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

Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#61

Post by cinntaile »

EricE wrote: post #53
cinntaile wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dream sweet dreams of solar panels solving all your problems while you shiver and shake, suck up those blackouts while living on unemployment insurance, and maintain a positive attitude. When you go off on a rant, you should at least know that they do most of their heating using gas and not electricity. You should also realize that new nuclear can't help them with the troubles they have right now, it takes 15+ year…

What are you going about with new plants? If the just turned back on the plants they stupidly turned off that would make a HUGE dent in their current predicament.

I replied to the GP who talked about new plants? I'll cite it for you, so you don't miss it a second time.

> And that Germans in particular are capable of building reliable, solid reactors with aggressive kilowatt pricing--while at the same time not cutting a single corner on the cement, welding, metallurgy, and structural engineering. Like the culture is perfect for it, one more example is their punctuality, it's evident they can do nuclear.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#62

Post by Spooky23 »

kennend3 wrote: post #24
mnw21cam wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear. Regarding the waste, I'd much rather have the very small amount of nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power station kept somewhere nice and safe than the humongous amount of waste that coal and gas produce and spew out into our atmosphere. A coal power station releases more radioactive waste than a nuclear one. Even the renewables pro…

This! People like the person you responded to seem to think nuclear power plants are producing tons of high level waste per day. Fact is most of the used fuel for the operating reactors are safely stored ON SITE because there is actually very little "radioactive waste". If not for NIMBY disposing the waste would be fairly straightforward. were i live (canada) we have the "canadian shield" which contains rocks as old…

Indian Point power station in New York has >1500 tons of waste in holding pools, which need to be maintained for hundreds of years, or until another storage method is devised, or until a permanent facility is built.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#63

Post by hammyhavoc »

pb060 wrote: post #19

> Those three world-famous accidents killed fewer than 80 people in total. Take away Chernobyl, and it's probably one. That sounds oversimplified and biased, and makes a potentially good article unreliable to my eyes. It doesn’t count people who have died as a result of radiation exposure, doesn’t mention the Chernobyl exclusion zone, the radioactive cloud, all the health issues that it has caused, etc.

"health issues"—like birth defects, significantly reduced lifespans, teeth falling out, cancers et al. I can't stress enough how unpleasant these "health issues" are.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#64

Post by hammyhavoc »

willcipriano wrote: post #20
wutsthat4 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh.. what?

This guy: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Blinky A generation of people associate him with nuclear power.

I doubt many people remember or care at this point, certainly not enough to influence their perceptions of nuclear energy. The Simpsons slipped out of the cultural zeitgeist many years ago.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#65

Post by hammyhavoc »

loopback_device wrote: post #38
kennend3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? How much energy was delivered to the cask when a rocket powered train hit it at 84 mph? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 How much radioactive material was released? Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? if you go back in time the amount of U235 increases. Go ba…

> Have you ever seen a storage Cask used to transport/store nuclear waste after it leaves the pools? Yes, I've even seen them close up, during transport. But that's not how they're stored in the holding pools. Not sure how the minuscule amount of time the rods spend in there during transport is relevant here? > Are you aware that in earths distant past there were natural nuclear reactors running? Yes, also not sure h…

American-style anxiety in action: the "miniscule" amount of time JFK was in a car was enough time for something to happen, likewise for AA Flight 11 on 9/11.

Not an American, but the missus and her family are, and what consistently shocks me is the anxiety over terrorism. The goal of terrorism is fear, and my god, it seems to work.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#66

Post by hammyhavoc »

loopback_device wrote: post #55
EricE wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many hospitals have enough radioactive isotopes to create some really nasty dirty bombs - yet you never see the same level of discussion around physical security for them; perhaps because most people don't realize just how frequently radioactive isotopes are used for things other than nuclear power? The constant demonization of nuclear power has lead to this pathological loathing that is really shooting us all in the…

Hospitals don't usually cause a radioactive disaster if bombed into oblivion – and are also not valid military targets as per Geneva Conventions. Radioactive isotopes used in medicine have significantly shorter half-lives than the isotopes found in fuel rods. I'm sure you can get something nasty done with them if you wanted to, and there are also enough incidents in that field, but it's not really comparable?

The Geneva Convention seems to have been thrown out of the window in recent conflicts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospita...

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#67

Post by pb060 »

ttfkam wrote: post #25
pb060 wrote: post #19

> Those three world-famous accidents killed fewer than 80 people in total. Take away Chernobyl, and it's probably one. That sounds oversimplified and biased, and makes a potentially good article unreliable to my eyes. It doesn’t count people who have died as a result of radiation exposure, doesn’t mention the Chernobyl exclusion zone, the radioactive cloud, all the health issues that it has caused, etc.

Does it mention that ZERO non-Soviet municipal power reactors were built with graphite moderation, willful withholding of critical information from those managing the power plant, and folks ready to run a "safety test" that was reckless on its face to laymen let alone nuclear engineers? This isn't even like judging all cars based upon the safety of a 1970s Ford Pinto. This is like judging the safety of all modern pro…

Yes I think that the article should have mentioned your that too. I wasn't trying to make any comparison, my point is that by not being objective you don't do any favour to nuclear energy, and probably give more arguments to people who are against it.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#69

Post by imtringued »

mnw21cam wrote: post #11
loopback_device wrote: post #2

And the cape is made out of run dry riverbeds of cooling water. Not to mention that waste handling is still not a solved problem, but sure, let's put all our eggs into a single danger-basket of extinction (again) - what could possibly go wrong?

Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear. Regarding the waste, I'd much rather have the very small amount of nuclear waste produced by a nuclear power station kept somewhere nice and safe than the humongous amount of waste that coal and gas produce and spew out into our atmosphere. A coal power station releases more radioactive waste than a nuclear one. Even the renewables pro…

>Coal and gas power stations need cooling water in exactly the same way as nuclear.

The vast majority of nuclear power plants are absolutely huge compared to their fossil fuel counterparts. Their thermal cooling needs exceed the ability of local rivers because they are so big. This has resulted in some countries building their nuclear power plants near the ocean even though the coast is tsunami prone.

The standard coal plant generates 500 MW or around 6 NuScale reactors. The average nuclear power plant generates 1GW and that is equivalent to 12 NuScale reactors.

Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape

#70

Post by ncmncm »

EricE wrote: post #51
ncmncm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It costs more to operate nukes than renewables, even neglecting the staggering capital expenditure nukes cost. As a result, existing nukes will be mothballed as they become unable to sell power at a price that enables them to continue operating. Financing to build new ones is already prohibitive, except under government coercion.

>It costs more to operate nukes than renewables Citation needed. Also most of the prohibitive costs surrounding nuclear are artificial - bureaucratic overhead vs. real costs governed by implementing the technology.

Really, that is the hill you will die on? Nukes depend on running steam through monster turbines, which need frequent expensive maintenance. Fuel must be replaced periodically. You need highly-skilled operators and security guards at all times. You need periodic deep inspection and refurbishment of operation and safety systems.

Renewables incur no such expenses.

I didn't even count disaster insurance, which is always provided free by taxpayers because no nuke could pay it and compete.

Post reply on HN