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

61–70 of 619 posts

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

#61

Post by jimmcslim »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #9

I think it's definitely true people are overly anxious about radiation, and irrationally so. For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays but not about flying even though it gives you roughly the same amount of exposure. I know I was pretty anxious when I had a chest xray as a kid. It's just the invisible nature of radiation. Coupled with the real and brutal effects of extreme doses, it just lend…

I’ve just had approximately 7 weeks of radiation therapy as post-surgery treatment for a cancer in my neck. 2 grays each treatment (I think) and 33 treatments, 66 grays in total.

My skin in the treatment area held up fine until the last week when it basically gave up, so I’m looking forward to a couple of weeks of applying gel and changing bandages...

So even quite moderate exposures can have significant effects, I can’t imagine what this would be like across my whole body.

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

#62

Post by jka »

IgorPartola wrote: post #57
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.

A useful term to search the web for related to this is 'LCOE' - an acronym for 'levelized cost of energy'.

It's essentially the same notion as 'total cost of ownership' in IT, but in the domain of energy generation.

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

#63

Post by IgorPartola »

jojobas wrote: post #52
matthewmacleod wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unlike the Air Force which accidentally flew two nukes to the wrong state :). But that’s not nuclear power so I suppose you are correct.

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

#64

Post by jojobas »

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…

Fukushima was largely a human bullshit problem too.

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

#65

Post by pvaldes »

jojobas wrote: post #52
matthewmacleod wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> US Navy had zero nuclear accidents so far

and here we go again....

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

#66

Post by hwillis »

coredog64 wrote: post #13
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.

Nuclear opponents: File lawsuits and generally propose BANANA policy Also nuclear opponents: Gee, look how long it takes to build a nuclear plant.

Absolute nonsense. Owners of nuclear plants are far more likely to open suits, and the suits against plants are over quickly and very rarely successful: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1901/ML19010A148.pdf

Take SCANA as an example. They apply to the NRC in March 2008, are granted a price increase three days later, and are granted project approval 5 months after that. 4 months after that the construction plan is approved. 10 months from filing to green light, with first construction in 3 years and completion in 10 years. Projected cost is 9.8 billion for two AP1000 units- $5.4 million per MW capacity (inflation adjusted). Far more expensive than gas or renewable energy: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.p...

Before even starting, they need to redesign. NRC approves. First new US reactor in 30 years. Construction begins in 2013. In 2014, they suddenly need an extra year and 1.2 billion more. By 2016 they have hiked rates NINE times. In 2017 Westinghouse goes bankrupt trying to build these reactors. Estimates put the total cost to finish at 23 BILLION USD. The parent company votes to abandon the project.

https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-...

That has absolutely nothing to do with lawsuits or policy. The legislature gave them absolutely everything they wanted, and they had a wide open door to build reactors. They couldn't do it. It's a simple as that.

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

#67

Post by dv_dt »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #58
dv_dt wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nuclear plants have a lifetime of 30ish years. Many are getting shutdown now because the first wave of builds was around 30-50 years ago. The risks of continuing to operate older designs gets higher if they're refurbished.

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

#68

Post by etimberg »

dv_dt wrote: post #39
raffraffraff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whereas with lovely coal and oil we get to ignore the problem. It's just smoke until... Catastrophic climate feedback loops, mass extinction, hundreds of millions of climate migrants escaping uninhabitable parts of earth, coral and shellfish disappear in acidic oceans, entire ecosystems collapse and etc etc. But nuclear had costs. Sure. But we could at least begin to calculate those costs.

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

Because you cannot simply replace conventional rotational generators with inverters. The inertia of the turbomachinery smooths out fluctuations in the grid keeping it stable. Lots of details in [0].

So without lots of hydro or synchronous wind generation, there will always been a need for some kind of conventional generation to keep the grid stable.

0. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/10/25/grid-inertia...

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

#69

Post by DoctorOetker »

jojobas wrote: post #60
hrktb wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

including an airliner flying into surface storage next to the plant?

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

#70

Post by Jon_Lowtek »

coredog64 wrote: post #15
Spooky23 wrote: post #7

After you ionize the straw man to death, ask the engineers wtf are we going to do with hazardous waste byproducts for which the current plan is to let sit and rot on site at various plant sites. When you look at the inevitable destruction that will be wrought on the Columbia river ecosystem by the Hanford site, perhaps it’s worth considering what will happen in the coming years as uneconomical nuclear plants are shut…

It’s not like this hasn’t been solved in several ways: France recycles not only their own waste, but waste for other countries. Yucca Mountain was built to store what couldn’t be recycled, but certain people (cough Harry Reid cough) decided that it couldn’t be used after being specifically built for the purpose.

La'Hague in France focuses on reprocessing fuel rods. It produces more contaminated waste, pumps radioactive pollution into the ocean and the air. "reprocessing" is not "recycling".
Post reply on HN