5 ms·

The problem with nuclear was never it "not working" but the extreme penalty for the once-a-decade safety failure. To the average voter, they look at Three Mile

by asah 4y ago

The problem with nuclear was never it "not working" but the extreme penalty for the once-a-decade safety failure. To the average voter, they look at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima and say "three strikes and you're out" - and they look at Fukushima and say, "if even the Japanese can't get nuclear to be safe, then Homer Simpson stands no chance." For every HNer shouting for nuclear, there's another million viewings of Simpsons episodes and 3.6 roentgen memes. I know it's frustrating, but maybe just maybe society isn't so keen on 40 year [1], $500B cleanup jobs [2] and 1000 square mile areas becoming uninhabitable [3], and instead prefers diffuse damage (climate change, air quality, oil wars, etc). I'm not arguing either way, just observing. HN: before you downvote, please ask yourself if you're hitting the button because this comment is false, or because you don't want it to be true. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=three+mile+island+cleanup https://www.google.com/search?q=three+mile+island+cleanup [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+cleanup+cost https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima+cleanup+cost https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+exclusion+zone https://www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+exclusion+zone

jeroenhd 4y ago
One problem with nuclear power is that it's often used in areas that are unsuitable for it. Most of the world doesn't have to deal with earthquakes and tsunamis quite as often as Japan does. Most countries would accept foreign aid after a disaster, unlike Japan and the USSR did after their disasters to save face. People also stopped developing reactors when Chernobyl happened. Of course, the Chernobyl reactor was already an outdated reactor by the time it failed, but the problem is clearly visible in reactors that have been maintained and kept for prolonged lifetimes bexause of necessity (for medical supplies, for example). I can imagine a future where renewable energy can serve most of the world's power demand, with nuclear reactors kept as a backup in case of prolonged bad weather draining the batteries/energy stores that keep the excess solar/wind energy. People also several understate the damage traditional coal plants cause to their direct environment, which funnily enough includes excessive radioactive materials. Switching away from nuclear because of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima feels similar to banning planes or skyscrapers after 9/11. Disasters happen and leave incredible death tolls, but they're not common in the slightest. I'd reckon you're far more likely to get sick because of a coal plant leaking coal ash into the air you breathe or the water supply than being nearby enough to a meltdown to be affected. Gas and oil plants suffer far fewer downsides, but they still incur a cost on the environment that some countries have decided to ignore. They use more fuel but require less cleanup if you don't consider complete carbon capture as a necessary cleanup step. Some areas can't get nuclear power. I'd consider the entirety of Japan to be a terrible fit for such power plants because most of the country is either in a disaster zone (tsunamis or earthquakes) or has no access to cooling water. With little access to fossil fuel sources and a highly dense population Japan hasn't exactly had many alternatives for many years, so I understand why they went nuclear anyway, but I wouldn't build a new nuclear plant there now that wind and solar are cheap enough that the supplies need to be maintained artificially in some cases. Areas like Tornado Alley and cities built on top of super vulcanos are also an obviously terrible fit for nuclear power, as are countries plagued by terrorism and corruption, and countries bordering hostile powers with no remorse for the population like Russia and China. However, in a safe country with a decent grid, you can build more safe nuclear reactors than you'll ever need in the places that do qualify. Nuclear can work and it can work a whole lot better than fossil fuels can, but it's not a magical solution that you can just put down anywhere for cheap power like some advocates seem to claim it does. I believe the current anti-nuclear sentiment is largely fueled by unnecessary fear and the freeze on research and construction will have a self-fulfilling prophecy effect as old reactors won't be replaced with newer, more efficient ones, larger and larger percentages of nuclear reactors will be shut down and cost more and more as nobody is willing to invest in them, and more and more unmaintaind reactors will likely suffer accidents.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > nuclear reactors kept as a backup AFAICT nuclear doesn't work that way, it's best for giving a constant output for years, rather than being able to be brought up and down.
  - greenthrow 4y ago
    It in fact does not work that way at all. Nuclear is the worst idea for an on demand power source. A dam is better.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    Perhaps backup was the wrong word, what I meant is more like "baseline". Renewables can be scaled up and down much easier than nuclear, so the nuclear power output should be about constant, with wind turbine being stopped to prevent overgeneration.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >Most countries would accept foreign aid after a disaster, unlike Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tomodachi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tomodachi
- lost_tourist 4y ago
  Renewables currently cannot power "the majority" of the power grid. We don't have the battery (or storage) tech to make it true so that the grid can be stable and reliable without blackouts all the time, and not all areas of the world have the wind/solar they need even we did have cheap dependable massive battery (or storage) structures. Sure it can be achieved in some places with hydro pumping but that certainly isn't true in 90% of the cases. If we want to nip climate change in the bud -now- nuclear is the only chance we have.
concordDance 4y ago
The simple problem is people massively overestimating how dangerous radiation actually is. That land isn't uninhabitable and the vast vast majority of that clean up isn't cost effective on a $/life basis. You could invest that money in healthcare like breast cancer screening and get a much better return once you've done some basic cleanup of the most dangerous spots. But people insist on a clean up to a level almost as good as before rather than being homo economicus... People hear "radiation" and are afraid, even though tire particulates are much more dangerous than living next to Three Mile Island at the time. The evacuation of towns near Fukishima was a mistake, killing far more people than would have died of radiation (check radiation map of Japan, plug in standard radiation cancer models then compare with deaths caused by the evacuation).
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  The simple problem is that nuclear is poor value compared to renewables. Even if you add the cost of storage and a smart grid - which are useful whatever your sources - the total costs of nuclear power are still insanely expensive. And the gap is widening, because renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper. And unlike a nuclear power station, they don't take years to build. [1] According to Lazard, the total costs of nuclear energy - including value writedowns caused by slow building - make it six to twelve times more expensive than utility scale solar. Wind and geo are even cheaper. https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
  - concordDance 4y ago
    That's because of a regulatory rachet causing ever increasing safety standards. 1970s reactors and regs were much less sane and didn't value a human life north of a billion dollars like modern ones do.
- PaulKeeble 4y ago
  We get more intake of radiation from the burning of coal than we do from nuclear power stations. Coal burning causes far more cancer than nuclear reactors have done not to mention the immense damage of all the pollution in the air damaging lungs causing asthma and other respiratory conditions. The public isn't assessing the relative risks rationally.
raverbashing 4y ago
You're not wrong and might I add that the problem with it was that nuclear was weaponized first But at one point we'd need to start handling the failures and accidents with maturity and not with panicked reactions
- lost_tourist 4y ago
  Nuclear was weaponized first because it's easier to build a nuclear bomb than a nuclear reactor of a power plant size. Also that whole whacky WW2 thing, if Hitler would have won he would have turned russia and the UK into wastelands
imajoredinecon 4y ago
Your link [1] says that the Three Mile Island cleanup was 14 years, not 40, and cost $1 billion. I think you’ve counted to one strike against the ability of well-functioning societies to operate nuclear safely—-Fukushima—-because $1 billion is pretty negligible in comparison and Chernobyl was operated by a shambolic totalitarian state.
- asah 4y ago
  Technically true, but would you raise a family there? What would your extended family think? Would friends visit? If not, then that land is pretty much tainted and 40 years is generous - several generations maybe required...
  - eru 4y ago
    If it's much cheaper than other land, I would consider. I'm eating produce from Fukushima here in Singapore.
    - ofrzeta 4y ago
      How do you know? I've never seen any produce that specifies the origin beyond the country.
      - eru 4y ago
        In this case, I know because Fukushima ran an ad campaign here. But in general, lots of specialty produce is sold with more specific region information beyond just the country. Especially the Japanese producers are really keen on that. (For a related, but famous example, have a look at wine, especially Champagne which has to be from the Champagne wine region of France.)
        ofrzeta 4y ago
        Yeah, they do that in the framework of the "Appellation of origin". However we are not at the point yet where this applies to Fukushima :-) Anyway, interesting point about the ad campaign, and thanks for the info!
eru 4y ago
Even including the highest profile disasters, nuclear is still massively safer than most other forms of energy. Yes, the diffuse damage is much higher. Btw, there's another problem with nuclear: because of politicking and public opinion, it's very expensive and almost impossible to build new nuclear power plants. Budget and schedule overruns are to be expected. So capital costs are very high.

by asah 4y ago

jeroenhd 4y ago

One problem with nuclear power is that it's often used in areas that are unsuitable for it. Most of the world doesn't have to deal with earthquakes and tsunamis quite as often as Japan does. Most countries would accept foreign aid after a disaster, unlike Japan and the USSR did after their disasters to save face. People also stopped developing reactors when Chernobyl happened. Of course, the Chernobyl reactor was already an outdated reactor by the time it failed, but the problem is clearly visible in reactors that have been maintained and kept for prolonged lifetimes bexause of necessity (for medical supplies, for example). I can imagine a future where renewable energy can serve most of the world's power demand, with nuclear reactors kept as a backup in case of prolonged bad weather draining the batteries/energy stores that keep the excess solar/wind energy. People also several understate the damage traditional coal plants cause to their direct environment, which funnily enough includes excessive radioactive materials. Switching away from nuclear because of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima feels similar to banning planes or skyscrapers after 9/11. Disasters happen and leave incredible death tolls, but they're not common in the slightest. I'd reckon you're far more likely to get sick because of a coal plant leaking coal ash into the air you breathe or the water supply than being nearby enough to a meltdown to be affected. Gas and oil plants suffer far fewer downsides, but they still incur a cost on the environment that some countries have decided to ignore. They use more fuel but require less cleanup if you don't consider complete carbon capture as a necessary cleanup step. Some areas can't get nuclear power. I'd consider the entirety of Japan to be a terrible fit for such power plants because most of the country is either in a disaster zone (tsunamis or earthquakes) or has no access to cooling water. With little access to fossil fuel sources and a highly dense population Japan hasn't exactly had many alternatives for many years, so I understand why they went nuclear anyway, but I wouldn't build a new nuclear plant there now that wind and solar are cheap enough that the supplies need to be maintained artificially in some cases. Areas like Tornado Alley and cities built on top of super vulcanos are also an obviously terrible fit for nuclear power, as are countries plagued by terrorism and corruption, and countries bordering hostile powers with no remorse for the population like Russia and China. However, in a safe country with a decent grid, you can build more safe nuclear reactors than you'll ever need in the places that do qualify. Nuclear can work and it can work a whole lot better than fossil fuels can, but it's not a magical solution that you can just put down anywhere for cheap power like some advocates seem to claim it does. I believe the current anti-nuclear sentiment is largely fueled by unnecessary fear and the freeze on research and construction will have a self-fulfilling prophecy effect as old reactors won't be replaced with newer, more efficient ones, larger and larger percentages of nuclear reactors will be shut down and cost more and more as nobody is willing to invest in them, and more and more unmaintaind reactors will likely suffer accidents.

Nursie 4y ago
> nuclear reactors kept as a backup AFAICT nuclear doesn't work that way, it's best for giving a constant output for years, rather than being able to be brought up and down.
- greenthrow 4y ago
  It in fact does not work that way at all. Nuclear is the worst idea for an on demand power source. A dam is better.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Perhaps backup was the wrong word, what I meant is more like "baseline". Renewables can be scaled up and down much easier than nuclear, so the nuclear power output should be about constant, with wind turbine being stopped to prevent overgeneration.
Dalewyn 4y ago
>Most countries would accept foreign aid after a disaster, unlike Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tomodachi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tomodachi
lost_tourist 4y ago
Renewables currently cannot power "the majority" of the power grid. We don't have the battery (or storage) tech to make it true so that the grid can be stable and reliable without blackouts all the time, and not all areas of the world have the wind/solar they need even we did have cheap dependable massive battery (or storage) structures. Sure it can be achieved in some places with hydro pumping but that certainly isn't true in 90% of the cases. If we want to nip climate change in the bud -now- nuclear is the only chance we have.

concordDance 4y ago

The simple problem is people massively overestimating how dangerous radiation actually is. That land isn't uninhabitable and the vast vast majority of that clean up isn't cost effective on a $/life basis. You could invest that money in healthcare like breast cancer screening and get a much better return once you've done some basic cleanup of the most dangerous spots. But people insist on a clean up to a level almost as good as before rather than being homo economicus... People hear "radiation" and are afraid, even though tire particulates are much more dangerous than living next to Three Mile Island at the time. The evacuation of towns near Fukishima was a mistake, killing far more people than would have died of radiation (check radiation map of Japan, plug in standard radiation cancer models then compare with deaths caused by the evacuation).

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
The simple problem is that nuclear is poor value compared to renewables. Even if you add the cost of storage and a smart grid - which are useful whatever your sources - the total costs of nuclear power are still insanely expensive. And the gap is widening, because renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper. And unlike a nuclear power station, they don't take years to build. [1] According to Lazard, the total costs of nuclear energy - including value writedowns caused by slow building - make it six to twelve times more expensive than utility scale solar. Wind and geo are even cheaper. https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
- concordDance 4y ago
  That's because of a regulatory rachet causing ever increasing safety standards. 1970s reactors and regs were much less sane and didn't value a human life north of a billion dollars like modern ones do.
PaulKeeble 4y ago
We get more intake of radiation from the burning of coal than we do from nuclear power stations. Coal burning causes far more cancer than nuclear reactors have done not to mention the immense damage of all the pollution in the air damaging lungs causing asthma and other respiratory conditions. The public isn't assessing the relative risks rationally.

raverbashing 4y ago

You're not wrong and might I add that the problem with it was that nuclear was weaponized first But at one point we'd need to start handling the failures and accidents with maturity and not with panicked reactions

lost_tourist 4y ago
Nuclear was weaponized first because it's easier to build a nuclear bomb than a nuclear reactor of a power plant size. Also that whole whacky WW2 thing, if Hitler would have won he would have turned russia and the UK into wastelands

imajoredinecon 4y ago

Your link [1] says that the Three Mile Island cleanup was 14 years, not 40, and cost $1 billion. I think you’ve counted to one strike against the ability of well-functioning societies to operate nuclear safely—-Fukushima—-because $1 billion is pretty negligible in comparison and Chernobyl was operated by a shambolic totalitarian state.

asah 4y ago
Technically true, but would you raise a family there? What would your extended family think? Would friends visit? If not, then that land is pretty much tainted and 40 years is generous - several generations maybe required...
- eru 4y ago
  If it's much cheaper than other land, I would consider. I'm eating produce from Fukushima here in Singapore.
  - ofrzeta 4y ago
    How do you know? I've never seen any produce that specifies the origin beyond the country.
    - eru 4y ago
      In this case, I know because Fukushima ran an ad campaign here. But in general, lots of specialty produce is sold with more specific region information beyond just the country. Especially the Japanese producers are really keen on that. (For a related, but famous example, have a look at wine, especially Champagne which has to be from the Champagne wine region of France.)
      - ofrzeta 4y ago
        Yeah, they do that in the framework of the "Appellation of origin". However we are not at the point yet where this applies to Fukushima :-) Anyway, interesting point about the ad campaign, and thanks for the info!

eru 4y ago

Even including the highest profile disasters, nuclear is still massively safer than most other forms of energy. Yes, the diffuse damage is much higher. Btw, there's another problem with nuclear: because of politicking and public opinion, it's very expensive and almost impossible to build new nuclear power plants. Budget and schedule overruns are to be expected. So capital costs are very high.