two explanations I can think of:

> Compare that with nuclear, where the negative impact is risk of meltdown - high cost but low risk - and insurers are the ones taking it on.

This may be one reason. The risk of a 'meltdown' is actually so high cost but very low risk, that the corresponding distribution has no first moment. The 'expected cost' is infinite. I've heard folks use it as a real-world example of a Cauchy-type distribution, for more info see [1].

Another explanation might be that there is some sort of recency bias. But that would mean the cost was estimated correctly for the past - which is not what you would want to hear either.

You make a good point that externalities for fossil fuels are not priced in either, but that doesn't explain the phenomenon here. And I'm not arguing for or against the use of nuclear power - societies have already agreed to socialise the cost. I'm pointing out it's not as black and white ("nuclear power is and has always been safe") as some HN commenters may think.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_distribution

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#162

Post by gus_massa »

tablespoon wrote: post #149
pera wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article I cited: > Greenpeace said it had confirmed with Tepco that the system was not designed to remove carbon-14 Maybe there are updates on this matter but I couldn't find anything online.

Is the carbon-14 an actual health concern, or just a PITA for future archeologists?

Nitpicking: The archeologist already have tables to fix variations of the C_14 vs C_12 in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_calibration

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#163

Post by Reason077 »

brnaftr361 wrote: post #157
Reason077 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Wood and animal waste" Also known as biomass. These are a renewable resource and massively better than fossil fuels when it comes to climate change. Obviously you need to ensure they are burnt in a controlled environment (not dumping smoke into people's kitchens, for example), but in the right circumstances they are vastly preferable to coal and gas. Developing countries need not repeat the same mistakes as the de…

I've never actually sat down and worked it out, but it seems to me that this is more of a political buoy than legitimately optimized. Once you factor in all the processing of certain biomass, specifically I recall a European nation, the UK perhaps, was burning wood product. Wood is significantly less energy dense than coal for instance... If your workers are driving to and from work, if you're cutting it down with tw…

You're quite right that wood biomass is not fully carbon-neutral when fossil fuels are expended in harvesting it and transporting it.

UK biomass is estimated to have a total-lifecycle carbon footprint of 230g CO2 per kWh. This is much worse than wind, solar, or nuclear. But still a very significant improvement on burning coal and natural gas! Compared to coal, it's about a 4x improvement.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#164

Post by ddingus »

clarionbell wrote: post #8
ddingus wrote: post #2

Two things I am concerned about: The radioactive core is moving and will eventually be in contact with the water. It may already be. Does anyone know?[1] If a dump of water used for cooling is a concern (and it is for me personally and I am open to learning it is not), is our situation not far more grave given eventual contact with the water and this source multiplied by however many world water cycles of contact wil…

To answer your question. The risk is minimal to nonexistent. Tritium, the thing ONE of the scientists is concerned about, is an isotope of hydrogen. It's barely radioactive, and it has half life of about 12 years. You may know it as the stuff that illuminates watch faces and sights. It's used in many other industrial applications and as far as radioactive elements goes If you read the actual article you may see it's…

These things are low risk externally.

However, when made internal, as in food?

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#165

Post by cupofpython »

tablespoon wrote: post #151
Reason077 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Wood and animal waste" Also known as biomass. These are a renewable resource and massively better than fossil fuels when it comes to climate change. Obviously you need to ensure they are burnt in a controlled environment (not dumping smoke into people's kitchens, for example), but in the right circumstances they are vastly preferable to coal and gas. Developing countries need not repeat the same mistakes as the de…

> Also known as biomass. These are a renewable resource and massively better than fossil fuels when it comes to climate change. Obviously you need to ensure they are burnt in a controlled environment (not dumping smoke into people's kitchens, for example), but in the right circumstances they are vastly preferable to coal and gas. And won't they decay, releasing the CO2, anyway? IIRC, I think I heard decay referred to…

>The only bad aspect of biomass fuel

Let's not forget the simple logistical difficulty of using biomass. It is not as energy dense, which makes moving its own weight around more expensive too.

"The net energy ratio between energy output and input was 10.41.. Energy used for hauling hog fuel represented the largest part (36.27%) of the total energy input. The net energy ratio decreased 0.11 with each additional transportation mile

the net energy ratios reported here were on the high end of this range as energy input for possible active drying, storage, and final delivery was not included. " [0]

"The energy content was taken at 137,000 BTUs per gallon for diesel, and 125,000 BTUs per gallon for gasoline (Adams 1983)...

output: the mean HHV ranged from 8,946 to 9,105 BTUs/pound " [0]

A gallon weighs about 6 pounds, so it seems like pound-for-pound (pine-tree) biomass is less than half as productive as gasoline.*

Honestly, I was expecting worse. But over doubling energy costs isn't negligible, especially for poorer countries.

*this is at a glance work, not an actual deep dive

[0] Net energy output from harvesting small-diameter trees using a mechanized system Fei Pan Han-Sup Han Leonard R. Johnson

FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNAL VOL. 58, NO. 1/2 William J. Elliot

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#166

Post by 7952 »

yandrypozo wrote: post #124
janmalec wrote: post #4

Tritium is already present in the ocean naturally and we are not talking about Nuclear Waste, as the title suggests, but clean water. We also cannot compare the tritium with mercury, because tritium, even if released in the ocean, decays away. Mecury, on the other hand, stays forever. The concerns that the water will affect marine life might be well intended but will cause more harm than good. In the worst possible c…

Thank you for saying that, I still don't get how so many people who claim to take decision based on science are so against nuclear tech.

No one really does make decisions like that though. The world is not a lab where you can control all the variables. Nor can anyone have the breadth of knowledge to understand all relevant research. We just adopt a set of heuristics based on our own experience and understanding.

And here is a good example of this in action. The optimal way to connect a nuclear power station to the grid is with a big overhead power line. Except that you would have to build it in a scenic area. Millions of people have a heuristic that make them believe thag powerlines damage the environment. There is no scientific basis for that. But you put the cable underground anyway at huge expense. The objective is to generate electricity, not deploy an absolutely optimal solution. And a piece of infrastructure built in the world has hundreds of issues like that. The only solution we have to that is politics.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#167

Post by 7952 »

belorn wrote: post #95
jay_kyburz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It is without doubt a critical gaps in information. We need to know first how much radionuclides already exist in the ocean (per volume), and where those comes from. All combustion and mining release to some degree radioactive isotopes into the environment, and much of it ends up sooner or later into the ocean. A common popular science experiment for kids is to show water samples from different sources and store them…

Exactly, more studies are good. Third party review is a cornerstone of science.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#168

Post by 7952 »

janmalec wrote: post #4

Tritium is already present in the ocean naturally and we are not talking about Nuclear Waste, as the title suggests, but clean water. We also cannot compare the tritium with mercury, because tritium, even if released in the ocean, decays away. Mecury, on the other hand, stays forever. The concerns that the water will affect marine life might be well intended but will cause more harm than good. In the worst possible c…

And in order to come to any of those conclusions you have to get independent experts to perform a review. Your comment is an emotional defence of your own heuristics. Science requires verification.

Also, the ad hominem attack on people wasting their time on this kind of study is really weak. We should want proper reviews of all large scale industrial processes that release into the ocean. That does not preclude nuclear power.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#169

Post by pojzon »

Reason077 wrote: post #104
kyrra wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are dying every day due to fossil fuel caused pollution. You don't dive into this in a single sentence, but I do want to raise the point that fossil fuels, while they are bad are better than the alternatives for many countries, especially developing ones. Let's consider some alternatives. Wood and animal waste: for developing nations that need any energy they can get, they will burn these 2, which are massiv…

> "Wood and animal waste" Also known as biomass. These are a renewable resource and massively better than fossil fuels when it comes to climate change. Obviously you need to ensure they are burnt in a controlled environment (not dumping smoke into people's kitchens, for example), but in the right circumstances they are vastly preferable to coal and gas. Developing countries need not repeat the same mistakes as the de…

> Developing countries need not repeat the same mistakes as the developed world. We have better technology and far more options now.

They can only do so if we help them. Providing the technology FOR FREE.

Human race is slowly outgrowing the concept of money. Current system does not fit into the future we have ahead of us. And quite a bit of high profile ppl see that and are afraid of losing power.

Re: Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe

#170

Post by dekhn »

Pretty much everything in the media I've seen about radioactive waste does not square when carefully analyzed. It receives an outsize proportion of criticism and FUD. My guess is that years of atomic bomb images and a few plant failures convinced people that nuclear is unsafe, when many of the perceived risks are minimal. I'm still concerned about long-term storage of waste, but not concerned people who can't judge risk accurately.
Post reply on HN