4 ms·

Nuclear is not safer than renewables. These statistics are false, they do not include everything involved with running the plants and gathering the ressources.

by onli 6y ago

Nuclear is not safer than renewables. These statistics are false, they do not include everything involved with running the plants and gathering the ressources. They get repeated every time in these threads here and are refuted every time. Your first article is provided by a pro nuclear propaganda association. It's almost certainly also false. And ignores conveniently how much more unrecycable nuclear waste France was producing in 2016, waste we can not store safely.

sprayk 6y ago
could you provide some sources on any of your claims, or any links to analysis that takes into account "everything involved with running the plants and gathering resources"?
- mlyle 6y ago
  And preferably "apples to apples"-- are we going to include the entire lifecycle of solar manufacturing, too?
bananabreakfast 6y ago
There is no such thing as un-recyclable nuclear waste that cannot be stored safely. All unsafe waste is by definition recyclable because its viability as fuel is what makes it unsafe. If it is unviable as recycled fuel then it is quite safely storable and is no more dangerous than the tons of toxic chemicals we store regularly from manufacturing and mining byproducts.
- philipkglass 6y ago
  That is incorrect. There are two major groups of elements in spent nuclear fuel: - Actinides (neptunium, plutonium, americium, curium, leftover uranium). Most of these materials are fissile or can be bred into fissile materials. Fuel recycling processes reclaim and reuse these elements. - Fission products. These are the lighter elements formed when fuel atoms split apart. Some of the components that are most important from a waste management perspective are strontium 90 and cesium 137. Fission products cannot be used as nuclear fuel. The fission products of greatest concern are also much more toxic than ordinary chemical wastes. The LD50 for arsenic in rats is 15 milligrams per kilogram: https://whs.rocklinusd.org/documents/Science/Lethal_Dose_Table.pdf https://whs.rocklinusd.org/documents/Science/Lethal_Dose_Tab... The LD50 for strontium 90 in hamsters (90 day survival) is 2 millicuries per kilogram: http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3573895 http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3573895 Given strontium 90's specific activity of 142 curies/gram (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680020487.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/196800...), in mass terms that's 14 micrograms per kilogram for the LD50. Gram for gram, strontium 90 is about 1000 times as acutely deadly as arsenic, or three times as acutely deadly as the nerve gas sarin. There are few industrial chemicals that have toxicity comparable to or greater than nerve gas, and they (like spent nuclear fuel) have special regulations and require special handling.
steeve 6y ago
"unrecycable nuclear waste France was producing in 2016" Yeah so nuclear waste is recycled in large part. See Mox. But I agree, I wish we'd use FNRs too. Too bad the Green party shut down the first reactor (SuperPhenix) in the 90s. "waste we can not store safely." Did you do your homework? See CIGEO.
- p4bl0 6y ago
  How is CIGEO safe?
  - steeve 6y ago
    Because it’s between two very stable geological layers that have been there for millenia.
twic 6y ago
The statistics i've seen do include resource extraction (which is pretty safe for nuclear power, because you need so little fuel). I have not seen them refuted on HN. I would be interested to see a refutation - and if a refutation is posted every time, it should be easy for you to find.
- onli 6y ago
  I'm hesitant to argue more than I already did against that straw man argument. It's just a propaganda talking point, it's not actually an argument pro nuclear energy. And it's indecent. But if you are honestly interested, read the greenpeace criticism of these studies to understand how the statistic might be false and how it can be disputed, https://wayback.archive-it.org/9650/20200415093014/http://p3-raw.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/deaths-and-energy-technologies/blog/34275/ https://wayback.archive-it.org/9650/20200415093014/http://p3.... Sure, it's easy to ignore that by looking at where it's coming from, but that goes both ways.
  - didibus 6y ago
    Your article seems to show that Nuclear is the least deadly of all energies? Am I misreading?
7952 6y ago
In terms of directly attributable deaths they are probably pretty similar. Both are good enough compared to coal.

by onli 6y ago

sprayk 6y ago

could you provide some sources on any of your claims, or any links to analysis that takes into account "everything involved with running the plants and gathering resources"?

mlyle 6y ago
And preferably "apples to apples"-- are we going to include the entire lifecycle of solar manufacturing, too?

bananabreakfast 6y ago

There is no such thing as un-recyclable nuclear waste that cannot be stored safely. All unsafe waste is by definition recyclable because its viability as fuel is what makes it unsafe. If it is unviable as recycled fuel then it is quite safely storable and is no more dangerous than the tons of toxic chemicals we store regularly from manufacturing and mining byproducts.

philipkglass 6y ago
That is incorrect. There are two major groups of elements in spent nuclear fuel: - Actinides (neptunium, plutonium, americium, curium, leftover uranium). Most of these materials are fissile or can be bred into fissile materials. Fuel recycling processes reclaim and reuse these elements. - Fission products. These are the lighter elements formed when fuel atoms split apart. Some of the components that are most important from a waste management perspective are strontium 90 and cesium 137. Fission products cannot be used as nuclear fuel. The fission products of greatest concern are also much more toxic than ordinary chemical wastes. The LD50 for arsenic in rats is 15 milligrams per kilogram: https://whs.rocklinusd.org/documents/Science/Lethal_Dose_Table.pdf https://whs.rocklinusd.org/documents/Science/Lethal_Dose_Tab... The LD50 for strontium 90 in hamsters (90 day survival) is 2 millicuries per kilogram: http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3573895 http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3573895 Given strontium 90's specific activity of 142 curies/gram (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680020487.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/196800...), in mass terms that's 14 micrograms per kilogram for the LD50. Gram for gram, strontium 90 is about 1000 times as acutely deadly as arsenic, or three times as acutely deadly as the nerve gas sarin. There are few industrial chemicals that have toxicity comparable to or greater than nerve gas, and they (like spent nuclear fuel) have special regulations and require special handling.

steeve 6y ago

"unrecycable nuclear waste France was producing in 2016" Yeah so nuclear waste is recycled in large part. See Mox. But I agree, I wish we'd use FNRs too. Too bad the Green party shut down the first reactor (SuperPhenix) in the 90s. "waste we can not store safely." Did you do your homework? See CIGEO.

p4bl0 6y ago
How is CIGEO safe?
- steeve 6y ago
  Because it’s between two very stable geological layers that have been there for millenia.

twic 6y ago

The statistics i've seen do include resource extraction (which is pretty safe for nuclear power, because you need so little fuel). I have not seen them refuted on HN. I would be interested to see a refutation - and if a refutation is posted every time, it should be easy for you to find.

onli 6y ago
I'm hesitant to argue more than I already did against that straw man argument. It's just a propaganda talking point, it's not actually an argument pro nuclear energy. And it's indecent. But if you are honestly interested, read the greenpeace criticism of these studies to understand how the statistic might be false and how it can be disputed, https://wayback.archive-it.org/9650/20200415093014/http://p3-raw.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/deaths-and-energy-technologies/blog/34275/ https://wayback.archive-it.org/9650/20200415093014/http://p3.... Sure, it's easy to ignore that by looking at where it's coming from, but that goes both ways.
- didibus 6y ago
  Your article seems to show that Nuclear is the least deadly of all energies? Am I misreading?

7952 6y ago

In terms of directly attributable deaths they are probably pretty similar. Both are good enough compared to coal.