6 ms·

> And this is why nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe: the operators have conclusively proven that they just cannot be trusted. Repeatedly. So let's just kee

by antris 7y ago

> And this is why nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe: the operators have conclusively proven that they just cannot be trusted. Repeatedly. So let's just keep reliably killing people with coal around the year like we do now...? The fact is that nuclear power kills the least amount of people per unit of energy produced, with all accidents taken into account. If that's "unsafe" then you cannot consider any electricity production method safe.

number6 7y ago
Or kill them in a single event that causes the surroundings uninhabitable. If only we had alternatives to generate power
- dgellow 7y ago
  We only have worth alternative, that’s exactly the point here.
- brutt 7y ago
  We have alternatives: solar, wind, water, bio, nuclear fusion, maybe LENR.
Melting_Harps 7y ago
> The fact is that nuclear power kills the least amount of people per unit of energy produced, with all accidents taken into account. If that's "unsafe" then you cannot consider any electricity production method safe. This is such a horrible stat, especially when taken in this context; I'm not for coal, I think its filthy and and obsolete form of energy, but do you realize the affects of Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima et al will be felt for millions of years AFTER you are gone? With so many other forms of renewable energy, you'd think it were possible to create another model.
- antris 7y ago
  > do you realize the affects of Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima et al will be felt for millions of years AFTER you are gone? No, because that's simply not true. At least not in terms of radiation. Perhaps politically, or in the general feeling of fear among people who do not understand nuclear energy, the effects might be long-lasting but the no-go area around Chernobyl is very small, Fukushima is basically liveable today and I don't think 3 mile island affected any area to such extent that radiation levels would be above the safety limits.
  - Melting_Harps 7y ago
    This is absurd, are you aware that people in Croatia had a mass epidemic of thyroid failures in children? That is a massive endocrine disruption at a very young age, these people then had children themselves and the affects to them have yet to be discovered, I worked with a woman in Istria that voiced these concerns, her child had to be hospitalized several times for weight loss and and heart beat iregularities. She was a proponent of entering the EU solely because her child may have a chance to have access to more promising medical technology. Fukushima is habitable? Are you seriously insane? This is Abe's solution to get people to move back: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/10/japan-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-evacuees-forced-return-home-radiation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/10/japan-fukushim... Chernobyl devastated large swaths of Ag land in Germany when it happened that still haven't entirely recovered... Listen, maybe these things didn't have a direct impact on YOU so you honestly believe this, but I've seen it and lived with the affects of Nuclear Energy accident first hand, and they are costly environmentally and devastating psychologically. Its what turned me into a staunch environmental activist, but the toll of it is something I have to bear alone, and PTSD is only one of the things I have to live with, and I was an adult when it happened. I cannot even bring myself to look at what has happened in the near 9 years since Fukushima's children were exposed in masse anymore for fear of inducing panic attacks. I can't even go to my friend's wedding this Spring in Japan because of the fear and panic I feel inside. They were already having a very significant spike in thyroid disruptions in 2012, heart problems soon followed, and the cover up began for pregnancies from that time--just as they were during Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'd say that the biggest proponent(s) of Nuclear should have to live next to the plants themselves, which incidentally are being phased out in California due to our collective efforts, and see what those 'safe levels' really mean. But go ahead, get a remote job and live next to some of the most grossest offenders in the US for a decade and then we can re-evaluate your position: https://www.times.org/nuclear-power-back/2018/3/8/the-most-dangerous-nuclear-power-plants-in-america https://www.times.org/nuclear-power-back/2018/3/8/the-most-d... Until then, you're just mis-informed entirely about the reality of Nuclear Energy Production and its consequences, and have at best a very glib understanding of it. Hell, to this day I cannot find a proper study done on them monitoring the radiation effluence from San Onofre and its surrounding areas from before then event and leading up to the massive leak. Let alone the epidemiological impacts of it, my old landlord just died in December from heart-failure and he was a lobster fisherman from the San Onofre region.
trickstra 7y ago
Germany is heavily investing in solar and wind. Why do you bring up coal? Also - even if the nuclear power plant is 100% safe, it still produces nuclear waste that nobody wants to keep anywhere near their city and will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, that's longer than humanity has been around - it's just the same trap as burning fossil fuels. Why would we want to make the same mistake again?
- hajile 7y ago
  We can discover efficient ways to re-refine those materials and provide even more energy for the future (actually, such techniques exist for a lot of waste, but mining is still cheaper, so we don't do it). By the time this process is done, the waste simply won't exist anymore.
  - brutt 7y ago
    Maybe it wiser to spend some profits of nuclear industry on problem of nuclear waste first. We already has tons of waste. Chornobyl and other sites are still waiting for a solution.
- renaudg 7y ago
  > Germany is heavily investing in solar and wind. Why do you bring up coal? Because coal is what Germany really relies on in practice, making it one the worst industrialised nations when it comes to CO2 emissions per kWh. Check for yourself, right this minute : http://electricitymap.org/ http://electricitymap.org/ > it's just the same trap as burning fossil fuels. Why would we want to make the same mistake again? Because it's not the same mistake at all. Nuclear waste is stored in highly stable geological layers, and the volumes are orders of magnitude lower. As I wrote here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21996751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21996751), a year's worth of nuclear energy for running France's whole fleet of trains produces just 200kg of nuclear waste. Since the beginning of the nuclear programme, the cumulated volume is 3650m3, or an olympic swimming pool's worth of it. Don't get me wrong, renewables are a worthy long term goal, but we might never get there in the first place if we don't tackle the climate change and emissions emergency first.
hajile 7y ago
I hate when people talk about solar or wind "saving the planet". Solar in particular (and wind to a lesser extent) requires digging up then melting down literal mountains worth of ore to get the rare-earth elements to create them. Creating the space-age materials used for solar and wind installations is hyper-toxic for the environment and creates its own waste-storage problem. You talk about deaths, but companies seem to be very tight-lipped about wind fatalities. Bucket truck electricians have a serious injury and fatality rate per-capita an order of magnitude higher than normal electricians. Tower workers have rates an order of magnitude higher than that. Wind towers aren't like normal towers. They are smooth, aerodynamic surfaces. They are much taller than an average cell tower which adds complications. They have hundred-foot blades with all the lack of strength usually associated with airplanes travelling at up to 180mph. Unlike normal towers, you are definitely working on live systems (dead systems are even more dangerous as they are be at the whim of the winds). There's a huge, high-voltage motor in there exerting tons of torque (plus other motors for things like wing rotation). These extra hazards are standard. They don't account for the bonus hazards like fires, mid-air disintegrations, or even a bird (or something more exotic) getting struck and flying your direction. Even ground crews are at much higher risks. I know several people who have worked at coal or nuclear plants. They wouldn't get anywhere near a wind plant because it's just too dangerous.
ozim 7y ago
That is how people work - deaths in car crashes every week topple terrorist attacks by large margin. No one cares about car crashes. Coal miners die around the year, so no one cares business as usual. Coal power plant ashes are also radioactive and take a lot more space to store. But no one cares about it...

by antris 7y ago

number6 7y ago

Or kill them in a single event that causes the surroundings uninhabitable. If only we had alternatives to generate power

dgellow 7y ago
We only have worth alternative, that’s exactly the point here.
brutt 7y ago
We have alternatives: solar, wind, water, bio, nuclear fusion, maybe LENR.

Melting_Harps 7y ago

> The fact is that nuclear power kills the least amount of people per unit of energy produced, with all accidents taken into account. If that's "unsafe" then you cannot consider any electricity production method safe. This is such a horrible stat, especially when taken in this context; I'm not for coal, I think its filthy and and obsolete form of energy, but do you realize the affects of Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima et al will be felt for millions of years AFTER you are gone? With so many other forms of renewable energy, you'd think it were possible to create another model.

antris 7y ago
> do you realize the affects of Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima et al will be felt for millions of years AFTER you are gone? No, because that's simply not true. At least not in terms of radiation. Perhaps politically, or in the general feeling of fear among people who do not understand nuclear energy, the effects might be long-lasting but the no-go area around Chernobyl is very small, Fukushima is basically liveable today and I don't think 3 mile island affected any area to such extent that radiation levels would be above the safety limits.
- Melting_Harps 7y ago
  This is absurd, are you aware that people in Croatia had a mass epidemic of thyroid failures in children? That is a massive endocrine disruption at a very young age, these people then had children themselves and the affects to them have yet to be discovered, I worked with a woman in Istria that voiced these concerns, her child had to be hospitalized several times for weight loss and and heart beat iregularities. She was a proponent of entering the EU solely because her child may have a chance to have access to more promising medical technology. Fukushima is habitable? Are you seriously insane? This is Abe's solution to get people to move back: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/10/japan-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-evacuees-forced-return-home-radiation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/10/japan-fukushim... Chernobyl devastated large swaths of Ag land in Germany when it happened that still haven't entirely recovered... Listen, maybe these things didn't have a direct impact on YOU so you honestly believe this, but I've seen it and lived with the affects of Nuclear Energy accident first hand, and they are costly environmentally and devastating psychologically. Its what turned me into a staunch environmental activist, but the toll of it is something I have to bear alone, and PTSD is only one of the things I have to live with, and I was an adult when it happened. I cannot even bring myself to look at what has happened in the near 9 years since Fukushima's children were exposed in masse anymore for fear of inducing panic attacks. I can't even go to my friend's wedding this Spring in Japan because of the fear and panic I feel inside. They were already having a very significant spike in thyroid disruptions in 2012, heart problems soon followed, and the cover up began for pregnancies from that time--just as they were during Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'd say that the biggest proponent(s) of Nuclear should have to live next to the plants themselves, which incidentally are being phased out in California due to our collective efforts, and see what those 'safe levels' really mean. But go ahead, get a remote job and live next to some of the most grossest offenders in the US for a decade and then we can re-evaluate your position: https://www.times.org/nuclear-power-back/2018/3/8/the-most-dangerous-nuclear-power-plants-in-america https://www.times.org/nuclear-power-back/2018/3/8/the-most-d... Until then, you're just mis-informed entirely about the reality of Nuclear Energy Production and its consequences, and have at best a very glib understanding of it. Hell, to this day I cannot find a proper study done on them monitoring the radiation effluence from San Onofre and its surrounding areas from before then event and leading up to the massive leak. Let alone the epidemiological impacts of it, my old landlord just died in December from heart-failure and he was a lobster fisherman from the San Onofre region.

trickstra 7y ago

Germany is heavily investing in solar and wind. Why do you bring up coal? Also - even if the nuclear power plant is 100% safe, it still produces nuclear waste that nobody wants to keep anywhere near their city and will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, that's longer than humanity has been around - it's just the same trap as burning fossil fuels. Why would we want to make the same mistake again?

hajile 7y ago
We can discover efficient ways to re-refine those materials and provide even more energy for the future (actually, such techniques exist for a lot of waste, but mining is still cheaper, so we don't do it). By the time this process is done, the waste simply won't exist anymore.
- brutt 7y ago
  Maybe it wiser to spend some profits of nuclear industry on problem of nuclear waste first. We already has tons of waste. Chornobyl and other sites are still waiting for a solution.
renaudg 7y ago
> Germany is heavily investing in solar and wind. Why do you bring up coal? Because coal is what Germany really relies on in practice, making it one the worst industrialised nations when it comes to CO2 emissions per kWh. Check for yourself, right this minute : http://electricitymap.org/ http://electricitymap.org/ > it's just the same trap as burning fossil fuels. Why would we want to make the same mistake again? Because it's not the same mistake at all. Nuclear waste is stored in highly stable geological layers, and the volumes are orders of magnitude lower. As I wrote here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21996751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21996751), a year's worth of nuclear energy for running France's whole fleet of trains produces just 200kg of nuclear waste. Since the beginning of the nuclear programme, the cumulated volume is 3650m3, or an olympic swimming pool's worth of it. Don't get me wrong, renewables are a worthy long term goal, but we might never get there in the first place if we don't tackle the climate change and emissions emergency first.

hajile 7y ago

I hate when people talk about solar or wind "saving the planet". Solar in particular (and wind to a lesser extent) requires digging up then melting down literal mountains worth of ore to get the rare-earth elements to create them. Creating the space-age materials used for solar and wind installations is hyper-toxic for the environment and creates its own waste-storage problem. You talk about deaths, but companies seem to be very tight-lipped about wind fatalities. Bucket truck electricians have a serious injury and fatality rate per-capita an order of magnitude higher than normal electricians. Tower workers have rates an order of magnitude higher than that. Wind towers aren't like normal towers. They are smooth, aerodynamic surfaces. They are much taller than an average cell tower which adds complications. They have hundred-foot blades with all the lack of strength usually associated with airplanes travelling at up to 180mph. Unlike normal towers, you are definitely working on live systems (dead systems are even more dangerous as they are be at the whim of the winds). There's a huge, high-voltage motor in there exerting tons of torque (plus other motors for things like wing rotation). These extra hazards are standard. They don't account for the bonus hazards like fires, mid-air disintegrations, or even a bird (or something more exotic) getting struck and flying your direction. Even ground crews are at much higher risks. I know several people who have worked at coal or nuclear plants. They wouldn't get anywhere near a wind plant because it's just too dangerous.

ozim 7y ago

That is how people work - deaths in car crashes every week topple terrorist attacks by large margin. No one cares about car crashes. Coal miners die around the year, so no one cares business as usual. Coal power plant ashes are also radioactive and take a lot more space to store. But no one cares about it...