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

Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 107 posts

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#51

Post by coldtea »

zxcdw wrote: post #31
coldtea wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is very disappointing how constricted the field of nuclear research is, as it is a demonstrably zero carbon footprint energy source. Yes, if only it didn't have any other footprint...

Is this a real world problem with real world consequences? It is my understanding that the nuclear waste can be stored safely without too much cost. It is also my understanding that there are ways to re-use the already used fuel rods, effectively 1) making them radiate less 2) getting "leftover" power from already consumed fuel. Psychological footprint fueled by ignorance however... Well, that borders religiousness.…

>Is this a real world problem with real world consequences?

Might not be where you live, but there's a real world evacuated zone in Chernobyl, with a 20 mile radius were "even today radiation levels are so high that the workers responsible for rebuilding the sarcophagus are only allowed to work five hours a day for one month before taking 15 days of rest. Ukrainian officials estimate the area will not be safe for human life again for another 20,000 years.".

Oh, and: in the United States alone, the Department of Energy states there are "millions of gallons of radioactive waste" as well as "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

>It is my understanding that the nuclear waste can be stored safely without too much cost.

That'd be what we call a misunderstanding.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#52

Post by coldtea »

zxcdw wrote: post #46
notahacker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks like a pretty big real world consequence to me: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=chernobyl&safe=off&espv=21... Say what you like about the strength of the evidence linking burning of hydrocarbons and climate change, but it doesn't carry the risk of a meltdown leaving a footprint so big and dangerous that cities have to be abandoned. I don't think it's "ignorance... that borders religiousness" that keeps t…

What relevance does Chernobyl have with modern nuclear power plants? A honest question, because I am under an impression that with modern regulations and reactor designs the chance of a meltdown or less severe nuclear disaster are infitesimally small, granted that 1) regulations are being followed(which they weren't in Chernobyl) 2) safety of operation is being maintained and that the plant itself isn't faulty(which…

>What relevance does Chernobyl have with modern nuclear power plants?

The relevance that Chernobyl was too promoted as safe, like "modern power plants" are.

Plus the relevance that power plant contractors and governments STILL bullshit people all the way to the bank, with friendly experts paid to downplay the dangers.

Just watch the misinformation and lies told by the Japanese officials on the Fukushima distaster in order to cover up their failings.

I trust in science as much as everyone else.

Building a nuclear reactor is not science alone.

It's business (e.g contractors cutting corners whenever they can make money), it's politics, it's marketing, it's trust on certain things not happening (e.g a huge earthquake or a tsunami as in Japan's case, or maybe an attack), it's faith in the human operators and the software used, and tons of other factors.

I'd rather not put faith in all those coinciding happily when the outcome can be potentially lethal.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#53

Post by [deleted] »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #50
coldtea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their opposition has merit; it's easy to point to Fukushima and Chernobyl as major disasters. The disasters are one thing. The constant lying from authorities, government and assigned experts was another. They were caught pants down telling lies and misinforming in handling the Fukusima accident. This breaks trust. And for projects like that, that involve billions of dollars (enough to fuel much payola and greed),…

Sources, please? I don't disbelieve you; I want to know more. (And precisely what you're referring to.)

[deleted]

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#54

Post by y4mi »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #50
coldtea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their opposition has merit; it's easy to point to Fukushima and Chernobyl as major disasters. The disasters are one thing. The constant lying from authorities, government and assigned experts was another. They were caught pants down telling lies and misinforming in handling the Fukusima accident. This breaks trust. And for projects like that, that involve billions of dollars (enough to fuel much payola and greed),…

Sources, please? I don't disbelieve you; I want to know more. (And precisely what you're referring to.)

this is very well covered. its trivial to search for sources yourself.

as for the lying part: check the timeline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_I_nu...

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#55

Post by peterpathname »

pflanze wrote: post #30
ISL wrote: post #8

To make an an HN-relevant analogy: The FDA-hobbling of 23andMe pales in comparison to what it's like to work with nuclear regulatory frameworks and societal concerns regarding nuclear science. When I was an undergrad, DOE was willing to pay the university the entire relicensing and operating costs of the on-campus TRIGA. The university declined, knowing that the requisite environmental impact study for relicensing wo…

I'm not sure what you mean with litter, but isn't nuclear waste storage still an unsolved problem?

here in australia, decades of research and policy development have hit upon a world-class solution to the nuclear waste challenge.

We're building a road in a semi-arid remote location, on the traditional lands of a small, disemowered, remote indigenous community. At the end of the road, we plan to build a shed with a barbed wire fence. In return for this inconvenience, the local community will see employment opportunities (2 security guards) and compensation (scholarships for their children).

this standard of excellence is possible when you have a society that tolerates institutionalised inequity and cultural genocide, and apartheid style laws that target particular races. None of this should surprise, as this is the same spirit in which a large portion of the world's uranium is mined on traditional lands in Australia. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/12/08/calls-ranger-u...

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#56

Post by Daniel_Newby »

snom380 wrote: post #40
zxcdw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a real world problem with real world consequences? It is my understanding that the nuclear waste can be stored safely without too much cost. It is also my understanding that there are ways to re-use the already used fuel rods, effectively 1) making them radiate less 2) getting "leftover" power from already consumed fuel. Psychological footprint fueled by ignorance however... Well, that borders religiousness.…

I think the biggest problem is to guarantee that some future civilization will not dig up the waste believing it to be valuable, like we did with the old Egyptian graves. We could make it very difficult to do so, but it's not a "solved problem". http://vimeo.com/55736976 is an interesting watch (although perhaps a bit biased).

It's a solved problem. Dilute it with sand until it is about as radioactive as the original ore, melt the sand, and dump the chunks of glass someplace out of the way. Yes, future generations will need to protect themselves from it, but they already need to in huge areas where the ground emits radon.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#57

Post by Daniel_Newby »

zxcdw wrote: post #48
_delirium wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be stored safely, but so far a good waste solution hasn't been implemented, at least in the US. With the cancellation of Yucca Mountain, the current "interim" long-term storage plan is basically on-site dry cask storage scattered everywhere. The spent-fuel pools are an even bigger mess. Many of them are filling up, and fuel isn't being transferred from them to longer-term storage even when it could/should be,…

A non-US citizen here, so I have practically no understanding of the politics related to US nuclear power. However, the Wikipedia article for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository seems to mention that the cancellation was for political rather than for technical reasons. Wouldn't this imply, that the opposing forces aren't technological, but rather political? As in, if there's will, the problem can be at least part…

The trouble is that $4/gal fuel and an endless series of petro wars barely moves the needle on solving the political problems. Be afraid of any force that makes nuclear power look sensible to Americans.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#58

Post by ewoodrich »

y4mi wrote: post #54
sillysaurus2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sources, please? I don't disbelieve you; I want to know more. (And precisely what you're referring to.)

this is very well covered. its trivial to search for sources yourself. as for the lying part: check the timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_I_nu...

That's over 28 pages. And I haven't found an obvious example in the few pages I've read so far.

Which portions of the article are you referring to?

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#59

Post by memracom »

This is just talking about America. Perhaps the people having fun building nuclear reactors are now working in Russia. Interestingly enough Russia has recently invested a lot on new kinds of R&D facilities including a suburb of Moscow being modeled on Silicon Valley. And they are reforming their whole system of doing science and science research, moving it away from the old bureaucracy in which it became embedded in the Soviet era.

In life, usually when the pendulum swings to an extreme in one place, there is another place where the pendulum heads in the opposite direction, and in nuclear reactors it would not be surprising if Russia is the place where nuclear innovation is happening these days.

Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore

#60

Post by memracom »

dredmorbius wrote: post #47

The dynamics by which nuclear reactor design cease to be "fun" resonates very strongly with yesterday's post on creativity, and in particular on simonsarris's mention of John Cleese's video on creativity. The how to kill creativity bit at the end in particular. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6862240 I've got my own thoughts and doubts over the ultimate viability of nuclear energy and of the net potential of tec…

And what about the guy who though up the Higgs boson saying that he would be kicked out of university these days because he doesn't meet the arbitrary bureaucratic metric thought up by small-minded administrators. I.e. he does not publish enough papers.

These are a few examples of the idiocracy taking root. MBAs running companies into the ground because they fundamentally do not understand the domain in which their business operates. Police incompetence manifested as an increase in paramilitary actions coupled with a decline in common sense. And what about the TSA?

Post reply on HN