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

Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 166 posts

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#21

Post by sjwright »

semaj111 wrote: post #19
ethanwillis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not right about the waste. High level radioactive waste will fit in a space about 7 meters high and the area of a football field. That's all nuclear waste since we started operating nuclear reactors... worldwide.

It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. At some point we will need super long term storage, and it's true that there is no viable solution out there yet. Even the most sophisticated facilities can not guarantee that no leakage will contaminate the surroundings at some point. But as I said, I think finding a solution for this should not be o…

The longer it’s radioactive lifespan, the less dangerous it is.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#22

Post by carlosdp »

andbberger wrote: post #18
ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

Waste was never really a problem and has been definitively solved. You bury it in a deep unmarked hole. [1] Go ahead and keep arguing about whether or not nuclear is a good idea. Earth doesn't care. The water will be lapping at your feet soon. How's that for externalizing a cost to future generations? I am, and will continue to be blown away that the world found out how to make rocks so spicy they can power our civil…

Yea nuclear waste isn't actually a problem, I was surprised when I learned this since everyone seems to make a big deal about it.

It's solid waste (not radioactive sludge like in many movies/shows), and requires very simple storage containers, which you can just keep on site or bury, no problem.

> In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. [1]

[1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#23

Post by randallsquared »

ysleepy wrote: post #12
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? "Nuclear waste" is an artificial problem. It is possible to build reactors that use the "nuclear waste" from existing reactors as fuel, which destroys it forever. We haven't done this primarily because people keep refusing to build new reactors that do this until we figure out what…

In the same sense that we will all be saved by CO2 capturing devices? These kinds of reactors (Travelling Wave Reactor etc.) you mention are vapourware and have been for quite some time. And I highly doubt the "which destroys it forever" part, - really, no waste at all, magic you say? This is just more of "Future Tech will solve this" externalization of problems.

> really, no waste at all, magic you say?

The core problem with nuclear waste is that it's energetic. There are a number of designs that burn up waste; if we were building and testing them, poor reactor types could be abandoned and better ones could be improved. We're not doing that primarily because "nuclear" is a scary word owing to activist efforts decades ago.

> This is just more of "Future Tech will solve this" externalization of problems.

That is absolutely the right plan, though. Assuming our civilization doesn't collapse or stall, future generations will be enormously wealthier than we are, and any problem we have will be proportionately smaller for them. Of course, stall or collapse isn't impossible, but I do wish people wouldn't so heavily advocate for exactly that.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#24

Post by carlosdp »

ysleepy wrote: post #6

Ah yes, decidedly pro-nuclear stance here. The first obvious omissions that come to mind are: 1. The evacuations took place while the meltdown was ongoing, evacuating was the sane choice given the available knowledge at the time. 2. There is no data on how not evacuating would have affected the people, since that was not done, making that comparison with such certainty seems a bit overconfident. Nuclear in general: H…

Yea nuclear waste isn't actually a problem, even barring newer reactor designs that re-use nuclear fuel. I was surprised when I learned this since it's always coached as the biggest issue with nuclear as a power source.

It's solid waste (not radioactive sludge like in many movies/shows), and requires very simple storage containers, which you can just keep on site or bury, no problem.

> In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. [1]

[1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#25

Post by Barrin92 »

Seems like a very one-sided article that focuses predominantly on health risks and points out that relocation might not have been warranted and seems to suggest that this shifts the calculus.

There's however not just health risk but also economic risk. There's different estimations of how much the entire Fukushima catastrophy cost but estimates range from dozens of billions of dollars to hundreds of billions[1]. And even if relocation hadn't been mandatory I'm not so sure regions that get the stigma of being radiated would survive anyhow and I can imagine a lot of voluntary exodus and as a result further economic and property damage.

Regardless of what particular number one picks, it was economically absolutely devastating.

[1]hhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi...

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#26

Post by mnemonicsloth »

bb88 wrote: post #17
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about showing me a sound final (100k yr) storage for nuclear waste, built and ready, before you operate any more nuclear reactors? "Nuclear waste" is an artificial problem. It is possible to build reactors that use the "nuclear waste" from existing reactors as fuel, which destroys it forever. We haven't done this primarily because people keep refusing to build new reactors that do this until we figure out what…

So this falls into the category of the solution of "X" is more "X". I'm usually skeptical of arguments like these especially when "X" is complex, potentially harmful, or offered as a magic bullet. In your case in order to validate claims, I have to be a nuclear scientist to understand the potential ramifications of your argument before I can fully understand the pros/cons. If as an engineer, I cannot afford the time…

The same way politicians build bridges and operate air traffic control systems: by hiring experts to do it.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#27

Post by eco »

semaj111 wrote: post #19
ethanwillis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not right about the waste. High level radioactive waste will fit in a space about 7 meters high and the area of a football field. That's all nuclear waste since we started operating nuclear reactors... worldwide.

It's not necessarily the amount of waste that is the problem, it's the incredibly long duration of its radioactivity. At some point we will need super long term storage, and it's true that there is no viable solution out there yet. Even the most sophisticated facilities can not guarantee that no leakage will contaminate the surroundings at some point. But as I said, I think finding a solution for this should not be o…

That's what people say but we produce many orders of magnitude more toxic chemical waste which is dangerous forever. The fact that nuclear waste becomes safe over time almost seems like an advantage (over other forms of waste at least).

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#28

Post by hanniabu »

734129837261 wrote: post #3

Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy for both humankind and nature. Chernobyl was ancient and outdated, which caused issues. And Fukushima had to withstand an earthquake and tsunami. And even then the radiation only killed 1 person. Even wind-turbines cause more damage by killing many, many birds. They aren't as reliable and they certainly cau…

Human factors are always an issue. In the US there's a lot of regulations that are being relaxed to allow nuclear power plants to continue to function. This is the issue I've always seen.

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#29

Post by mnemonicsloth »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #5
734129837261 wrote: post #3

Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy for both humankind and nature. Chernobyl was ancient and outdated, which caused issues. And Fukushima had to withstand an earthquake and tsunami. And even then the radiation only killed 1 person. Even wind-turbines cause more damage by killing many, many birds. They aren't as reliable and they certainly cau…

Are you accounting for costs of mining the source material? As I understand it the cost to acquire and safely handle the nuclear material is significant.

Significantly less than digging up millions of tons of coal. Note also that coal is somewhat radioactive too, and there is a lot more of it, so the radiation difference is small and might even favor nuclear

Re: Data from Chernobyl and Fukushima provide answers about the risks of nuclear

#30

Post by m463 »

gwbennett wrote: post #4

The US Navy has trained thousands of 18-25 year old men and women to operate hundreds of reactors around the world safety for over 60 years. I was one of them. I have not been an operator for many years, but the latest reactor designs are amazingly safe and reliable. The world needs more safe, clean, cheap and reliable power. Nuclear power is one of the answers.

Did you meet rickover?

I think nuclear needs a significant, stable and non-politicized source of funding with a good balance of support and regulation.

If we ahd modern, sustainable "nuclear battery" type nuclear reactors I think we would be better off.

Maybe we could play factorio with the reactors so that power output only went towards battery and solar cell production.

Post reply on HN