5 ms·

Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI Prove Why Nuclear Power Will Never Be Inherently Safe

17 points by mimixco 7y ago

ziddoap 7y ago
Given all of the data presented here is true, does this change the current conclusion that there are less deaths per TWh for nuclear? Or would the inclusion of the increased cancer rates tip the scales?
- mimixco 7y ago
  This issue is highly contentious, perhaps nowhere more than on HN. The many nuclear advocates here believe that few people die from nuclear. The anti-nuke crowd disagrees.
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    Well, I've gathered that much. But, just earlier today was a fancy chart comparing deaths/TWh of each energy source, which I believe used the numbers this particular article is refuting. I was wondering if anyone had a similar chart/data, except using the numbers presented in this particular article. Opinions are great and all, but there's actual numbers to use which is what I am more interested in.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Everyone agrees that few people die. The anti-nuke crowd just doesn't agree that this is indicative of the safety of nuclear power.
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  So, if something will produce 7'000'000'000*100TWh, it will be Ok if it kill all humans on Earth? It's just 0.001 death per TWh.
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  > ... deaths per TWh ... The thing is we have not yet seen "worst case scenario" for a nuclear power accident. As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. We don't know what the actual death/TWh is for nuclear is yet because there hasn't been "enough" TWh's.
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    That logic can extend to literally any scenario with data. There is never "enough data", especially regarding edge cases or "worst case scenarios". Luckily, we can use the data we have and come up with some intermediate conclusions while more data is collected - rather than sweep it under the rug.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    For comparison, the "worst case scenario" for fossil fuels is the planet cooking up, crop failures, widespread famine, death of the oceanic ecosystem, and the end of civilization as we know it. (Yes, that's the worst case scenario, but since we're comparing worst cases...) It boggles my mind that we are still burning oil while opposing nuclear because "it's too dangerous."
    - crispyambulance 7y ago
      I'm not saying "it's too dangerous" at all. I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous reductive way of looking at this that assumes a continuous random failure rate. The same applies for fossil fuels although, as you state, it isn't punctuated with the possibility of an immediate catastrophe like a meltdown but something else entirely-- irreversible climate damage.
  - angersock 7y ago
    > As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. [citation needed]
  - opo 7y ago
    >..As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. Chernobyl would have been illegal to build anywhere else in the world since it was such an inherently dangerous design. It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else. At any rate, when you say "As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible." - you need to back that up with something. We've had hundreds of reactors producing hundreds of TWh of electricity per year for decades with less loss of life than any other power source.
new_guy 7y ago
People never mention the Kyshtym Disaster ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster - this barely scratches the surface) Arguably that was the worst accident in history, hundreds of square miles are still contaminated and off-limits. It was so bad the CIA helped keep it secret from the Americans so as not to discourage their nuclear industry.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  If the neighbour's idiot kid poked his eye out with a spoon, I wouldn't tell my kid about it either, I'd just have him eat soup properly.
  - intertextuality 7y ago
    How can you even compare what you just said with an enormous nuclear facility meltdown? ...? It's measured right behind fukushima and chernobyl, as the third most serious recorded event. I've known about chernobyl, tmi, fukushima, etc, but I was totally surprised to read about this one.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >How can you even compare what you just said with an enormous nuclear facility meltdown? That's how an analogy works. You're comparing the difference between two pairs of things that are not comparable. > measured right behind fukushima and chernobyl, as the third most serious recorded event. Trying to use a failure at a 1950s Russian nuclear facility as indicative of nuclear safety today is like considering a medieval scaffolding failure as indicative of modern construction safety.
      - intertextuality 7y ago
        It's an astoundingly unintelligent "analogy" at best. Discussing nuclear meltdowns and what caused them is always relevant, whether or not it happened today or 70 years ago. Talking about it is still important, especially because like most things, human bureaucracy and politics played into it. Having more intelligent designs does not solve human stupidity, laziness, pride, etc. And even if nuclear safety is much better today, the consequences of failing are still grotesque. In the case of other meltdowns, the surrounding areas are still affected, even today. Doesn't matter whether it melted down today or 100 years ago, those areas are still toxic. I think nuclear is our only real solution moving forward, but we need to honestly talk about the incidents that occurred, and fix the issues that went wrong with it. You don't get that by covering things up.
dmschulman 7y ago
No one is claiming nuclear is "inherently safe" (except for the author of the Forbes opinion piece the article dissects). It is the safest form of energy relative to its impact on the planet when compared to other methods of generating power.
partiallypro 7y ago
Nothing is inherently safe. Nuclear power is our best hope for clean energy and cleaning up the environment. Wind, solar and hydro can fill the gaps...but without nuclear we'll never have a true clean solution.
negzero7 7y ago
These are all old reactor designs with obvious flaws; moving to near-future Gen IV designs are significantly safer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantag...
citilife 7y ago
It should be: "Why <insert power generation> Will Never Be Inherently Safe" All power generating has some risk. The idea is to create a differential and capture the differential. Inherently, generating power means capturing energy differentials and typically the higher the TWh the more damage when a failure to contain said energy creation occurs (think a nuclear plant, dam, wind turbine, etc.) Safety in nuclear power, as with other forms of energy generation, have more to do with politics. Politics will lead to cutting or increasing costs and safety guards being put (or not put) in place. Arguably, pollution due to coal and natural gas is going to cause global warming and in turn many billions will possibly die from starvation. Is that "inherently safe?" I don't think anyone disagrees that it will never be "inherently" safe, but it may be "safer" or "cause less damage" long term to the general populous than alternatives today.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  I will eat a hat in front of everyone on HN at a pub if a utility scale solar plant backed by utility scale lithium battery storage ever melts down, requiring billions of dollars of remediation and making the surrounding land uninhabitable for centuries. As you said, safety is politics, and politics are people. People will be greedy, they will cut corners, and without a rigid command structure and severe penalties for safety violations (ie the US Navy and their nuclear fleet), accidents will eventually occur. Solar is cheap to manufacture, easy to ship, and does not require skilled labor to rack and install (besides trained electricians for the interconnections). As of a few minutes ago, California is generating 10GW of solar energy, 1.8GW of wind, and only 2.1GW of nuclear [1] [2]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/FHm1Ppw.png https://i.imgur.com/FHm1Ppw.png [2] https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=US-CA https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=...
  - Aloha 7y ago
    Lithium batteries are at best a bridge technology - meaning something good enough to get us until the next thing comes. The issues with Lithium batteries is, a finite lifetime, a shortage of the materials needed to make them, toxic byproducts of manufacture and recycling or disposing of the the batteries when their finite life is used up.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Large scale power generation is inherently unsafe. Making all those electrons jiggle is going to require some serious stored energy and wherever there's stored energy there's potential to release it all faster than intended.
yongjik 7y ago
If the article's bias isn't clear enough from the title, this should: > Before we delve into the article itself, note that the author of the [pro-nuclear] article, Michael Shellenberger, has a degree in cultural anthropology, not nuclear science or nuclear engineering, environmental science, or any other educational background related to the energy production methods and their impact on the environment, human lives, or the global economy. And then, > First, this puff piece for Forbes Magazine tries to discredit the assessment of noted pediatrician and children’s advocate Dr. Helen Caldicott, who projected close to 1 million people died due to the Chernobyl meltdown. So who is this Dr. Helen Caldicott? From Wikipedia: > Helen Mary Caldicott (born 7 August 1938) is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing the use of nuclear power, depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, and military action in general. So they decry an anthropologist writing a pro-nuclear column (fair enough) ... by quoting a physician (umm really?). By the way, even if we accept their "one million deaths from Chernobyl" at face value, let's put that in some context: > A 2013 study by MIT indicates that 53,000 early deaths occur per year in the United States alone because of vehicle emissions. [1] So, during the 33 years since Chernobyl, vehicular emissions caused somewhere around 53k * 33 = 1.7 million deaths in the US only. Nuclear killed, let's be generous, up to a million. Coal kills that much every year. Well, maybe nuclear is too expensive. I'm OK with that argument. But I don't buy that nuclear is too dangerous, when its worst disasters kill less than regular, non-accidental use of fossil fuels on the same year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas
- chungleong 7y ago
  I just noticed that the head of the New York of Sciences studied English lit at UC Berkeley.
- keanzu 7y ago
  "maybe nuclear is too expensive" I think this is the key flaw that is nuclear power's undoing. Even the Chinese government, who are apparently pro-nuclear, have not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016. They are finding that other forms of generation are cost competitive as the necessary safety features drive the nuclear price up. If the Chinese dictatorship is struggling to justify new plants on a cost basis then it doesn't look good for the rest of the world. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-...
tehsauce 7y ago
This article contains almost a dozen character attacks on the forbes author- basically every time he is mentioned. Both authors seem to be far off from the number of deaths and cancer rates estimated by the World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/ https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounde... If you're going to claim that the entire nuclear industry is evil, and that it's technology is fundamentally dangerous, maybe it would be good to compare it to a competitor like fossil fuels. Their pollution can cause over a million deaths per year. https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/ https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/ Comparing the two by casualties per unit of power generated, this makes nuclear power appear something like 100 times safer. It's a simple calculation and if anyone's interested I could add the numbers here.

17 points by mimixco 7y ago

Given all of the data presented here is true, does this change the current conclusion that there are less deaths per TWh for nuclear? Or would the inclusion of the increased cancer rates tip the scales?

mimixco 7y ago
This issue is highly contentious, perhaps nowhere more than on HN. The many nuclear advocates here believe that few people die from nuclear. The anti-nuke crowd disagrees.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  Well, I've gathered that much. But, just earlier today was a fancy chart comparing deaths/TWh of each energy source, which I believe used the numbers this particular article is refuting. I was wondering if anyone had a similar chart/data, except using the numbers presented in this particular article. Opinions are great and all, but there's actual numbers to use which is what I am more interested in.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Everyone agrees that few people die. The anti-nuke crowd just doesn't agree that this is indicative of the safety of nuclear power.
v_lisivka 7y ago
So, if something will produce 7'000'000'000*100TWh, it will be Ok if it kill all humans on Earth? It's just 0.001 death per TWh.
crispyambulance 7y ago
> ... deaths per TWh ... The thing is we have not yet seen "worst case scenario" for a nuclear power accident. As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. We don't know what the actual death/TWh is for nuclear is yet because there hasn't been "enough" TWh's.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  That logic can extend to literally any scenario with data. There is never "enough data", especially regarding edge cases or "worst case scenarios". Luckily, we can use the data we have and come up with some intermediate conclusions while more data is collected - rather than sweep it under the rug.
- yongjik 7y ago
  For comparison, the "worst case scenario" for fossil fuels is the planet cooking up, crop failures, widespread famine, death of the oceanic ecosystem, and the end of civilization as we know it. (Yes, that's the worst case scenario, but since we're comparing worst cases...) It boggles my mind that we are still burning oil while opposing nuclear because "it's too dangerous."
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    I'm not saying "it's too dangerous" at all. I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous reductive way of looking at this that assumes a continuous random failure rate. The same applies for fossil fuels although, as you state, it isn't punctuated with the possibility of an immediate catastrophe like a meltdown but something else entirely-- irreversible climate damage.
- angersock 7y ago
  > As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. [citation needed]
- opo 7y ago
  >..As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible. Chernobyl would have been illegal to build anywhere else in the world since it was such an inherently dangerous design. It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else. At any rate, when you say "As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible." - you need to back that up with something. We've had hundreds of reactors producing hundreds of TWh of electricity per year for decades with less loss of life than any other power source.

new_guy 7y ago

People never mention the Kyshtym Disaster ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster - this barely scratches the surface) Arguably that was the worst accident in history, hundreds of square miles are still contaminated and off-limits. It was so bad the CIA helped keep it secret from the Americans so as not to discourage their nuclear industry.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
If the neighbour's idiot kid poked his eye out with a spoon, I wouldn't tell my kid about it either, I'd just have him eat soup properly.
- intertextuality 7y ago
  How can you even compare what you just said with an enormous nuclear facility meltdown? ...? It's measured right behind fukushima and chernobyl, as the third most serious recorded event. I've known about chernobyl, tmi, fukushima, etc, but I was totally surprised to read about this one.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >How can you even compare what you just said with an enormous nuclear facility meltdown? That's how an analogy works. You're comparing the difference between two pairs of things that are not comparable. > measured right behind fukushima and chernobyl, as the third most serious recorded event. Trying to use a failure at a 1950s Russian nuclear facility as indicative of nuclear safety today is like considering a medieval scaffolding failure as indicative of modern construction safety.
    - intertextuality 7y ago
      It's an astoundingly unintelligent "analogy" at best. Discussing nuclear meltdowns and what caused them is always relevant, whether or not it happened today or 70 years ago. Talking about it is still important, especially because like most things, human bureaucracy and politics played into it. Having more intelligent designs does not solve human stupidity, laziness, pride, etc. And even if nuclear safety is much better today, the consequences of failing are still grotesque. In the case of other meltdowns, the surrounding areas are still affected, even today. Doesn't matter whether it melted down today or 100 years ago, those areas are still toxic. I think nuclear is our only real solution moving forward, but we need to honestly talk about the incidents that occurred, and fix the issues that went wrong with it. You don't get that by covering things up.

dmschulman 7y ago

No one is claiming nuclear is "inherently safe" (except for the author of the Forbes opinion piece the article dissects). It is the safest form of energy relative to its impact on the planet when compared to other methods of generating power.

partiallypro 7y ago

Nothing is inherently safe. Nuclear power is our best hope for clean energy and cleaning up the environment. Wind, solar and hydro can fill the gaps...but without nuclear we'll never have a true clean solution.

negzero7 7y ago

These are all old reactor designs with obvious flaws; moving to near-future Gen IV designs are significantly safer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantag...

citilife 7y ago

It should be: "Why <insert power generation> Will Never Be Inherently Safe" All power generating has some risk. The idea is to create a differential and capture the differential. Inherently, generating power means capturing energy differentials and typically the higher the TWh the more damage when a failure to contain said energy creation occurs (think a nuclear plant, dam, wind turbine, etc.) Safety in nuclear power, as with other forms of energy generation, have more to do with politics. Politics will lead to cutting or increasing costs and safety guards being put (or not put) in place. Arguably, pollution due to coal and natural gas is going to cause global warming and in turn many billions will possibly die from starvation. Is that "inherently safe?" I don't think anyone disagrees that it will never be "inherently" safe, but it may be "safer" or "cause less damage" long term to the general populous than alternatives today.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
I will eat a hat in front of everyone on HN at a pub if a utility scale solar plant backed by utility scale lithium battery storage ever melts down, requiring billions of dollars of remediation and making the surrounding land uninhabitable for centuries. As you said, safety is politics, and politics are people. People will be greedy, they will cut corners, and without a rigid command structure and severe penalties for safety violations (ie the US Navy and their nuclear fleet), accidents will eventually occur. Solar is cheap to manufacture, easy to ship, and does not require skilled labor to rack and install (besides trained electricians for the interconnections). As of a few minutes ago, California is generating 10GW of solar energy, 1.8GW of wind, and only 2.1GW of nuclear [1] [2]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/FHm1Ppw.png https://i.imgur.com/FHm1Ppw.png [2] https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=US-CA https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=...
- Aloha 7y ago
  Lithium batteries are at best a bridge technology - meaning something good enough to get us until the next thing comes. The issues with Lithium batteries is, a finite lifetime, a shortage of the materials needed to make them, toxic byproducts of manufacture and recycling or disposing of the the batteries when their finite life is used up.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

Large scale power generation is inherently unsafe. Making all those electrons jiggle is going to require some serious stored energy and wherever there's stored energy there's potential to release it all faster than intended.

yongjik 7y ago

If the article's bias isn't clear enough from the title, this should: > Before we delve into the article itself, note that the author of the [pro-nuclear] article, Michael Shellenberger, has a degree in cultural anthropology, not nuclear science or nuclear engineering, environmental science, or any other educational background related to the energy production methods and their impact on the environment, human lives, or the global economy. And then, > First, this puff piece for Forbes Magazine tries to discredit the assessment of noted pediatrician and children’s advocate Dr. Helen Caldicott, who projected close to 1 million people died due to the Chernobyl meltdown. So who is this Dr. Helen Caldicott? From Wikipedia: > Helen Mary Caldicott (born 7 August 1938) is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing the use of nuclear power, depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, and military action in general. So they decry an anthropologist writing a pro-nuclear column (fair enough) ... by quoting a physician (umm really?). By the way, even if we accept their "one million deaths from Chernobyl" at face value, let's put that in some context: > A 2013 study by MIT indicates that 53,000 early deaths occur per year in the United States alone because of vehicle emissions. [1] So, during the 33 years since Chernobyl, vehicular emissions caused somewhere around 53k * 33 = 1.7 million deaths in the US only. Nuclear killed, let's be generous, up to a million. Coal kills that much every year. Well, maybe nuclear is too expensive. I'm OK with that argument. But I don't buy that nuclear is too dangerous, when its worst disasters kill less than regular, non-accidental use of fossil fuels on the same year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

chungleong 7y ago
I just noticed that the head of the New York of Sciences studied English lit at UC Berkeley.
keanzu 7y ago
"maybe nuclear is too expensive" I think this is the key flaw that is nuclear power's undoing. Even the Chinese government, who are apparently pro-nuclear, have not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016. They are finding that other forms of generation are cost competitive as the necessary safety features drive the nuclear price up. If the Chinese dictatorship is struggling to justify new plants on a cost basis then it doesn't look good for the rest of the world. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-...

tehsauce 7y ago

This article contains almost a dozen character attacks on the forbes author- basically every time he is mentioned. Both authors seem to be far off from the number of deaths and cancer rates estimated by the World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/ https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounde... If you're going to claim that the entire nuclear industry is evil, and that it's technology is fundamentally dangerous, maybe it would be good to compare it to a competitor like fossil fuels. Their pollution can cause over a million deaths per year. https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/ https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/ Comparing the two by casualties per unit of power generated, this makes nuclear power appear something like 100 times safer. It's a simple calculation and if anyone's interested I could add the numbers here.