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

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#51

Post by hga »

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…

It was clear to observers like myself prior to the tsunami that Japan just doesn't do safety culture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_culture ) for things nuclear.

It's not a universal Japanese thing, if what I've heard much less rigorously about construction scaffolding is correct, or you could look at the safety record of the Shinkansen ( bullet trains; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Safety_record "During the Shinkansen's 45-year, nearly 7 billion-passenger history, there have been no passenger fatalities due to derailments or collisions, despite frequent earthquakes and typhoons.")....

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#52

Post by tobylane »

tinco wrote: post #40
Navarr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The numbers I heard a while was something like after first use uranium is 95-97% power, can be reused down to 15-25%. I haven't heard anyone getting this far with it, or even predictions of how radioactive it would be then.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#53

Post by new299 »

brg wrote: post #3

From a distance this seems like a horrible decision. Nuclear power is one of the areas that Japan leads the world, both in expertise and operation. It runs 50 plants, third to only the US and France. It is amazing that as a society they would abandon this advantage.

We've yet to see how real this decision is. Only today it was announced that new reactor projects will still go ahead: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120915x2.html

Which seems... odd!

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#54

Post by bluedanieru »

Dn_Ab wrote: post #49
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…

Right, the only real argument against nuclear is unfortunately a big one. Humans are simply not far-thinking and reliable enough to be trusted to properly manage all stages of a nuclear plant's lifecycle. But rather than give up - Is there any research being done to automate as much as possible such that the required operators becomes small enough for it to be feasible to confidently vet that they are intelligent and…

Research that removes the human element from nuclear power operation? Like, AI and robot armies? Anything short of that and we can still fuck it up. The consequences of disregarding the safety and integrity of a nuclear power facility are well-understood. That is, the physical consequences are, as opposed to the legal consequences. The legal consequences, sadly, do not exist.

In the aftermath of the earthquake while the radiation scare was at a fever pitch, I could be found in various places around the Internet (including here) defending nuclear power. So it's been a long journey to arrive at this opinion. And it's had consequences beyond just what I think of fission.

Like, speaking of AI and robot armies, how are we going to handle that? We'll be able to build both eventually, and probably sooner rather than later. How will we react? I'm not talking about the Skynet scenario or whatever. Rather, when we build something that passes the Turing test easily and is, by all outward appearances, a sapient and sentient being, are we going to respect that creature's basic rights? I suspect not.

I think that nuclear power is merely the first in what will become a long chain of technologies that humans are incapable of wielding responsibly.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#55

Post by bluedanieru »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #33
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…

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 count…

Just to be clear, the handling of the Fukushima incident has been an absolute shit-show. The handling of the earthquake and the tsunami, in a broader sense, has been excellent.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#56

Post by spartango »

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…

While I generally agree with your assessment, I'll make the small point that the radioactive-isotope contamination of the areas surrounding Fukushima will have subtler human and environmental effects over the course of the next 50+ years. Sure, these won't result in death, and perhaps not even serious illness, but they are effects that last long after everything is repaired.

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#57

Post by wapper »

lispm wrote: post #47
AngryParsley wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

EU does that. It's necessary.

And let's be kind about the result : they may actually survive the crisis ... right ? 50% chance ? What do you think ?

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#58

Post by wapper »

lispm wrote: post #30
rimantas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what happens with filters then?

Used as a material similar to concrete.

The fun thing about this argument, is that it's pro-nuclear. Nuclear fission reactors are the only thing on this planet that reduce radioactive emissions. By quite a bit even. Of course, after that reduction, we massively concentrate what is left and then store that absurd concentration in a really small spot, where "nothing can ever go wrong".

The problem with radioactivity is not nuclear power, it's the idiotic way we do nuclear disposal.

We should do what coal power plants do : simply process it into building materials. 10x thinner than background levels and just use it for anything and everything.

There are plenty of places on this planet where natural radioactivity levels are more dangerous than inside a modern nuclear reactor (Ramsar in Iran being the canonical example). A city built straight on top of radioactive rock, 200-500 times normal background radiation levels (like a constant dental scan, a little more than you'd get swimming in the primary coolant circuit of a nuclear reactor, 3 meters from an active fission reaction, without any separation between you and the reaction other than the water that sustains the reaction), yet you will not find a single trace of a nuclear power plant. And yes, they have a history of higher cancer rates (though not nearly as high as our radiation disease models predict they should be).

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#59

Post by wapper »

bluedanieru wrote: post #55
InclinedPlane wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 count…

Just to be clear, the handling of the Fukushima incident has been an absolute shit-show. The handling of the earthquake and the tsunami, in a broader sense, has been excellent.

Which didn't prevent the other power plants in Japan from killing more people than the nuclear disaster will kill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYT6BjfBro (1m15s in)

(death toll from that fire, explosions around it and people locking themselves in their homes, then getting enveloped by the smoke, was over 200. It was not the only oil disaster during the earthquake)

Re: Japan Commits to Eliminating Nuclear Power

#60

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

bluedanieru wrote: post #10
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?

It's not that the plants are less reliable. The technology is great. It's the humans that aren't reliable.

If the humans operating the plants are not reliable, it means the plants are unreliable. You're running in circles with your argument.
Post reply on HN