3 ms·

Exactly what do you think "happens" ? Not even Chernobyl, that had an atmospheric nuclear fire, the worst case scenario imaginable, had a economic, environment

Exactly what do you think "happens" ? Not even Chernobyl, that had an atmospheric nuclear fire, the worst case scenario imaginable, had a economic, environmental or human live cost comparable to the impact of a single coal power plant. It really concerns me when people on this forum, that has no excuse to not know better, parrots this anti-nuclear FUD.

the_duke 9y ago
Please provide a citation for this claim. Chernobyl still is a massive cost factor for plenty of countries ( all that are helping out financially with building the new mantle ). Also look at the large effects of Fukushima. Every time nuclear power comes up here on HN, there are some fierce defenders. No matter how 'safe' newer generation plants are and how much it was the oprators fault, the potential for disaster is there. And that's not even mentioning the high lifetime cost when you consider safely storing the material, which often falls to the public.
- ageofwant 9y ago
  http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_200... Now please provide citations for your claims. Specifically 'Massive Costs' and 'large effects'. Nuclear power does not need to be safe, only saver than the alternatives, this includes long term pollution from solar panel waste. Every ounce of nuclear waste is entirely contained, every other power source's waste is dumped into the environment.
  - dnadler 9y ago
    > Every ounce of nuclear waste is entirely contained, every other power source's waste is dumped into the environment. That's a little disingenuous, though, isn't it? It's only contained because no one will allow it to be dumped ("stored") near them. Actually, the fact that we have to take special precautions with nuclear waste due to its toxicity is a disadvantage of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels (for example). Obviously, there is a much different calculus when thinking about Mars though.
  - the_duke 9y ago
    Your reference has absolutely nothing to do with economic effects. Chernobyl costs for new "sarcophagus": 1.5bn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement, sources on bottom) Fukushima cost: 188bn + (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/japan-nearly-doubles-fukushima-disaster-related-cost-to-188-billion-idUSKBN13Y047 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/jap...) Costs for decomissioning a nuclear power plant in the US: up to 500mil (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissioning.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissi...) (which needs total cost and revenue to put it in perspective, but it gives a sense of the scale and difficulty of decommissioning and storage.
    - ageofwant 9y ago
      It has everything to do with the economic costs. There is no other reason other than perceived threat to human life that drives that cost. How is that not obvious ? That paper, and others like it, demonstrates that radiation is much more benign than generally believed, and that level of resources spent on threads that don't exists, especially in comparison with others, like drink a can of soda a day, or living in a city, is not justifiable.
thinkcontext 9y ago
Chernobyl had far worse consequences than you are indicating, even taking into account a coals plant's lifetime impact from mining to air pollution. Aside from the headline numbers of 31 dead and 237 with acute radiation poisoning other costs include: - Encasing the site in a sarcophagus that will need to be maintained essentially forever. Immediate disaster response was estimated at $18B in today's dollars. - A 30km exclusion zone from which 135,000 people were evacuated. Costs from this include costs of resettlement, loss of essentially all capital, cropland, and infrastructure in the zone - Outside the zone millions of tons of contaminated earth were trucked for containment. Remediation is ongoing to this day and will continue indefinitely. Certain agricultural production is limited by type and practice to reduce probability of contamination from deeper in the soil. - Health monitoring response across Europe in the aftermath, plus increased monitoring forever in the neighboring countries - An unknown number of additional cancers and birth defects There are additional costs, mostly more evacuees than were likely strictly necessary and compensation to others affected. Its unclear how much of this are legitimate costs or not, but its worth noting that uncertainty and lack of transparency themselves have costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas...

the_duke 9y ago

Please provide a citation for this claim. Chernobyl still is a massive cost factor for plenty of countries ( all that are helping out financially with building the new mantle ). Also look at the large effects of Fukushima. Every time nuclear power comes up here on HN, there are some fierce defenders. No matter how 'safe' newer generation plants are and how much it was the oprators fault, the potential for disaster is there. And that's not even mentioning the high lifetime cost when you consider safely storing the material, which often falls to the public.

ageofwant 9y ago
http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_200... Now please provide citations for your claims. Specifically 'Massive Costs' and 'large effects'. Nuclear power does not need to be safe, only saver than the alternatives, this includes long term pollution from solar panel waste. Every ounce of nuclear waste is entirely contained, every other power source's waste is dumped into the environment.
- dnadler 9y ago
  > Every ounce of nuclear waste is entirely contained, every other power source's waste is dumped into the environment. That's a little disingenuous, though, isn't it? It's only contained because no one will allow it to be dumped ("stored") near them. Actually, the fact that we have to take special precautions with nuclear waste due to its toxicity is a disadvantage of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels (for example). Obviously, there is a much different calculus when thinking about Mars though.
- the_duke 9y ago
  Your reference has absolutely nothing to do with economic effects. Chernobyl costs for new "sarcophagus": 1.5bn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement, sources on bottom) Fukushima cost: 188bn + (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/japan-nearly-doubles-fukushima-disaster-related-cost-to-188-billion-idUSKBN13Y047 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/jap...) Costs for decomissioning a nuclear power plant in the US: up to 500mil (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissioning.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissi...) (which needs total cost and revenue to put it in perspective, but it gives a sense of the scale and difficulty of decommissioning and storage.
  - ageofwant 9y ago
    It has everything to do with the economic costs. There is no other reason other than perceived threat to human life that drives that cost. How is that not obvious ? That paper, and others like it, demonstrates that radiation is much more benign than generally believed, and that level of resources spent on threads that don't exists, especially in comparison with others, like drink a can of soda a day, or living in a city, is not justifiable.

thinkcontext 9y ago

Chernobyl had far worse consequences than you are indicating, even taking into account a coals plant's lifetime impact from mining to air pollution. Aside from the headline numbers of 31 dead and 237 with acute radiation poisoning other costs include: - Encasing the site in a sarcophagus that will need to be maintained essentially forever. Immediate disaster response was estimated at $18B in today's dollars. - A 30km exclusion zone from which 135,000 people were evacuated. Costs from this include costs of resettlement, loss of essentially all capital, cropland, and infrastructure in the zone - Outside the zone millions of tons of contaminated earth were trucked for containment. Remediation is ongoing to this day and will continue indefinitely. Certain agricultural production is limited by type and practice to reduce probability of contamination from deeper in the soil. - Health monitoring response across Europe in the aftermath, plus increased monitoring forever in the neighboring countries - An unknown number of additional cancers and birth defects There are additional costs, mostly more evacuees than were likely strictly necessary and compensation to others affected. Its unclear how much of this are legitimate costs or not, but its worth noting that uncertainty and lack of transparency themselves have costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas...