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

Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#21

Post by danielharan »

bluedanieru wrote: post #9

Here's where I'm at now on nuclear power, as someone who has lived in Tokyo for the last 7 1/2 years: 'Nuclear scaremongers' are right, that is to say they have a point, but for the wrong reasons. They are wrong that nuclear power is inherently dangerous, or that it's bad for the environment when compared e.g. coal, or basically whatever other anti-scientific bullshit they care to trot out to support their anti-nucle…

In Canada, we only had to look at the track record on construction and maintenance times, as well as budget overruns, to conclude that management was incompetent. So yes, in theory, nuclear is safer. But with those clowns in charge?

As far as environmentalists reading the science, you've missed out on renewables. Most importantly, a large part of our energy problems can be solved by reducing demand. This can be much more cost-effective.

Google the Rocky Mountain Institute and the concept of CO2 wedges; these ideas aren't new. Maybe some environmentalists are a lot more cynical and far-thinking than you gave them credit for?

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#22

Post by danielharan »

AngryParsley wrote: post #13
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really scaremongering? Fukushima was a close call. Considering the population density and the inherent risks (quakes) in Japan, I would say it's a wise decision. Who wants a population living under fear? Fission is a good source of energy, but nuclear plants are obviously less reliable than expected. That will be a thrust to research better alternatives, including better nuclear plant designs, why not?

Don't forget that the Tohoku earthquake killed almost 20,000 people. The worst estimates for Fukushima predict it will cause 1,000 deaths. Median estimates predict a couple hundred deaths. Even though management was criminally bad, Fukushima still killed fewer people than the equivalent number of coal plants run for the same time. Fukushima ran for 40 years, so that's 25 deaths per year worst-case. According to the C…

There are more than 600 power plants in the US that use fossil fuels, the 600 is just for coal.

As for the severity of the earthquake, it's far more important to consider proximity than absolute magnitude. A smaller one closer or right under could have been catastrophic. A few of us consider building plants in active tectonic zones to be the height of insanity. Building it right by the shore, in historical tsunami zones? Incomprehensibly stupid.

Of course, the alternative to nuclear isn't just coal. Renewables and efficiency should be considered first. Safer than both coal and nuclear, they also create more jobs.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#23

Post by rhino42 »

lispm wrote: post #19
derleth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The anti-nuclear movement is not based on anti-scientific and scaremongering - we have Nobel price winners who support that cause and wrote scientific papers of this very issue This doesn't necessarily follow, logically. In order to make the case, we'd need to go point-by-point. > What happens to the radioactive stuff that is created at the end of every of the energy producing process? Coal just puts it into the at…

Coal power plants filter radioactive substances, at least here in Germany.

but they spit out a bunch of other nasty stuff too. Plus: consider death tolls of each power source per KWh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-human-toll-of-coa...

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#24

Post by rimantas »

lispm wrote: post #19
derleth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The anti-nuclear movement is not based on anti-scientific and scaremongering - we have Nobel price winners who support that cause and wrote scientific papers of this very issue This doesn't necessarily follow, logically. In order to make the case, we'd need to go point-by-point. > What happens to the radioactive stuff that is created at the end of every of the energy producing process? Coal just puts it into the at…

Coal power plants filter radioactive substances, at least here in Germany.

And what happens with filters then?

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#25

Post by darkestkhan »

Zebra0815 wrote: post #16

I'm a German and therefore do have another opinion :p The anti-nuclear movement is not based on anti-scientific and scaremongering - we have Nobel price winners who support that cause and wrote scientific papers of this very issue. The question asked by them is different from the topic you guys are talking about currently: * What happens to the radioactive stuff that is created at the end of every of the energy produ…

There are no such forests in Poland, and Poland is much closer to Chernobyl than Germany.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#26

Post by Navarr »

derleth wrote: post #18
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Had it been a gas plant or whatever, it wouldn't have mattered. But it was a nuclear plant, and in a nuclear plant any improbable event like that is a major f * up. That's the core issue.

> Had it been a gas plant or whatever ... it would have been doing damage constantly, just by operating, in the form of emitting carbon.

let me just remind the jury that, despite nuclear power being cleaner, there is still this big nuclear waste problem I don't recall us ever solving.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#27

Post by legulere »

simplexion wrote: post #20
Zebra0815 wrote: post #16

I'm a German and therefore do have another opinion :p The anti-nuclear movement is not based on anti-scientific and scaremongering - we have Nobel price winners who support that cause and wrote scientific papers of this very issue. The question asked by them is different from the topic you guys are talking about currently: * What happens to the radioactive stuff that is created at the end of every of the energy produ…

As knowledge increases we figure out ways to use the waste to create more power and decrease waste. blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/06/03/could-a-new-generation-of-power-plants-turn-nuclear-waste-into-clean-fuel/

That's an ideal world scenario. In an ideal world there wouldn't have been a earthquake stronger than suspected possible. In an ideal world there wouldn't be incompetent people running nuclear power plants. We have no reason to believe that we can economicly transmute nuclear waste, let alone by using fission.

When you use a technology like nuclear that has such a big risk, thinking about the worst case you can imagine even isn't enough.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#28

Post by AngryParsley »

danielharan wrote: post #22
AngryParsley wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that the Tohoku earthquake killed almost 20,000 people. The worst estimates for Fukushima predict it will cause 1,000 deaths. Median estimates predict a couple hundred deaths. Even though management was criminally bad, Fukushima still killed fewer people than the equivalent number of coal plants run for the same time. Fukushima ran for 40 years, so that's 25 deaths per year worst-case. According to the C…

There are more than 600 power plants in the US that use fossil fuels, the 600 is just for coal. As for the severity of the earthquake, it's far more important to consider proximity than absolute magnitude. A smaller one closer or right under could have been catastrophic. A few of us consider building plants in active tectonic zones to be the height of insanity. Building it right by the shore, in historical tsunami zo…

Sorry, but you're wrong about the safety of renewables. The statistic you're looking for is called deaths per terawatt-hour. Nuclear wins by an order of magnitude: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawat...

For the same amount of energy, renewables kill more people than nuclear. People fall off their roofs installing solar panels. Hydroelectric dams burst. Even windmills kill people.

For the next few decades, fossil fuels are the only alternative to nuclear power. Wind and solar aren't baseload sources. Hydro is, but we've already put dams in most of the economically and environmentally feasible locations.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#29

Post by legulere »

darkestkhan wrote: post #25
Zebra0815 wrote: post #16

I'm a German and therefore do have another opinion :p The anti-nuclear movement is not based on anti-scientific and scaremongering - we have Nobel price winners who support that cause and wrote scientific papers of this very issue. The question asked by them is different from the topic you guys are talking about currently: * What happens to the radioactive stuff that is created at the end of every of the energy produ…

There are no such forests in Poland, and Poland is much closer to Chernobyl than Germany.

Look at the fallout map of caesium:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wNICDkSSg1I/RuV773MrnDI/AAAAAAAAAA...

Poland was lucky with the weather.

Post reply on HN