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

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#31

Post by lispm »

rhino42 wrote: post #23
lispm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The more dramatic numbers are for old US coal power plants.

Newer or upgraded coal power plants have less effects.

But generally this is not a beauty contest. Coal power plants have to go. Unfortunately it will take a lot of time and money to replace (or even upgrade) the existing ones.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#32

Post by lispm »

AngryParsley wrote: post #28
danielharan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here in Germany we are now at 25% renewable energy for electricity. Without much hydro. Expect to see something close to 40% in 2020.

There are lots of environmental impacts of renewable energy, but generally the acceptance is higher than for nuclear or coal.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#33

Post by InclinedPlane »

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…

If an earthquake causes a bridge to collapse, killing people, do we blame the bridge or the earthquake? If an earthquake causes a dam to fail (which happened due to the Tohoku quake), killing people, do we blame the dam or the earthquake? If an earthquake causes a tall building to topple, should we build shorter buildings?

The Fukushima reactors were the most dangerous design currently still in operation in G-7 countries, and handling of the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami was one of the most disorganized and most mismanaged in history. And yet for all of that the nuclear disaster still resulted in far fewer deaths than occurred in coal mining in that year.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#34

Post by simplexion »

legulere wrote: post #27
simplexion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 imagi…

Scaremongering...

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#35

Post by hrktb »

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…

> ...when operated responsibly

I also think this is the main point. And the big hard thing to swallow is that in Japan you have to trust a hell lot of people to operate responsibly, or you can't live there.

You trust house developper to not fake anti-cyclonic and aniti-sismic rules (and then you have the Haneha incidents, but you have to trust them anyway), you trust your locality to warn you when tsunami comes, you trust the government to evacuate you when volcanos blow up (there's a plenty in the south of Japan), you trust the dam makers to have taken enough security margins. And you won't live anywhere safe enough to not have to think about any of these risks.

And you know each of this big big companies must have their load of dirty filthy psychopaths, but you just believe deep in your mind that still most of the people will do The Right Thing. You can put more laws, more controls, more processes, but you'll still have to believe they won't fake the most part, and you won't know it until some more shit happens.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#36

Post by aidenn0 »

Navarr wrote: post #26
derleth wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Reprocessing?

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#37

Post by AngryParsley »

danielharan wrote: post #21
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…

Most importantly, a large part of our energy problems can be solved by reducing demand.

Has any civilization ever voluntarily reduced energy usage? You might as well ask people to breathe less.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#38

Post by GlennS »

lispm wrote: post #31
rhino42 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The more dramatic numbers are for old US coal power plants. Newer or upgraded coal power plants have less effects. But generally this is not a beauty contest. Coal power plants have to go. Unfortunately it will take a lot of time and money to replace (or even upgrade) the existing ones.

Power needs to be generated one way or another. Keeping nuclear for longer would mean we can get rid of coal sooner. Those numbers show that this would be a worthwhile trade.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#39

Post by se85 »

Japan will figure it out!

I personally think it's a good idea.

I don't have a problem with Nuclear energy (under the right conditions).

I can't help but remind myself that having so many older nuclear reactors in such a small country that is densely populated (relatively speaking of course) and also sitting on a fault line, is NOT a good area to be using nuclear energy

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#40

Post by tinco »

Navarr wrote: post #26
derleth wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

We have solved it, governments just don't enforce it because storing used uranium is cheaper than recycling it.
Post reply on HN