Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest • Hacker News Board

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#891

Post by singularity2001 » Mon, Mar 07, 2022, 1:20 PM UTC

encryptluks2 wrote: post #795

singularity2001 wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once Putin is detained the war will end. At the very least a condemnation/conviction in absence will be another prestige blow, if that's possible. Germany started an independent proceeding btw: Once you violate the sovereignty of other countries and or human rights, you lose your own formal indefeasibility. It's called "Weltrecht".

The war with Ukraine is not just due to Putin. This idea that everyone is just following the orders of one man is absurd. It isn't going to be like a movie where once they take out the leader everyone puts down their weapons. Detaining him would not end the conflict and would be seen as an attack on Russia that could provoke the use of nukes.

Other than praying that China won't send arms to Russia or people getting tired of war quickly, what else can be done?

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#892

Post by spopejoy » Mon, Mar 07, 2022, 11:09 PM UTC

suyjuris wrote: post #874

spopejoy wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the 2009 epidemiology study that estimates > 900,000 dead by 2009 with no end in sight? Quoting from a summary (easy to find the original): > In 2009, the New York Academy of Sciences published a book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. A team of European scientists led by Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to Russian Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail…

Thank you, that is indeed a source and I have raised my estimate of the probability larger casualties slightly. (For the record: above excerpt is from an article in the online magazine CounterPunch [1], which itself refers to the 2009 book [2].) However, its methodology and rigour have been criticised [3]. As I am not an expert in this area I cannot evaluate the source directly, but several general heuristics apply.…

You're cherry-picking negative responses from the wikipedia article, as opposed to the following:

> The IAEA/WHO have often sought to justify their dismissal of eastern European epidemiological studies by citing questionable scientific practices: but epidemiology is not an exact science, and the same shortcomings exist in western studies uncriticised by the IAEA. The IAEA also point to shortcomings with pre-Chernobyl Soviet cancer registries, but cancer registries in western countries had similar issues at that time.

Indeed, where is the criticism for the IEAE and WHO applying a very selective "conservativism" about epidemiological research, much like big tobacco and DuPont? They're the reason nuke fanboys make risible claims like "Pointing out that the author was affiliated with Greenpeace without noting the systemic bias of nuclear organizations against epidimiological data is questionable.

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#893

Post by jliptzin » Tue, Mar 08, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

JohnBooty wrote: post #815

jliptzin wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What element in a battery is destroyed during its lifetime that cannot be recycled?

What percentage of batteries are actually recycled? How much energy does recycling them take? What toxic byproducts are produced as part of the recycling process? What will future demand for batteries be, and how long will our supplies of lithium etc. last? Who controls the lithium supplies? This is not an argument against recycling batteries, by the way. Chemical batteries are a big part of the future, and we should…

Is it possible the raw materials to make these batteries are so abundant right now that it’s much cheaper to just make new ones than recycle old ones?

Re: Fire extinguished at Ukraine nuclear power plant, Europe's largest

#894

Post by jliptzin » Wed, Mar 09, 2022, 7:25 PM UTC

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #598

newby wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not know about that aspect of nuclear plants and in my non-expert view it would be a major point against nuclear plants in the discussion how to solve climate change (at least until we learn how to secure them in case of a war). Am I wrong? EDIT: I would also like to ask if you can recommend some source where curious layman with no knowledge of physics could learn a bit more about this.

You’re right about old nuclear design. The new designs are built with the expectation that power can be cut off. The new design shut themselves off passively without any damage (that we know of) when the power is gone.

Seems to me like it should have been this way from this start. Catastrophic meltdown caused by power loss, no matter how many power backup systems there are should have been a non-starter. Basically requiring a 100% SLA, 6 nines not enough, with catastrophic consequences for failing to adhere to 100% uptime. That is scary as hell.