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

Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 679 posts

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#551

Post by btilly »

jimmaswell wrote: post #314
btilly wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with nuclear energy is that a nuclear power plant isn't very different in concept from a nuclear bomb. Getting the latter from the former is a serious concern. Having the former accidentally turn into a dirty nuke (not a lot of force, but lots of fallout), is scarily easy. Just see 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.

It is very different. You can't just make an atom bomb out of what's available at a nuclear plant. They're entirely different concepts requiting diffrrent materials. Chernobyl was an outdated design known to be dangerous at the time it was made, and something like the Chernobyl incident can't happen on anything newer. A study found statistically insignificant rises in cancer rates from the 3 Mile incident. I recommen…

It is both different, and not different.

No, your average nuclear plant doesn't have the makings of an atom bomb. But countries that are running nuclear power plants have an obvious incentive to create enrichment facilities for their nuclear power. These facilities are similar to those that enrich further for a nuclear bomb. Several countries have achieved nuclear bombs this way.

Furthermore nuclear plants do not all work the same way. There are advocates of thorium nuclear plants, because thorium is a much more abundant fuel source that should be able to operate more cleanly than uranium. However those plants generate uranium-233 which can be potentially separated through chemical processes in plants that are a lot easier to hide than centrifuges used for enrichment.

Both ways, nuclear power can be a step on the way to nuclear proliferation.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#552

Post by keiyakins »

Animats wrote: post #458

It doesn't kill many people, because even when there's a disaster, there's time to evacuate. But you lose an entire city once in a while. Major reactor disasters so far: - SL-1. Steam explosion due to control rod lifted too far during maintenance. Small experimental reactor, built in the middle of nowhere (Idaho Reactor Test Station) for good reason. Inherently unsafe design. - Three Mile Island. Meltdown due to cool…

Coal occasionally destroys entire cities too. Ever heard of Centralia? I'd honestly rather move to Fukushima or Pripyat than there. And that's ignoring the economic devistation coal left behind.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#553

Post by undersuit »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #394
ugh123 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What are solar prices like in the night? /s Is that a rhetorical question? Because night time usage largely relies on battery storage for which economies of scale are also reducing the cost in a similar predictable fashion.

/s means sarcasm However I will say there are newer solar panels that I've read about being tested which can theoretically produce power by moon light. Granted it won't be anywhere near the amount during the day but generating energy via solar at night time isn't entirely impossible it just won't be generating the same amount by orders of magnitude.

Solar panels already can generate light from the moon, it's just 100000x less.

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

It would be cheaper to do any number of things(battery storage, Nuclear, world power grid) than to build out more solar capacity to capture the pitiful full moon light once a month.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#554

Post by bsder »

gwbas1c wrote: post #490
bsder wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note:I'm comparing nuclear to fossil fuels which was the only tradeoff until some time ago. Last I checked, it still is. Solar can't get anywhere near baseline production that we need currently due to lack of storage options. And solar is the only thing which currently has even the possibility of scaling.

I can build a house today in the Northeastern US that's completely solar powered and off-grid. It adds about 15% to the cost to build. (2500 square foot home, 68k for panels, 18k for batteries, an extra 5k for a heat pump instead of a gas or propane heater.) The price of the panels and batteries is only going to drop. For on-grid solar, the panels are already the cheapest form of energy available, when paired with a…

> I can build a house today in the Northeastern US that's completely solar powered and off-grid.

1) 2/3 of electricity generated is directly wasted

2) 2/3 of electricity not wasted goes to industrial and commercial sectors, only 1/3 goes to residential.

3) That's wonderful until you get a string of overcast days and your batteries discharge. Then you need grid backup.

See: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/...

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#555

Post by hueving »

Retric wrote: post #313
hueving wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It was developed out of government driven military technology That's not a justification. The internet was also developed out of DARPA. Most of silicon valley exists because of cold war electronics warfare research, etc.

Civilian nuclear plants where designed, built, and operated to reduce the costs of nuclear weapons. This resulted in huge subsides, but also a lot of export controls. You can't say that about the internet. PS: A lot of past regulations seem dumb today, but power was not the primary goal which shaped a lot of policy.

>Civilian nuclear plants where designed, built, and operated to reduce the costs of nuclear weapons.

ARPANET was designed, built, and operated to enable the exchange of information in the face of nuclear annihilation of cities.

The big famous radio dish on top of the hill behind Stanford and the signals research that went into it was placed there to look for anti-ICBM radar signals bouncing off of the moon from Russia.

We are standing on a mountain of tech based on research driven by the cold war. Nuclear energy is no different.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#556

Post by ethbro »

Animats wrote: post #458

It doesn't kill many people, because even when there's a disaster, there's time to evacuate. But you lose an entire city once in a while. Major reactor disasters so far: - SL-1. Steam explosion due to control rod lifted too far during maintenance. Small experimental reactor, built in the middle of nowhere (Idaho Reactor Test Station) for good reason. Inherently unsafe design. - Three Mile Island. Meltdown due to cool…

While not a reactor, there's also the criticality accidents with the so-called Demon Core, aka the core for what would have been the third bomb to be dropped on Japan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#557

Post by [deleted] »

all_usernames wrote: post #179
lmm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Unless we start importing uranium from off-planet, there just isn't enough material to make the whole planet significantly radioactive.

What does significantly radioactive mean? If I am a single individual, a single particle of Cesium or whatever could give me cancer. It's not an averages game when you're talking about real lives.

[deleted]

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#558

Post by Zak »

Tomte wrote: post #279
Zak wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default alternative to using more nuclear energy is to use more fossil fuels. Maybe we'd like to use less energy, or switch to wind, solar or similar, but that isn't a viable option in the short term in a lot of cases. We know that using fossil fuels will kill a few people every day, eventually adding up to a large number, as well as causing widespread, low-grade damage to the environment. On the other hand, nucl…

It may not be rational under your belief system (and that's a totally valid position), but you should realize that most people see it differently. Many people are afraid of terrorism and plane crashes and sex crimes, but are still driving to work in a car.

I do think that for someone living in the US, Canada, western Europe, Japan or other stable, low-violence parts of the world it is irrational to devote significant mental energy to concerns about terrorism or rape by strangers. It is more irrational to give up time, money or civil rights to assuage such fears.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#559

Post by candiodari »

Animats wrote: post #458

It doesn't kill many people, because even when there's a disaster, there's time to evacuate. But you lose an entire city once in a while. Major reactor disasters so far: - SL-1. Steam explosion due to control rod lifted too far during maintenance. Small experimental reactor, built in the middle of nowhere (Idaho Reactor Test Station) for good reason. Inherently unsafe design. - Three Mile Island. Meltdown due to cool…

Same can be said of Hydro though. Even the part about passive safety measures that are often inadequate on installations.

Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest

#560

Post by e12e »

Animats wrote: post #458

It doesn't kill many people, because even when there's a disaster, there's time to evacuate. But you lose an entire city once in a while. Major reactor disasters so far: - SL-1. Steam explosion due to control rod lifted too far during maintenance. Small experimental reactor, built in the middle of nowhere (Idaho Reactor Test Station) for good reason. Inherently unsafe design. - Three Mile Island. Meltdown due to cool…

> Chernobyl. Meltdown and fire due to operational error during testing. Totally inadequate containment. Entire region evacuated and contaminated for decades.

Isn't decades a bit generous? Do we expect to move back in 2080? Does seem right AFAIK wrt the fallout in Norway contaminating reindeer (by way of lichen) - there's still measurable increase in radioactivity, but within presumably safe levels.

Post reply on HN