7 ms·

.

ljf 7y ago
My personal concern is the waste that we have no way of properly handling and no real plans for. Give me a proper plan and I'd be fully behind nuclear (well - if it was self funding - currently hugely subsidised and still one of the most expensive ways to make power). That said - my alternative isn't 'more coal' - it is a combination of renewables and trying to reduce our energy usage. But I know that both of these won't be the breakthrough that we need without cheap storage.
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  There are plans for it, use a next generation reactor that uses waste as fuel. That may take a few decades but it seems the most capitalistic way, and thus the most likely way.
  - ljf 7y ago
    And if solar and wind and storage become cheap enough that the next generation reactors are never needed? Then what? A plan based on tech which either isn't created or not yet deployable is a little too handwavy for me.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      Then we'll be worried about the environmental and economic implications of mining for, manufacturing, maintaining, replacing, and recycling that scale of steel, fiberglass, glass, concrete, rare earths, and 10000 skyscrapers of lithium per USA-sized-country. Recall that in winter there is 4x less sun, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow for 10 days in a row across massive multi-state regions. The storage implications of that are ludicrous. It's far cheaper to decarbonize with a good mix of variable renewables and nuclear, even with nuclear at its current high price.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    We literally do not have time for "few decades". This is why we're building out renewables at the rate we are. (Also, the breeder reactors only use spent fuel - most "waste" by volume is lower level waste of various kinds. Especially from decommissioning.)
    - ljf 7y ago
      Totally this - I've often seen it stated that all the spent nuclear fuel in the world could fit in a lorry. Great - whoop. But that ignores the huge amount of other radioactive wastes that are generated each day, and have no 'useful' future ahead of them right now - other than landfill in a 'secure' site. Totally agree that we need to stop polluting our air and needlessly killing 4 million people a year with emissions - but we really need a realistic plan if we are going to go the nuclear route.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Because of nuclear's high energy density, it's the only energy source that we can account for and store all the waste for the entire lifetime. It is solid ceramic waste that sits in passively cooled steel and concrete containers on parking lots. 3 decades of waste powering a large city fit in a small parking lot. Commercial nuclear waste has never injured anyone. We have consensus technical solutions (deep geologic repository), including one operational repository at WIPP. We just have to get people to stop stonewalling so we can put it in them. Here's my buddy Jim standing in a parking lot full of decades worth of nuclear waste [1]. The Finns decided to solve their nuclear waste issues and have a repository under construction. [2] Meanwhile, millions die per year from air pollution and carbon concentration just peaked 415 ppm. I think nuclear waste is honestly a tiny concern compared to those things. Nuclear operations are not hugely subsidized in the US. They get about 1% of the tax subsidies given to energy sources. They are struggling economically because fracked natural gas pulled the floor out of electricity prices, and nuclear O&M can't just reduce itself with lower fossil prices. In France, where natural gas is more expensive, their nuclear fleet is 20% cheaper than gas. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
  - ljf 7y ago
    You are (purposefully?) confusing spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Many hundreds of thousands or tonnes of HLW are produced each year and also need dealing with.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      Long-lived high-level nuclear waste, colloquially known as nuclear waste, as in "but what do you do with the waste" IS spent nuclear fuel. There's also low-level rad waste that goes in special landfills but no one worries too much about that. This is fission products, actinides, and uranium-238. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_w...
Causality1 7y ago
No, one couldn't. Chernobyl was a perfect storm of negligence and incompetence and still killed less than 60 people, including fallout cancer deaths. Nuclear reactors are not bombs.
- lm28469 7y ago
  I'm all for nuclear but let's be honest here, many more people died prematurely because of Chernobyl, the nuclear cloud were all over Europe, the thousands of people who were on site to contain the disaster got very high doses of radiation too. https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > In the published estimates below, studies have utilised a methodology termed the 'linear no-threshold model' The numbers already round to 0 when compared to pretty much any other industrial process we undertake. Then on top of that the model used is the LNT. That model needs extraordinary evidence to support its wild assumptions. I haven't been able to find a source for that evidence yet. LNT is a paranoid model. Under the LNT, building with granite is killing people through increased radiation. The airplane industry has probably killed more people with radiation under the LNT model than Chernobyl has. We have yet to picket airports for their radiation risk. The unproovable deaths from Chernobyl may as well be ignored. We don't count that sort of statistical hypothesizing for any other anything that is comparable to building a power plant.
- ljf 7y ago
  More like at least 4000 and up to nearly 100000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    More like "up to 4000" in a population that would have had millions of cancer deaths says the UN scientist group (like IPCC but for Chernobyl) and nearly 1,000,000 says one whack-job who anti-nukes picked up and pointed at for years.
charlesetc 7y ago
Air pollution causes 4.2 million deaths a year.[1] From the data in this link, we can infer that historically this adds up to 467 times nuclear. [1] https://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_air_pollution/burden_text/en/ https://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_air_pollution/burden_tex...
phonypc 7y ago
>One could imagine a nuclear accident where millions die. I can't. Care to share?
- peteey 7y ago
  The post is irresponsibly spreading fear based on imagination.
- mimixco 7y ago
  Sure. A Maximum Credible Accident (the industry term) at Turkey Point (near Miami) or Indian Point (near NYC).
  - phonypc 7y ago
    I can see those potentially displacing millions. Can't imagine how millions would die.
    - mimixco 7y ago
      How do you evacuate Miami or New York should an MCA occur? Large numbers of people would be irradiated while stuck in traffic.
      - phonypc 7y ago
        I can only assume plans exist, otherwise the plants wouldn't be allowed to operate. Potassium iodide would probably be distributed, which protects against thyroid cancers. Unless there's some gamma/neutron threat from failing plants I'm unaware of, people would probably stay put until they can safely evacuate. Even the inside of a car should be pretty safe. It would suck, but I can't imagine a million people dying.
rimliu 7y ago
I really could not. Nuclear power stations are not nuclear bombs and current nuclear technology is way safer than those that caused main problems.
- fngtetrjh 7y ago
  Yes, nuclear power stations are safe. But they can lead to nuclear weapons proliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation > Many UN and US agencies warn that building more nuclear reactors unavoidably increases nuclear proliferation risks. > Canada sold India the reactor on the condition that the reactor and any by-products would be "employed for peaceful purposes only.". Similarly, the United States sold India heavy water for use in the reactor "only... in connection with research into and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes". India, in violation of these agreements, used the Canadian-supplied reactor and American-supplied heavy water to produce plutonium for their first nuclear explosion, Smiling Buddha.
pjc50 7y ago
Death is unlikely, but permanent contamination with resulting shortened lifespan and nasty conditions is the risk. Especially birth defects. Doesn't fit neatly into a headline number.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  You might be surprised to know that increased birth defects were never detected in the population irradiated by Chernobyl. This is surprising considering the scare-literature that has come out on it, but it turns out if you look you can find birth defects everywhere. And also, the land is not permanently uninhabitable. You have to postulate that living things have no tolerance above background radiation to say that. But there are lots of reasons to think that's not true at all. For instance, places like Ramsar, Iran have background levels 80x normal and there's no sign of decreased lifespan or other health impacts. Also, checkout this wildlife around Chernobyl: https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...
  - ljf 7y ago
    Really? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-defect-chernobyl/higher-birth-defect-rate-seen-in-chernobyl-area-idUSTRE62N4L820100324 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-defect-chernobyl/higher-b...
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      Yes, really. Well, I should clarify that increased birth defects have never been linked to increased radiation. Behold: "But Wertelecki is keen to point out that the study does not claim that radiation exposure is definitively the cause of the defects. The study lacked data about prenatal drinking and the diet of mothers in the region, he stresses. Both are key to under-standing the causes of the defects as fetal exposure to alcohol and a lack of folates during pregnancy can lead to both types of birth defects.Alcoholism is rife in the Ukraine and generally low standards of living for much of the population also mean diet can be poor. “Alcohol and folates are among the factors involved in certain birth defects. A lack of folates combined with ionizing radiation could multiply the risks of birth defects or at least greatly enhance them. Alcohol is a factor in microcephaly, as ionizing radiation can also be, and combined their effects could be enhanced”, says Weretlecki." https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(10)60605-8.pdf https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736...
acidburnNSA 7y ago
We've had Chernobyl where the core was fully exposed and recently-high-power radionuclides were aerosolize by a graphite fire and the people in nearby population centers were not quickly evacuated nor given iodine tablets nor told to not drink the milk, and by the UN consensus study UNSCEAR (parallel to IPCC) showed that 60 first heroic responders died from acute radiation syndrome and "up to 4000" will die of early cancers, on top of a population where millions would die from cancer naturally (small increase). In later revisions, they refused to even give a number [1] due to uncertainties associated with the conservative linear no-threshold model. Also: the operation error and design flaws at Chernobyl were astounding [2]. Then we had Fukushima, where an earthquake trigggered an automatic shutdown of the reactors, which worked great. Then the tsunami knocked out the backup cooling generators and decay heat melted fuel and released nuclides through an in-tact reactor vessel to the atmosphere. Multiple meltdowns. What does UNSCEAR have to say? 0 deaths from radiation. Some sources say "up to 1 death from radiation". I think it's really, really hard to postulate millions dying from nuclear. 4 million die per year from air pollution due to non-nuclear energy [3]. [1] https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_GA_Report_corr2.pdf https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_20... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Accident [3] https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/ https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
CzechTech 7y ago
I'd like to see that "accident". The impact of full blown nuclear reactor meltdowns (Chernobyl, Fukushima) on human lives are tiny, even when the secondary effects of radioactive pollution are considered. The impact on the biosphere in general may even be a net positive. Lets face it, the one and only problem if nuclear energy is that people are scared of it. And even if nothing is melting down, there's the ever present boogie man of nuclear waste... never mind the fact that you could swim in a pool of spent fuel rods and you'd get (less than) background radiation dose and never mind the fact that all of the nuclear waste humanity has ever produced would fit into a footbal stadium and never mind the fact that we can recycle a lot of the spent fuel these days.

ljf 7y ago

My personal concern is the waste that we have no way of properly handling and no real plans for. Give me a proper plan and I'd be fully behind nuclear (well - if it was self funding - currently hugely subsidised and still one of the most expensive ways to make power). That said - my alternative isn't 'more coal' - it is a combination of renewables and trying to reduce our energy usage. But I know that both of these won't be the breakthrough that we need without cheap storage.

Dumblydorr 7y ago
There are plans for it, use a next generation reactor that uses waste as fuel. That may take a few decades but it seems the most capitalistic way, and thus the most likely way.
- ljf 7y ago
  And if solar and wind and storage become cheap enough that the next generation reactors are never needed? Then what? A plan based on tech which either isn't created or not yet deployable is a little too handwavy for me.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Then we'll be worried about the environmental and economic implications of mining for, manufacturing, maintaining, replacing, and recycling that scale of steel, fiberglass, glass, concrete, rare earths, and 10000 skyscrapers of lithium per USA-sized-country. Recall that in winter there is 4x less sun, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow for 10 days in a row across massive multi-state regions. The storage implications of that are ludicrous. It's far cheaper to decarbonize with a good mix of variable renewables and nuclear, even with nuclear at its current high price.
- pjc50 7y ago
  We literally do not have time for "few decades". This is why we're building out renewables at the rate we are. (Also, the breeder reactors only use spent fuel - most "waste" by volume is lower level waste of various kinds. Especially from decommissioning.)
  - ljf 7y ago
    Totally this - I've often seen it stated that all the spent nuclear fuel in the world could fit in a lorry. Great - whoop. But that ignores the huge amount of other radioactive wastes that are generated each day, and have no 'useful' future ahead of them right now - other than landfill in a 'secure' site. Totally agree that we need to stop polluting our air and needlessly killing 4 million people a year with emissions - but we really need a realistic plan if we are going to go the nuclear route.
acidburnNSA 7y ago
Because of nuclear's high energy density, it's the only energy source that we can account for and store all the waste for the entire lifetime. It is solid ceramic waste that sits in passively cooled steel and concrete containers on parking lots. 3 decades of waste powering a large city fit in a small parking lot. Commercial nuclear waste has never injured anyone. We have consensus technical solutions (deep geologic repository), including one operational repository at WIPP. We just have to get people to stop stonewalling so we can put it in them. Here's my buddy Jim standing in a parking lot full of decades worth of nuclear waste [1]. The Finns decided to solve their nuclear waste issues and have a repository under construction. [2] Meanwhile, millions die per year from air pollution and carbon concentration just peaked 415 ppm. I think nuclear waste is honestly a tiny concern compared to those things. Nuclear operations are not hugely subsidized in the US. They get about 1% of the tax subsidies given to energy sources. They are struggling economically because fracked natural gas pulled the floor out of electricity prices, and nuclear O&M can't just reduce itself with lower fossil prices. In France, where natural gas is more expensive, their nuclear fleet is 20% cheaper than gas. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
- ljf 7y ago
  You are (purposefully?) confusing spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Many hundreds of thousands or tonnes of HLW are produced each year and also need dealing with.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Long-lived high-level nuclear waste, colloquially known as nuclear waste, as in "but what do you do with the waste" IS spent nuclear fuel. There's also low-level rad waste that goes in special landfills but no one worries too much about that. This is fission products, actinides, and uranium-238. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#High-level_w...

Causality1 7y ago

No, one couldn't. Chernobyl was a perfect storm of negligence and incompetence and still killed less than 60 people, including fallout cancer deaths. Nuclear reactors are not bombs.

lm28469 7y ago
I'm all for nuclear but let's be honest here, many more people died prematurely because of Chernobyl, the nuclear cloud were all over Europe, the thousands of people who were on site to contain the disaster got very high doses of radiation too. https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...
- roenxi 7y ago
  > In the published estimates below, studies have utilised a methodology termed the 'linear no-threshold model' The numbers already round to 0 when compared to pretty much any other industrial process we undertake. Then on top of that the model used is the LNT. That model needs extraordinary evidence to support its wild assumptions. I haven't been able to find a source for that evidence yet. LNT is a paranoid model. Under the LNT, building with granite is killing people through increased radiation. The airplane industry has probably killed more people with radiation under the LNT model than Chernobyl has. We have yet to picket airports for their radiation risk. The unproovable deaths from Chernobyl may as well be ignored. We don't count that sort of statistical hypothesizing for any other anything that is comparable to building a power plant.
ljf 7y ago
More like at least 4000 and up to nearly 100000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  More like "up to 4000" in a population that would have had millions of cancer deaths says the UN scientist group (like IPCC but for Chernobyl) and nearly 1,000,000 says one whack-job who anti-nukes picked up and pointed at for years.

charlesetc 7y ago

Air pollution causes 4.2 million deaths a year.[1] From the data in this link, we can infer that historically this adds up to 467 times nuclear. [1] https://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_air_pollution/burden_text/en/ https://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_air_pollution/burden_tex...

phonypc 7y ago

>One could imagine a nuclear accident where millions die. I can't. Care to share?

peteey 7y ago
The post is irresponsibly spreading fear based on imagination.
mimixco 7y ago
Sure. A Maximum Credible Accident (the industry term) at Turkey Point (near Miami) or Indian Point (near NYC).
- phonypc 7y ago
  I can see those potentially displacing millions. Can't imagine how millions would die.
  - mimixco 7y ago
    How do you evacuate Miami or New York should an MCA occur? Large numbers of people would be irradiated while stuck in traffic.
    - phonypc 7y ago
      I can only assume plans exist, otherwise the plants wouldn't be allowed to operate. Potassium iodide would probably be distributed, which protects against thyroid cancers. Unless there's some gamma/neutron threat from failing plants I'm unaware of, people would probably stay put until they can safely evacuate. Even the inside of a car should be pretty safe. It would suck, but I can't imagine a million people dying.

rimliu 7y ago

I really could not. Nuclear power stations are not nuclear bombs and current nuclear technology is way safer than those that caused main problems.

fngtetrjh 7y ago
Yes, nuclear power stations are safe. But they can lead to nuclear weapons proliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation > Many UN and US agencies warn that building more nuclear reactors unavoidably increases nuclear proliferation risks. > Canada sold India the reactor on the condition that the reactor and any by-products would be "employed for peaceful purposes only.". Similarly, the United States sold India heavy water for use in the reactor "only... in connection with research into and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes". India, in violation of these agreements, used the Canadian-supplied reactor and American-supplied heavy water to produce plutonium for their first nuclear explosion, Smiling Buddha.

pjc50 7y ago

Death is unlikely, but permanent contamination with resulting shortened lifespan and nasty conditions is the risk. Especially birth defects. Doesn't fit neatly into a headline number.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
You might be surprised to know that increased birth defects were never detected in the population irradiated by Chernobyl. This is surprising considering the scare-literature that has come out on it, but it turns out if you look you can find birth defects everywhere. And also, the land is not permanently uninhabitable. You have to postulate that living things have no tolerance above background radiation to say that. But there are lots of reasons to think that's not true at all. For instance, places like Ramsar, Iran have background levels 80x normal and there's no sign of decreased lifespan or other health impacts. Also, checkout this wildlife around Chernobyl: https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...
- ljf 7y ago
  Really? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-defect-chernobyl/higher-birth-defect-rate-seen-in-chernobyl-area-idUSTRE62N4L820100324 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-defect-chernobyl/higher-b...
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Yes, really. Well, I should clarify that increased birth defects have never been linked to increased radiation. Behold: "But Wertelecki is keen to point out that the study does not claim that radiation exposure is definitively the cause of the defects. The study lacked data about prenatal drinking and the diet of mothers in the region, he stresses. Both are key to under-standing the causes of the defects as fetal exposure to alcohol and a lack of folates during pregnancy can lead to both types of birth defects.Alcoholism is rife in the Ukraine and generally low standards of living for much of the population also mean diet can be poor. “Alcohol and folates are among the factors involved in certain birth defects. A lack of folates combined with ionizing radiation could multiply the risks of birth defects or at least greatly enhance them. Alcohol is a factor in microcephaly, as ionizing radiation can also be, and combined their effects could be enhanced”, says Weretlecki." https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(10)60605-8.pdf https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736...

acidburnNSA 7y ago

We've had Chernobyl where the core was fully exposed and recently-high-power radionuclides were aerosolize by a graphite fire and the people in nearby population centers were not quickly evacuated nor given iodine tablets nor told to not drink the milk, and by the UN consensus study UNSCEAR (parallel to IPCC) showed that 60 first heroic responders died from acute radiation syndrome and "up to 4000" will die of early cancers, on top of a population where millions would die from cancer naturally (small increase). In later revisions, they refused to even give a number [1] due to uncertainties associated with the conservative linear no-threshold model. Also: the operation error and design flaws at Chernobyl were astounding [2]. Then we had Fukushima, where an earthquake trigggered an automatic shutdown of the reactors, which worked great. Then the tsunami knocked out the backup cooling generators and decay heat melted fuel and released nuclides through an in-tact reactor vessel to the atmosphere. Multiple meltdowns. What does UNSCEAR have to say? 0 deaths from radiation. Some sources say "up to 1 death from radiation". I think it's really, really hard to postulate millions dying from nuclear. 4 million die per year from air pollution due to non-nuclear energy [3]. [1] https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_GA_Report_corr2.pdf https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_20... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Accident [3] https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/ https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/

CzechTech 7y ago

I'd like to see that "accident". The impact of full blown nuclear reactor meltdowns (Chernobyl, Fukushima) on human lives are tiny, even when the secondary effects of radioactive pollution are considered. The impact on the biosphere in general may even be a net positive. Lets face it, the one and only problem if nuclear energy is that people are scared of it. And even if nothing is melting down, there's the ever present boogie man of nuclear waste... never mind the fact that you could swim in a pool of spent fuel rods and you'd get (less than) background radiation dose and never mind the fact that all of the nuclear waste humanity has ever produced would fit into a footbal stadium and never mind the fact that we can recycle a lot of the spent fuel these days.