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

Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 619 posts

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#51

Post by rusk »

unlaxedneurotic wrote: post #19
LatteLazy wrote: post #12

With advances in long distance power transmission, I don't know why theyre not being build on desert coasts. Does anyone know? The Singapore-Australia line is about the se distance as a Western Sahara-UK line would be... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93ASEAN_Powe...

I believe that it may be partly due to the workforce required to keep the plant running. It will be very difficult for the workers to provide a good life to their families or education to their children in some remote location on a desert coast.

Sure they do this ok the oil rigs - long periods away from family, all that. I presume you could set up a similar arrangement

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#52

Post by jojobas »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #24
sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

Problem is that you don’t get to opt out of the “human bullshit”. Nuclear power comes with a massive and unavoidable cost from these matters.

You do. US Navy had zero nuclear accidents so far, simply because one Hyman Rickover was able to convince the government that safety overrides everything else.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#53

Post by Lazare »

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh.

Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear.

Does that mean nuclear is just a totally great idea? No; the issue with nuclear is cost. Historically it has been quite expensive, but subsidised in opaque ways. In a zero carbon world, it might make sense for baseline generation even if it's expensive; in the world we live in it needs to compete on price. Can it?

The debate about nuclear is never ending, and yet at the same time, seemingly never focused on anything relevant. How many times do we need to go through the same cycle? "But what about Chernobyl?" "But what about deaths due to coal?"

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#54

Post by dv_dt »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #43
dv_dt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the answer always reply with coal and oil instead of Renewables and storage?

If you’re German for one, then it’s justified, because Merkel has been shutting down nuclear plants which forced a switch back to more coal.

Then why isn't the argument that Germany should build more solar and wind generation? Nuclear plants take decades from start to finish - if they even finish in the West. Vs months to a few years for many renewable projects.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#55

Post by crispyporkbites »

sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

Nuclear is the future indeed, the fusion reactor in the sky supplies all the energy we’ll ever need.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#56

Post by mrtksn »

sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

Soviets were corrupt, Japanese were [not familiar with the explanation]. What would be the excuse for the next disaster? What if there are no selfless heroes around next time?

The problem with the current nuclear technology is that one disaster is way too many. The power plants need to fail more gracefully to have the support of the people that are less fascinated by the tech.

When the tsunami hits or experiment goes wrong you should be able the have a huge monetary loss and forget about what happened in a week. Not heroes sacrificing their lives to save the humanity and sarcophagus build with international collaboration. Not a land that is no-go zone for who knows how long.

Yes, nuclear power is fascinating and it’s very neat when it works but it’s too much of a commitment for many people.

And the death per kwh stats are ridiculous. Deaths of terrorist are way lower than most killers. Deaths due to mafia are very low compared to fatty cheese. Deaths due to serial killers are very low compared to kitchen accidents.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#57

Post by IgorPartola »

Lazare wrote: post #53

Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…

This is the first time I have seen nuclear described as more expensive. My understanding was that it was several times cheaper than coal. I could be totally wrong of course.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#58

Post by read_if_gay_ »

dv_dt wrote: post #54
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re German for one, then it’s justified, because Merkel has been shutting down nuclear plants which forced a switch back to more coal.

Then why isn't the argument that Germany should build more solar and wind generation? Nuclear plants take decades from start to finish - if they even finish in the West. Vs months to a few years for many renewable projects.

Because the plants are finished and working. They just shut them down.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#59

Post by dandare »

dv_dt wrote: post #5

The attitude on risks of radiation have little to do with the economic and technological failures of nuclear power. With multiple schedule and cost failures it seems like fission nuclear is an exercise in what is possible, but not really practical compared to what is accessible via renewables + storage and it's far less constrained financial and technological foundations.

Also let's not forget the problem of burnt fuel storage. Burned nuclear fuel will stay radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Unless we plan to offload the cost of storage to future generations - which we actually do now - nuclear power is horribly unprofitable.

Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

#60

Post by jojobas »

hrktb wrote: post #42
sto_hristo wrote: post #22

Everything around the nuclear disasters has been a human bullshit of a problem, not a technological one. Probably with the exception of Fukushima, where all the conditions were put into the extreme - killer earthquake and monster tsunami. Being anxious about it is more than justified, especially with idiotic countries in mind. But that doesn't mean we need to abandon it. Nuclear is the future and there is no debate a…

I can’t think of a single instance of a technology where we thought that failure wasn’t an option, were supposed to put everything behind it to succeed and had a 100% clear success. Dams fail. Rockets fail. Medical devices fail. Do you see any that doesn’t fail, whatever the cause is ? It’s natural to assume power plant at some point will fail. If we’re fine losing a gigantic living area for half a century each time…

Planning for failure is a core activity in nuclear plant design.

Modern plants could sustain pretty much any failure and no living area would be lost.

Post reply on HN