6 ms·

I've just read through the comments, and can't really see anyone else making this point .. so I'm assuming it will be unpopular. Why is nuclear the silver bull

by lwhi 5y ago

I've just read through the comments, and can't really see anyone else making this point .. so I'm assuming it will be unpopular. Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? Logically, renewable and storage on a microlevel seems to make more sense. -- With nuclear .. no matter how advanced the tech is now, I can't see how we're not robbing Peter to pay back Paul. The waste will be around for longer than we are. We have no solution other than 'lock it up'. Accidents do — and most like will — happen. How will increasing the volume of reactors not increase this risk?

sparker72678 5y ago
I think it's more akin to putting out a structure fire with water. You stop the immediate threat and save lives and some property. And while some property damage will result because it's all getting soaked, it's still better to have something left than nothing, and while an un-burnable building would be nice, it doesn't exist yet.
whatshisface 5y ago
Qualitatively, every choice is equal, because a qualitative argument can't distinguish between a big problem plus a small benefit and a big benefit plus a small problem. Quantitatively, you can make rational decisions. So, the answer to your questions are, "how much will building more reactors increase the accident risk," and "how much nuclear waste will be produced in the course of normal operation?"
- lwhi 5y ago
  This is a good point, 'how much’ is an important question. But then, it seems society sometimes make the decision to take somethings off the table entirely. I look at the accident at Fukushima, and earlier (when I was small child) Chernobyl and I can't help wondering whether some risks aren't worth taking when there are alternatives available. I'm sure risk analysis was taken seriously in Japan. Often we miss things, and the people answering 'how much', quite frankly get it wrong.
godelski 5y ago
> Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? I'm not sure many people make this argument. Although the people that do are very vocal. But they are wrong. The general consensus around nuclear is that it adds to the number of solutions we can use. Considering the inhomogeneous nature of climate and regions nuclear may have advantages in certain areas, whereas other areas it may be unnecessary. Anyone claiming "one size fits all" is just selling snake oil. Essentially the argument comes down to "why time one hand behind your back when trying to solve an extremely important and challenging problem?" As for waste, it isn't as big of a deal as you might think. Though this is more difficult to understand without an expertise in the subject matter. Mostly this is due to the complexity of understanding the different types of waste, amounts, and the vastly different levels of radiation in those waste products. Most of these conversations are akin to people talking about rocket science without knowing Newtonian mechanics. Just listen to the experts and see what they are saying. You're on HN, so I trust you can understand the nuance that scientists use, though I know that sometimes this can get confusing to the public. Like how "disagreement" isn't much of a disagreement but more quibbling over minor details.
- lwhi 5y ago
  I can understand that technological improvements will have improved safety and efficiency. I definitely agree that we need a spread of technologies to provide for our energy need. I'm not convinced nuclear needs to be part of that solution though.
  - godelski 5y ago
    > I'm not convinced nuclear needs to be part of that solution though. That's cool. But just recognize that the scientific community disagrees. Though many have given up on even trying to push nuclear as being a minimal part due to these types of responses. I just want you to be aware of how your personal and non-expertise stance stands compared to the scientific community.
    - lwhi 5y ago
      Sorry, but you can't speak for the scientific community. The scientific community is varied, and has a plurality of voices. Without wanting to be rude, this kind of rhetoric feels closer in spirit to the kind of lobbying that might be associated with an industry body.
ChuckMcM 5y ago
> Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? Because you can generate power without adding CO2 to the air, or other pollutants. It works 24/7/365 and it requires no new "science" to produce. However, the root of your question appears to me to be founded in some misconceptions you have about nuclear power. It isn't uncommon because the information in most popular press articles about nuclear power is over 50 years old. To put that in perspective, imagine arguing the utility of an electric car when your data point is gas at 30 cents a gallon (the price in 1965[1])? But to talk about nuclear power with current data about how you would design a power plant (and these are the new designs we're talking about), the risks of them leaking any radioactivity, and the risk to people should that radio activity leak and it makes our decision to keep building fossil fuel plants look pretty stupid. It really does turn the whole question on its head. Nuclear is demonstrably cleaner, safer, lower risk, and potentially lower cost (although how do you price the cost of destroying the planet right?) than any other baseload technology. It even surpasses hydroelectric in terms of externalized costs of habitat destruction. But I recognize that if you base your analysis on an idea that any new nuclear plant would be identical to the ones at Fukishima (built in 1967) or Chernoybl (built in 1972) it does seem odd that we would want more of that. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-888-august-31-2015-historical-gas-prices https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-888-august-31-2015...
- lwhi 5y ago
  I think it's foolish to think we have things 'right' now. In 1967, I'm pretty certain the engineers responsible thought they had it everything in order. I take the view we will always fuck up. With nuclear, the fuck up will always have larger, longer lasting consequences. -- Edit: > Nuclear is demonstrably cleaner, safer, lower risk, and potentially lower cost (although how do you price the cost of destroying the planet right?) than any other baseload technology. I'd agree it's cleaner if we didn't have the waste problem. You're making a false equivalence. It's not a case of nuclear or fosil fuels. We have other options.
  - ChuckMcM 5y ago
    What I hear you saying is that you have no confidence that we can learn from experience, and that our understanding of the process of radio active decay, and the effect of radiation on humans is incomplete. If that is correct, then I'd Do you fly on airplanes? Have you compared the risks of flying in 1967 and the risks of flying today?
Ericson2314 5y ago
The other replies handle the large issue now, but let me go point by point. > Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? Not supposed to be that, as others said. > The waste will be around for longer than we are. We have no solution other than 'lock it up'. If we sacrifice a Cubic mile to save the planet that's a god trade. Paul is a lot bigger than Peter here. > Accidents do — and most like will — happen. How will increasing the volume of reactors not increase this risk? The Tsunami was far worse than the meltdown; I am afraid people's fear-memory often conflates the two. I'm willing to admit the official stats with Chernobyl might be a coverup, but still, tons of poor people around the globe get sick or die from perhaps-illegal fossil fuel pollution. It's not a worse coverup than environment justice issues in the US. The annoyance here among pro-nuclear people is that other thing's problems get to slip underneath the radar, but nuclear's don't. > storage Consider storage will require tons of lithium. The ecological damage from that mining will also be catastrophic, and the ecosystems might take as long to recover. I'm not saying we shouldn't do lithium-ion batteries. We have little choice we're going to need more. Same thing with nuclear. Same thing with not decommissioning dams as soon as we like. The fact is with all routes, avoiding ecological collapse will cause local environmental issues. What irks people is the singling out of nuclear, as if other things didn't have issues too, and other essential systems (like top soil) repair as slowly as some radioactive isotopes degrade.
- lwhi 5y ago
  I saw a report that the reactor at Chernobyl is in danger of starting a new nuclear reaction [1] Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea [2] [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2277195-nuclear-reactions-at-chernobyl-are-spiking-in-an-inaccessible-chamber/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2277195-nuclear-reactio... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56728068 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56728068
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    We have designs now that are vastly safer than Chernobyl. > Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea Why are you even bringing that up? They're going to filter out basically everything, and the released water will be completely safe. Anyone that complains about the trace amounts of tritium had better be thousands of times more upset at coal power. Even more, they should see intentional radiation release numbers as a motivator to use tons of nuclear in the short to medium term just to get off coal faster. Coal releases so much radioactive material into the air.
parineum 5y ago
Many view fission as a stop gap to fusion. I also think the scale of nuclear waste is vastly over estimated by the general populace. Generally, it produces very little waste in terms of spent fuel[1] and much of that can be recycled. That does require building newer, modern reactors though. > The waste will be around for longer than we are. We have no solution other than 'lock it up'. This is another thing that people don't really understand. Radioactivity is viewed as a monolith in pop culture. There's a perception that a radioactive thing will kill you in thousands of years. In reality, the length of time that something is dangerous is inverse to how dangerous it is, ie, the longer it's radioactive, the less deadly it is (and vise versa). Plutonium-239, the long term radioactive byproduct (24,000 years) is not that deadly [2] compared to the much more radioactive cesium-137 and strontium-90 which both have a half life of around 30 years [3]. 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239#Hazards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239#Hazards 3. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/r...
- lwhi 5y ago
  I think it's the fact that it's a stop gap that worries me the most. Imagine being alive in thousands of years, having to mind the 'very little waste' that stopgap produced. I think I'd consider the generations that produced it pretty negatively.
  - parineum 5y ago
    > Imagine being alive in thousands of years, having to mind the 'very little waste' that stopgap produced. As I mentioned, that long term byproducts can be reprocessed or directly consumed by more advanced reactors.
belorn 5y ago
> Logically, renewable and storage on a microlevel seems to make more sense. For northern countries where wind is the primary renewable sources, there does not exist any clean storage that is currently deployed and getting investments. The current "storage" being combined with renewable are fossil fuels, primarily oil and gas. The subsidize for energy stability goes to fossil fuels, the investment for bigger reserve capacity goes to fossil fuels, the national energy plan here in Sweden as an example is fossil fuels for stability and renewable for cheap production. Lithium batteries as an example are great when the charge cycle and capacity is measured in hours, like for solar. It works, it is cost effective, and it helps reduce the dependency on fossil fuels. For wind you have charge cycles measured in weeks and capacity demand that can last months. There are a few experimental project (likely heavily subsidized, and none that I can find that operate on buying wind power and reselling it weeks later), but the flow of money goes very distinctly towards fossil fuels right now. Nuclear provide at least an working alternative, and the occasional accident is a much better future than the non-accidental climate change that is occurring right now. That said, I would prefer if we simple banned fossil fuels as a strategy to provide gird stability and forced the market to decide on storage vs nuclear.
ska 5y ago
> Logically, renewable and storage on a microlevel seems to make more sense. Only assuming technological advances are made that we can't count on. Current day we don't have storage solutions that will do it, and most micro stuff doesn't work well enough to meet current demand anyway....
LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
There is no waste! Our descendants will regard it as magic/mysterious cultural heritage of long forgotten times, much like we do view the Pyramids of Giza today. Think of all the opportunities, the tourism...
sthnblllII 5y ago
All excellent questions, these should be addressed every time nuclear is considered. I'm not sure existing nuclear is all that competitive with renewables+storage, but better designs absolutely could be. Better designs also wouldn't produce long-lived waste, and could also transmute existing long lived waste into short term. This will require R&D. Increasing the number of wind turbines increases the risk of collisions with aircraft. What level of risk is acceptable to you? That's the question, not "will there be any increase in risk at all".

by lwhi 5y ago

sparker72678 5y ago

I think it's more akin to putting out a structure fire with water. You stop the immediate threat and save lives and some property. And while some property damage will result because it's all getting soaked, it's still better to have something left than nothing, and while an un-burnable building would be nice, it doesn't exist yet.

whatshisface 5y ago

Qualitatively, every choice is equal, because a qualitative argument can't distinguish between a big problem plus a small benefit and a big benefit plus a small problem. Quantitatively, you can make rational decisions. So, the answer to your questions are, "how much will building more reactors increase the accident risk," and "how much nuclear waste will be produced in the course of normal operation?"

lwhi 5y ago
This is a good point, 'how much’ is an important question. But then, it seems society sometimes make the decision to take somethings off the table entirely. I look at the accident at Fukushima, and earlier (when I was small child) Chernobyl and I can't help wondering whether some risks aren't worth taking when there are alternatives available. I'm sure risk analysis was taken seriously in Japan. Often we miss things, and the people answering 'how much', quite frankly get it wrong.

godelski 5y ago

> Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? I'm not sure many people make this argument. Although the people that do are very vocal. But they are wrong. The general consensus around nuclear is that it adds to the number of solutions we can use. Considering the inhomogeneous nature of climate and regions nuclear may have advantages in certain areas, whereas other areas it may be unnecessary. Anyone claiming "one size fits all" is just selling snake oil. Essentially the argument comes down to "why time one hand behind your back when trying to solve an extremely important and challenging problem?" As for waste, it isn't as big of a deal as you might think. Though this is more difficult to understand without an expertise in the subject matter. Mostly this is due to the complexity of understanding the different types of waste, amounts, and the vastly different levels of radiation in those waste products. Most of these conversations are akin to people talking about rocket science without knowing Newtonian mechanics. Just listen to the experts and see what they are saying. You're on HN, so I trust you can understand the nuance that scientists use, though I know that sometimes this can get confusing to the public. Like how "disagreement" isn't much of a disagreement but more quibbling over minor details.

lwhi 5y ago
I can understand that technological improvements will have improved safety and efficiency. I definitely agree that we need a spread of technologies to provide for our energy need. I'm not convinced nuclear needs to be part of that solution though.
- godelski 5y ago
  > I'm not convinced nuclear needs to be part of that solution though. That's cool. But just recognize that the scientific community disagrees. Though many have given up on even trying to push nuclear as being a minimal part due to these types of responses. I just want you to be aware of how your personal and non-expertise stance stands compared to the scientific community.
  - lwhi 5y ago
    Sorry, but you can't speak for the scientific community. The scientific community is varied, and has a plurality of voices. Without wanting to be rude, this kind of rhetoric feels closer in spirit to the kind of lobbying that might be associated with an industry body.

ChuckMcM 5y ago

> Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? Because you can generate power without adding CO2 to the air, or other pollutants. It works 24/7/365 and it requires no new "science" to produce. However, the root of your question appears to me to be founded in some misconceptions you have about nuclear power. It isn't uncommon because the information in most popular press articles about nuclear power is over 50 years old. To put that in perspective, imagine arguing the utility of an electric car when your data point is gas at 30 cents a gallon (the price in 1965[1])? But to talk about nuclear power with current data about how you would design a power plant (and these are the new designs we're talking about), the risks of them leaking any radioactivity, and the risk to people should that radio activity leak and it makes our decision to keep building fossil fuel plants look pretty stupid. It really does turn the whole question on its head. Nuclear is demonstrably cleaner, safer, lower risk, and potentially lower cost (although how do you price the cost of destroying the planet right?) than any other baseload technology. It even surpasses hydroelectric in terms of externalized costs of habitat destruction. But I recognize that if you base your analysis on an idea that any new nuclear plant would be identical to the ones at Fukishima (built in 1967) or Chernoybl (built in 1972) it does seem odd that we would want more of that. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-888-august-31-2015-historical-gas-prices https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-888-august-31-2015...

lwhi 5y ago
I think it's foolish to think we have things 'right' now. In 1967, I'm pretty certain the engineers responsible thought they had it everything in order. I take the view we will always fuck up. With nuclear, the fuck up will always have larger, longer lasting consequences. -- Edit: > Nuclear is demonstrably cleaner, safer, lower risk, and potentially lower cost (although how do you price the cost of destroying the planet right?) than any other baseload technology. I'd agree it's cleaner if we didn't have the waste problem. You're making a false equivalence. It's not a case of nuclear or fosil fuels. We have other options.
- ChuckMcM 5y ago
  What I hear you saying is that you have no confidence that we can learn from experience, and that our understanding of the process of radio active decay, and the effect of radiation on humans is incomplete. If that is correct, then I'd Do you fly on airplanes? Have you compared the risks of flying in 1967 and the risks of flying today?

Ericson2314 5y ago

The other replies handle the large issue now, but let me go point by point. > Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? Not supposed to be that, as others said. > The waste will be around for longer than we are. We have no solution other than 'lock it up'. If we sacrifice a Cubic mile to save the planet that's a god trade. Paul is a lot bigger than Peter here. > Accidents do — and most like will — happen. How will increasing the volume of reactors not increase this risk? The Tsunami was far worse than the meltdown; I am afraid people's fear-memory often conflates the two. I'm willing to admit the official stats with Chernobyl might be a coverup, but still, tons of poor people around the globe get sick or die from perhaps-illegal fossil fuel pollution. It's not a worse coverup than environment justice issues in the US. The annoyance here among pro-nuclear people is that other thing's problems get to slip underneath the radar, but nuclear's don't. > storage Consider storage will require tons of lithium. The ecological damage from that mining will also be catastrophic, and the ecosystems might take as long to recover. I'm not saying we shouldn't do lithium-ion batteries. We have little choice we're going to need more. Same thing with nuclear. Same thing with not decommissioning dams as soon as we like. The fact is with all routes, avoiding ecological collapse will cause local environmental issues. What irks people is the singling out of nuclear, as if other things didn't have issues too, and other essential systems (like top soil) repair as slowly as some radioactive isotopes degrade.

lwhi 5y ago
I saw a report that the reactor at Chernobyl is in danger of starting a new nuclear reaction [1] Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea [2] [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2277195-nuclear-reactions-at-chernobyl-are-spiking-in-an-inaccessible-chamber/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2277195-nuclear-reactio... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56728068 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56728068
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  We have designs now that are vastly safer than Chernobyl. > Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea Why are you even bringing that up? They're going to filter out basically everything, and the released water will be completely safe. Anyone that complains about the trace amounts of tritium had better be thousands of times more upset at coal power. Even more, they should see intentional radiation release numbers as a motivator to use tons of nuclear in the short to medium term just to get off coal faster. Coal releases so much radioactive material into the air.

parineum 5y ago

Many view fission as a stop gap to fusion. I also think the scale of nuclear waste is vastly over estimated by the general populace. Generally, it produces very little waste in terms of spent fuel[1] and much of that can be recycled. That does require building newer, modern reactors though. > The waste will be around for longer than we are. We have no solution other than 'lock it up'. This is another thing that people don't really understand. Radioactivity is viewed as a monolith in pop culture. There's a perception that a radioactive thing will kill you in thousands of years. In reality, the length of time that something is dangerous is inverse to how dangerous it is, ie, the longer it's radioactive, the less deadly it is (and vise versa). Plutonium-239, the long term radioactive byproduct (24,000 years) is not that deadly [2] compared to the much more radioactive cesium-137 and strontium-90 which both have a half life of around 30 years [3]. 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239#Hazards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239#Hazards 3. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/r...

lwhi 5y ago
I think it's the fact that it's a stop gap that worries me the most. Imagine being alive in thousands of years, having to mind the 'very little waste' that stopgap produced. I think I'd consider the generations that produced it pretty negatively.
- parineum 5y ago
  > Imagine being alive in thousands of years, having to mind the 'very little waste' that stopgap produced. As I mentioned, that long term byproducts can be reprocessed or directly consumed by more advanced reactors.

belorn 5y ago

> Logically, renewable and storage on a microlevel seems to make more sense. For northern countries where wind is the primary renewable sources, there does not exist any clean storage that is currently deployed and getting investments. The current "storage" being combined with renewable are fossil fuels, primarily oil and gas. The subsidize for energy stability goes to fossil fuels, the investment for bigger reserve capacity goes to fossil fuels, the national energy plan here in Sweden as an example is fossil fuels for stability and renewable for cheap production. Lithium batteries as an example are great when the charge cycle and capacity is measured in hours, like for solar. It works, it is cost effective, and it helps reduce the dependency on fossil fuels. For wind you have charge cycles measured in weeks and capacity demand that can last months. There are a few experimental project (likely heavily subsidized, and none that I can find that operate on buying wind power and reselling it weeks later), but the flow of money goes very distinctly towards fossil fuels right now. Nuclear provide at least an working alternative, and the occasional accident is a much better future than the non-accidental climate change that is occurring right now. That said, I would prefer if we simple banned fossil fuels as a strategy to provide gird stability and forced the market to decide on storage vs nuclear.

ska 5y ago

> Logically, renewable and storage on a microlevel seems to make more sense. Only assuming technological advances are made that we can't count on. Current day we don't have storage solutions that will do it, and most micro stuff doesn't work well enough to meet current demand anyway....

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago

There is no waste! Our descendants will regard it as magic/mysterious cultural heritage of long forgotten times, much like we do view the Pyramids of Giza today. Think of all the opportunities, the tourism...

sthnblllII 5y ago

All excellent questions, these should be addressed every time nuclear is considered. I'm not sure existing nuclear is all that competitive with renewables+storage, but better designs absolutely could be. Better designs also wouldn't produce long-lived waste, and could also transmute existing long lived waste into short term. This will require R&D. Increasing the number of wind turbines increases the risk of collisions with aircraft. What level of risk is acceptable to you? That's the question, not "will there be any increase in risk at all".