6 ms·

> If humans build it, it will fail, and a single catastrophic nuclear plant failure isn’t acceptable. We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nucle

by shakow 5y ago

> If humans build it, it will fail, and a single catastrophic nuclear plant failure isn’t acceptable. We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Why not the thousands of people who died of dam break, the millions who die of lung failure due to exposure to polluants, or, the elephant in the room, the dozens of millions whoe die and will die of climate change? Sure, it's very sad that a handful of Soviet and Japanese technician perished in accidents, don't get me wrong, but why such an irrational focus on nuclear accidents when a single dam break (and still, hydroelectric energy is among the safest of the safests) caused more casualties than nuclear energy in its whole life? > that are not present in other forms of modern energy generation That's just plain wrong. > and hoping no one accidentally stumbles onto it. I, too, often randomly stumble on nuclear waste depots 400m deep under the surface. Such a way to waste my Sunday. > They also require massive amounts of concrete (bad for the environment, locally and globally) While otherenergy sources are maid of fairy tears? > and absurd amounts of space. Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP?

mcguire 5y ago
Probably something to do with the nearly 2000 sq mi of "exclusion zones" from Chernobyl and Fukushima. (Which, admittedly, is great for the local wildlife.) "Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP? About 1500.
- shakow 5y ago
  > About 1500. Nope. Average charge load for a windmill is ~35%, vs. over 90% for NPPs. Thus, you would need roughly thrice as many, and that in places with alternating winds – otherwise you would just get blackouts.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Already factored in. I can't find my original reference, but here's once that doesn't factor in the difference: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-powe...
    - shakow 5y ago
      > Already factored in. I highly doubt that. The Tricastin NPP for instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant) is a rather average one, producing up to 3660MW. An average windmill output stand around 2.5MW, hence equivalent 1464 windmills simultaneously running before accounting for the load factor. > but here's once This one is about a nuclear reactor, not an NPP. Typical NPPs features 2 to 6 reactors.
      - mcguire 5y ago
        Hmm. Ok, let's see here... * https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-pl... (2019) 56 NPPs, 809,410,000 MWh (actually generated) * https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-turbines-are-contained-us-wind-turbine-database?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-turbines-are-contained-us... ~60,000 wind turbines (I've seen numbers between 57,000 and 67,000.) * https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/electricity-generation-from-wind.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/electricity-generat... (2020) 338,000,000 MWh (actually generated) 1NPP -> 14,453,750 MWh/yr 1WT -> 5633 MWh/yr 1NPP == 2600 WT You are absolutely correct.
cududa 5y ago
One Japanese technician died due to not following safety protocols. That’s it. Thousands a year die in coal mines
- shakow 5y ago
  > Thousands a year die in coal mines And that's only counting direct casualties. If we were to count long-term illnesses/deaths or consequences on the population like the people reaching gazillions of deads at Tchernobyl do, it would be up to one death out of 10 (https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution).
cogman10 5y ago
> Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP? Here's an infographic on that very subject :) https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-powe...
- eldaisfish 5y ago
  this is an oversimplified and thus misleading comparison. A nuclear (or any fuel-controlled generator) can generate power at-will i.e. on demand. No wind or solar generator can do this and before you say batteries, no battery in existence can power a medium-sized city for more than a few minutes. These comparisons are usually presented as an aggregated amount of energy over a year and completely ignore the fact that at some points in time, the power output of entire fleets of wind and solar generators is zero.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    What? This infographic is proving the point that nuclear generates a BUNCH of power and a single plant would require vast amounts of renewables to replace it. Did you actually read it before ranting? > No wind or solar generator can do this and before you say batteries, no battery in existence can power a medium-sized city for more than a few minutes. This is a silly argument. The only real limiting factor on the capacity of a battery, at this point, is manufacturing capacity. That is changing very quickly as more than a few companies are looking at expanding their battery production capabilities. Beyond that, grid batteries are good for any grid configuration. Batteries have rapid response to demand surplus and deficits. They are a grid stabilizing technology. Even if we had a 100% coal grid, you'd still want batteries for when the coal plants max out or to smooth out the cooldown time for the coal plants.
    - eldaisfish 5y ago
      i did read it. It is a mischaracterisation because the two are not comparable as time is ignored. To achieve functional parity with a fuel-powered generator such as a nuclear plant, you would need to guarantee identical operation with an array of wind generators. At the moment, this is only possible over large geographical areas. As for battery capacity, you seem to underestimate how much electrical energy even small cities use. The limiting factor is capacity. FYI, the US consumes around 3,800 terawatt hours of electrical energy annually. Good luck powering even a fraction of that for more than a few seconds with a battery.
lm28469 5y ago
> We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Because nuclear = bad word / bombs / chernobyl They don't mind living in cities and breathing cars exhaust all day long even though it shaves years of their lives though. Real world boiling frog situation
- kazinator 5y ago
  Indeed, the word nuclear is so bad that nuclear-magnetic resonance (NMR) has to be called just magnetic in medicine. You go for an MRI, not NMRI. When nuclear-magnetic resonance is used in a scientific or industrial setting for analyzing the chemical content of a sample, it is properly called NMR. [Source: organic chemistry prof pointed this out, almost 30 years ago.]
  - mhermher 5y ago
    ah! I always wondered about this distinction, but I guess it makes sense that it's due to people's fear over "nuclear".
  - effie 5y ago
    However, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is the preferable term; the process has nothing to do with nuclear reactions or nuclear energy or nuclear material or nuclear bombs. The fact that the thing that is resonating with EM radiation are nucleic magnetic moments does not make the process nuclear in the usual sense of the word. CT (computer tomography), on the other hand, is slightly deceptive term; it actually gives you a dose of X-rays. It should be called X-ray Computer Tomography (XRCT).
andrewxdiamond 5y ago
The tone here is much more patronizing than required. > We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable. A damn break is deadly, a nuclear meltdown is potentially significantly way worse. > Such a way to waste my Sunday. Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it, regardless of the risk of finding it. We used to be quite content with dumping regular trash into holes, until we realized that didn’t scale either. > Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP? Windmill vs nuclear powerplant space is not a 1:1 comparison. Windmill fields are very sparse, and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses. Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries. You cans just change an entire miles worth of drainage and soil without damaging the area around it. Additionally, I said nothing about windmills. I said solar. We have millions of rooftops across the nation that have no solar yet would benefit. That land is free as far as space is concerned; it’s unused.
- eldaisfish 5y ago
  >Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks As opposed to continuing to emit carbon? this mischaracterisation of the threat is dangerous. The climate is changing right now. We literally cannot afford to bicker and wait for an indeterminate point in the future when entire grids will run on wind, solar and batteries. We have a solution now. That solution is nuclear power and will buy us time to transition to a fully renewable grid.
- shakow 5y ago
  > Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable. I'm glad to know climate change will be a solved problem for my children. > Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it Why? Is just dropping it in the atmosphere better? > and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses. Not really. There are safety margins, noise regulations, concrete platforms, electrical connections, ... > Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries They don't remove the foundations either when windmills are done. > I said solar. So the energy for which you would require dozens of millions of square mils of surface, a cleaning system to prevent them to lose 30% of their efficiency in a year, whose construction process is incredibly polluant, and that doesn't work for half a year in half of the world? That sounds like a great large-scale solution.
jacobsenscott 5y ago
> I, too, often randomly stumble on nuclear waste depots 400m deep under the surface. Such a way to waste my Sunday. When those dumps leak into your groundwater it does indeed ruin your day.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Not really. We test for uranium contamination of water. There's actually a lot of areas where naturally occurring uranium puts it above safe concentrations and it has to be filtered out. This is the case in much of California, the Rockies that feed into this area's water supply naturally had high uranium concentration [1]. Given that we already test and treat water she to naturally occurring uranium I'm not too concerned over waste sites. 1. https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminates-water-california-central-valley https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminat...
  - iforgotpassword 5y ago
    So the testing will then also magically clean the water if it gets contaminated? Sure, if Flint MI is our baseline for acceptable living standards this is fine.
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      Yes, removing uranium from water supplies is not much different than removing other heavy metals like lead. This isn't particular hard, debacles like Flint are newsworthy because it's something most water services do successfully.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      You misunderstand what’s happening in Flint. The water coming from the water treatment plant is perfectly safe, the issue is that it is then delivered to customers in lead pipes. This means cleaning up the water doesn’t involve removing lead at the treatment plant, which is normal, but rather replacing all of the water pipes in the city, which is very very hard. In fact removing various heavy metals from water is a regular thing that water treatment plants do, including metals like uranium and chromium. The takeaway from Flint is not “we can’t remove uranium from ground water”, but rather “don’t build your water distribution network out of toxic heavy metals like lead”.
iforgotpassword 5y ago
The risk is different. For coal, more or less everybody gets a few years off of their life expectancy, some a bit more who live closer to a plant, but roughly speaking, it's something everybody suffers from. With nuclear, those who live closer to a plant risk much more devastating damage in case something goes wrong. If you normalize both then nuclear comes out much safer, but that's not how humans work. I live 60km from a very old reactor that is 20 years past its designed runtime, has several shutdowns a year, had a few leaks "that didn't pose any danger to people". We just gonna keep it running because nothing bad happened yet, until something bad happens. Capitalism at work. But indeed the waste storage is by far the greatest problem. Not for us luckily, we get some cheap electricity and coming generations can deal with the waste we shoved in some hole. Expecting that the way we store the waste is safe for thousands of years is naive. Germany hasn't found a final destination and is just shipping that stuff around. Someone thought it was a good idea to store it near east Germany, until east Germany was no more and suddenly it was in the middle of the country in an unsuited location. Someone thought it was a good idea to store it in a salt mine, until the containers started corroding from salt water. But that was back when humans were still stupid and didn't know salt water corrodes things. Luckily we reached end of history now and do everything right. I'm positive the next location will not be picked by political motives.
- namibj 5y ago
  Keep in mind that German law blocks them from using the high-level waste site in northern Europe. And yes, Asse is a symptom of turbocapitalism. A regulatory failure. Just look at superfund sites to get a perspective.

by shakow 5y ago

mcguire 5y ago

Probably something to do with the nearly 2000 sq mi of "exclusion zones" from Chernobyl and Fukushima. (Which, admittedly, is great for the local wildlife.) "Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP? About 1500.

shakow 5y ago
> About 1500. Nope. Average charge load for a windmill is ~35%, vs. over 90% for NPPs. Thus, you would need roughly thrice as many, and that in places with alternating winds – otherwise you would just get blackouts.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Already factored in. I can't find my original reference, but here's once that doesn't factor in the difference: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-powe...
  - shakow 5y ago
    > Already factored in. I highly doubt that. The Tricastin NPP for instance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant) is a rather average one, producing up to 3660MW. An average windmill output stand around 2.5MW, hence equivalent 1464 windmills simultaneously running before accounting for the load factor. > but here's once This one is about a nuclear reactor, not an NPP. Typical NPPs features 2 to 6 reactors.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Hmm. Ok, let's see here... * https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-pl... (2019) 56 NPPs, 809,410,000 MWh (actually generated) * https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-turbines-are-contained-us-wind-turbine-database?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-turbines-are-contained-us... ~60,000 wind turbines (I've seen numbers between 57,000 and 67,000.) * https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/electricity-generation-from-wind.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/electricity-generat... (2020) 338,000,000 MWh (actually generated) 1NPP -> 14,453,750 MWh/yr 1WT -> 5633 MWh/yr 1NPP == 2600 WT You are absolutely correct.

cududa 5y ago

One Japanese technician died due to not following safety protocols. That’s it. Thousands a year die in coal mines

shakow 5y ago
> Thousands a year die in coal mines And that's only counting direct casualties. If we were to count long-term illnesses/deaths or consequences on the population like the people reaching gazillions of deads at Tchernobyl do, it would be up to one death out of 10 (https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution).

cogman10 5y ago

> Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP? Here's an infographic on that very subject :) https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-powe...

eldaisfish 5y ago
this is an oversimplified and thus misleading comparison. A nuclear (or any fuel-controlled generator) can generate power at-will i.e. on demand. No wind or solar generator can do this and before you say batteries, no battery in existence can power a medium-sized city for more than a few minutes. These comparisons are usually presented as an aggregated amount of energy over a year and completely ignore the fact that at some points in time, the power output of entire fleets of wind and solar generators is zero.
- cogman10 5y ago
  What? This infographic is proving the point that nuclear generates a BUNCH of power and a single plant would require vast amounts of renewables to replace it. Did you actually read it before ranting? > No wind or solar generator can do this and before you say batteries, no battery in existence can power a medium-sized city for more than a few minutes. This is a silly argument. The only real limiting factor on the capacity of a battery, at this point, is manufacturing capacity. That is changing very quickly as more than a few companies are looking at expanding their battery production capabilities. Beyond that, grid batteries are good for any grid configuration. Batteries have rapid response to demand surplus and deficits. They are a grid stabilizing technology. Even if we had a 100% coal grid, you'd still want batteries for when the coal plants max out or to smooth out the cooldown time for the coal plants.
  - eldaisfish 5y ago
    i did read it. It is a mischaracterisation because the two are not comparable as time is ignored. To achieve functional parity with a fuel-powered generator such as a nuclear plant, you would need to guarantee identical operation with an array of wind generators. At the moment, this is only possible over large geographical areas. As for battery capacity, you seem to underestimate how much electrical energy even small cities use. The limiting factor is capacity. FYI, the US consumes around 3,800 terawatt hours of electrical energy annually. Good luck powering even a fraction of that for more than a few seconds with a battery.

lm28469 5y ago

> We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Because nuclear = bad word / bombs / chernobyl They don't mind living in cities and breathing cars exhaust all day long even though it shaves years of their lives though. Real world boiling frog situation

kazinator 5y ago
Indeed, the word nuclear is so bad that nuclear-magnetic resonance (NMR) has to be called just magnetic in medicine. You go for an MRI, not NMRI. When nuclear-magnetic resonance is used in a scientific or industrial setting for analyzing the chemical content of a sample, it is properly called NMR. [Source: organic chemistry prof pointed this out, almost 30 years ago.]
- mhermher 5y ago
  ah! I always wondered about this distinction, but I guess it makes sense that it's due to people's fear over "nuclear".
- effie 5y ago
  However, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is the preferable term; the process has nothing to do with nuclear reactions or nuclear energy or nuclear material or nuclear bombs. The fact that the thing that is resonating with EM radiation are nucleic magnetic moments does not make the process nuclear in the usual sense of the word. CT (computer tomography), on the other hand, is slightly deceptive term; it actually gives you a dose of X-rays. It should be called X-ray Computer Tomography (XRCT).

andrewxdiamond 5y ago

The tone here is much more patronizing than required. > We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable. A damn break is deadly, a nuclear meltdown is potentially significantly way worse. > Such a way to waste my Sunday. Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it, regardless of the risk of finding it. We used to be quite content with dumping regular trash into holes, until we realized that didn’t scale either. > Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP? Windmill vs nuclear powerplant space is not a 1:1 comparison. Windmill fields are very sparse, and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses. Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries. You cans just change an entire miles worth of drainage and soil without damaging the area around it. Additionally, I said nothing about windmills. I said solar. We have millions of rooftops across the nation that have no solar yet would benefit. That land is free as far as space is concerned; it’s unused.

eldaisfish 5y ago
>Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks As opposed to continuing to emit carbon? this mischaracterisation of the threat is dangerous. The climate is changing right now. We literally cannot afford to bicker and wait for an indeterminate point in the future when entire grids will run on wind, solar and batteries. We have a solution now. That solution is nuclear power and will buy us time to transition to a fully renewable grid.
shakow 5y ago
> Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable. I'm glad to know climate change will be a solved problem for my children. > Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it Why? Is just dropping it in the atmosphere better? > and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses. Not really. There are safety margins, noise regulations, concrete platforms, electrical connections, ... > Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries They don't remove the foundations either when windmills are done. > I said solar. So the energy for which you would require dozens of millions of square mils of surface, a cleaning system to prevent them to lose 30% of their efficiency in a year, whose construction process is incredibly polluant, and that doesn't work for half a year in half of the world? That sounds like a great large-scale solution.

jacobsenscott 5y ago

> I, too, often randomly stumble on nuclear waste depots 400m deep under the surface. Such a way to waste my Sunday. When those dumps leak into your groundwater it does indeed ruin your day.

Manuel_D 5y ago
Not really. We test for uranium contamination of water. There's actually a lot of areas where naturally occurring uranium puts it above safe concentrations and it has to be filtered out. This is the case in much of California, the Rockies that feed into this area's water supply naturally had high uranium concentration [1]. Given that we already test and treat water she to naturally occurring uranium I'm not too concerned over waste sites. 1. https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminates-water-california-central-valley https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminat...
- iforgotpassword 5y ago
  So the testing will then also magically clean the water if it gets contaminated? Sure, if Flint MI is our baseline for acceptable living standards this is fine.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    Yes, removing uranium from water supplies is not much different than removing other heavy metals like lead. This isn't particular hard, debacles like Flint are newsworthy because it's something most water services do successfully.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    You misunderstand what’s happening in Flint. The water coming from the water treatment plant is perfectly safe, the issue is that it is then delivered to customers in lead pipes. This means cleaning up the water doesn’t involve removing lead at the treatment plant, which is normal, but rather replacing all of the water pipes in the city, which is very very hard. In fact removing various heavy metals from water is a regular thing that water treatment plants do, including metals like uranium and chromium. The takeaway from Flint is not “we can’t remove uranium from ground water”, but rather “don’t build your water distribution network out of toxic heavy metals like lead”.

iforgotpassword 5y ago

The risk is different. For coal, more or less everybody gets a few years off of their life expectancy, some a bit more who live closer to a plant, but roughly speaking, it's something everybody suffers from. With nuclear, those who live closer to a plant risk much more devastating damage in case something goes wrong. If you normalize both then nuclear comes out much safer, but that's not how humans work. I live 60km from a very old reactor that is 20 years past its designed runtime, has several shutdowns a year, had a few leaks "that didn't pose any danger to people". We just gonna keep it running because nothing bad happened yet, until something bad happens. Capitalism at work. But indeed the waste storage is by far the greatest problem. Not for us luckily, we get some cheap electricity and coming generations can deal with the waste we shoved in some hole. Expecting that the way we store the waste is safe for thousands of years is naive. Germany hasn't found a final destination and is just shipping that stuff around. Someone thought it was a good idea to store it near east Germany, until east Germany was no more and suddenly it was in the middle of the country in an unsuited location. Someone thought it was a good idea to store it in a salt mine, until the containers started corroding from salt water. But that was back when humans were still stupid and didn't know salt water corrodes things. Luckily we reached end of history now and do everything right. I'm positive the next location will not be picked by political motives.

namibj 5y ago
Keep in mind that German law blocks them from using the high-level waste site in northern Europe. And yes, Asse is a symptom of turbocapitalism. A regulatory failure. Just look at superfund sites to get a perspective.