5 ms·

Except for those two huge externalities that are never priced in and always overlooked by people who say nuclear is 'clean': the waste that will remain toxic fo

by cure 7y ago

Except for those two huge externalities that are never priced in and always overlooked by people who say nuclear is 'clean': the waste that will remain toxic for a very long time, and the risk of accidents (slim, but the consequences are really, really, really bad).

village-idiot 7y ago
Installing solar panels kills more people than nuclear ever has by orders of magnitude. We have the tech to deal with nuclear waste, we’ve just never spent the money to productionalize it. Look into “sub-critical nuclear reactors”, which “burn” nuclear waste for even more electricity!
- JesseAldridge 7y ago
  > Installing solar panels kills more people than nuclear ever has by orders of magnitude. Wait, what? Really? “With solar, people fall off roofs installing panels — the health and safety standards are not the same.” https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/nuclear-power-kills-fewer-people-than-solar-per-unit-of-electricity-says-university-college-london-professor-tim-stone/news-story/719096bad937b90f55dcc5c9f2ecc3fb https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/... Haha, didn't know that one.
ajuc 7y ago
The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal powerplants, it's their normal operation as designed. Nuclear powerplants is the easiest way to replace baseload, and by insisting on not using it we increase the amount of radioactive elements in air, the deaths, and the CO2 emissions (because you can't replace most baseload with solar/wind - so if not nuclear it's coal/gas).
- ameowba 7y ago
  >As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Do you have a source on this?
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    Search past HN posts or look it up on Wikipedia, it's been discussed many times.
  - teawrecks 7y ago
    Even if it's true, it's like using "there are more deaths by vending machine per year by shark" to justify everyone swimming with sharks. Not saying that nuclear is inherently unsafe, but if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh.
    - ajuc 7y ago
      Bad analogy, it would be somewhat valid if I compared the TOTAL number of deaths between activities done by vastly different amount of people. But I compared PER MWh PRODUCED, so it's nothing like with vending machines vs sharks. > if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh. If 100% of our MWh came from nuclear, and nuclear has less deaths per MWh - then some deaths would be avoided that now aren't. How is that not important? Honestly, your analogy was so bad it seems like intentional manipulation.
- iamphilrae 7y ago
  Here’s a source from Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-... And a quote: “Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year.”
paulmd 7y ago
If you reprocess waste for potentially usable fuel, the amount of stuff that needs to be discarded is quite small. Like, we could probably put everything we've ever accumulated in the US in fly ash pond of an average coal plant, easily. Obviously that is a bad idea but just to give you an idea of the size of what's needed. Also yes, I'm sure waste disposal is factored into nuclear plants. It's usually coal plants that get the free pass to spew radiation into the air, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths annually. (note that there is a fair amount of low-level waste generated that tends to inflate the waste output figures... you need to do something with the wrenches and shoe covers and stuff that get some neutron activation, and there's a large volume of that stuff but it's nowhere near as dangerous as spent fuel.)
maxhille 7y ago
the mining is also a disaster for the affected region AFAIK

by cure 7y ago

village-idiot 7y ago

Installing solar panels kills more people than nuclear ever has by orders of magnitude. We have the tech to deal with nuclear waste, we’ve just never spent the money to productionalize it. Look into “sub-critical nuclear reactors”, which “burn” nuclear waste for even more electricity!

JesseAldridge 7y ago
> Installing solar panels kills more people than nuclear ever has by orders of magnitude. Wait, what? Really? “With solar, people fall off roofs installing panels — the health and safety standards are not the same.” https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/nuclear-power-kills-fewer-people-than-solar-per-unit-of-electricity-says-university-college-london-professor-tim-stone/news-story/719096bad937b90f55dcc5c9f2ecc3fb https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/... Haha, didn't know that one.

ajuc 7y ago

The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal powerplants, it's their normal operation as designed. Nuclear powerplants is the easiest way to replace baseload, and by insisting on not using it we increase the amount of radioactive elements in air, the deaths, and the CO2 emissions (because you can't replace most baseload with solar/wind - so if not nuclear it's coal/gas).

ameowba 7y ago
>As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Do you have a source on this?
- nitrogen 7y ago
  Search past HN posts or look it up on Wikipedia, it's been discussed many times.
- teawrecks 7y ago
  Even if it's true, it's like using "there are more deaths by vending machine per year by shark" to justify everyone swimming with sharks. Not saying that nuclear is inherently unsafe, but if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh.
  - ajuc 7y ago
    Bad analogy, it would be somewhat valid if I compared the TOTAL number of deaths between activities done by vastly different amount of people. But I compared PER MWh PRODUCED, so it's nothing like with vending machines vs sharks. > if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh. If 100% of our MWh came from nuclear, and nuclear has less deaths per MWh - then some deaths would be avoided that now aren't. How is that not important? Honestly, your analogy was so bad it seems like intentional manipulation.
iamphilrae 7y ago
Here’s a source from Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-... And a quote: “Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year.”

paulmd 7y ago

If you reprocess waste for potentially usable fuel, the amount of stuff that needs to be discarded is quite small. Like, we could probably put everything we've ever accumulated in the US in fly ash pond of an average coal plant, easily. Obviously that is a bad idea but just to give you an idea of the size of what's needed. Also yes, I'm sure waste disposal is factored into nuclear plants. It's usually coal plants that get the free pass to spew radiation into the air, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths annually. (note that there is a fair amount of low-level waste generated that tends to inflate the waste output figures... you need to do something with the wrenches and shoe covers and stuff that get some neutron activation, and there's a large volume of that stuff but it's nowhere near as dangerous as spent fuel.)

maxhille 7y ago

the mining is also a disaster for the affected region AFAIK