5 ms·

That’s backwards: it actually means that protecting against nuclear hazards is astronomically expensive, that nukes are borderline unmanageable in the long term

by eecc 4y ago

bboygravity 4y ago
Yeah, that was not what I read in that text. The point the author is trying to get accross is that nuclear is being made unnecesarily expensive. Not nececarily expensive like you seem to claim with no substantiation.
- eecc 4y ago
  A point that is a spin on the data. In the 60s they also used to cover homes in asbestos and lead, do we need to do that again? Also flying airplanes was much cheaper, and safety systems were much more crude; should we go back to LOS navigation? I am not making any unsubstantiated claim, it’s a fact that over the decades risk analyses have determined that such measures were necessary. You’re the ne claiming it was just tree-hugging hysteria.
epups 4y ago
We have had very few nuclear hazards in the past, with very limited impact as shown in this article. Nuclear plants that were really old rarely failed as well, before we added all this regulatory overhead. Weird how something "borderline unmanageable" causes way less damage than the alternatives.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Depends on if you count the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling because the regulators realized the risk was systemic, even though the cause was special. A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. It is still impossible to get private third party insurance for a nuclear plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J...
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. > A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 Severe as in: exploded? people died?
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      > Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. Typical nuclear proponents, trying to shift blame. The $2T is for the nuclear side of things.
      - illiarian 4y ago
        Typical nuclear fearmongers throwing nonsensical number about. "Japan has spent roughly 1 trillion yen ($7.3 billion) annually on the damage caused by the meltdowns at the Fukushima " That amounts to 84 billion dollars. That includes everything, including compensations and decomissioning. The cleanup itself is roughly 30 billion dollars. While the costs are still huge, note: this is for a plant that was both hit by an earthquake and flooded by unprecedented tsunami. Also note: even with all that in mind only one person died as the result of direct radiation exposure, and radiation levels in Fukushima region are normal or below average levels.
        Gwypaas 4y ago
        Lying with numbers? We should rely on the Japanese government instead of random HN:ers defending their pet technology. > The cost of dealing with the aftermath of the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant will reach 21.5 trillion yen, roughly double the government's initial prediction of 11 trillion yen, preliminary calculations released on Dec. 8 by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry have shown. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161209/p2a/00m/0na/009000c https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161209/p2a/00m/0na/00... > While the costs are still huge, note: this is for a plant that was both hit by an earthquake and flooded by unprecedented tsunami. Read again what I said. The cause was special, while the risk was systemic. All western countries require independent core cooling today because there have been too many near-misses with causes related to power failures. > Also note: even with all that in mind only one person died as the result of direct radiation exposure, and radiation levels in Fukushima region are normal or below average levels. Who said anything about radiation? We are talking about cost. The alternative is renewables, which are vastly safer and more economical than nuclear. Again, typical blame shifting. You are not doing nuclear power any service with coal based whataboutism.

That’s backwards: it actually means that protecting against nuclear hazards is astronomically expensive, that nukes are borderline unmanageable in the long term

by eecc 4y ago

That’s backwards: it actually means that protecting against nuclear hazards is astronomically expensive, that nukes are borderline unmanageable in the long term

bboygravity 4y ago

Yeah, that was not what I read in that text. The point the author is trying to get accross is that nuclear is being made unnecesarily expensive. Not nececarily expensive like you seem to claim with no substantiation.

eecc 4y ago
A point that is a spin on the data. In the 60s they also used to cover homes in asbestos and lead, do we need to do that again? Also flying airplanes was much cheaper, and safety systems were much more crude; should we go back to LOS navigation? I am not making any unsubstantiated claim, it’s a fact that over the decades risk analyses have determined that such measures were necessary. You’re the ne claiming it was just tree-hugging hysteria.

epups 4y ago

We have had very few nuclear hazards in the past, with very limited impact as shown in this article. Nuclear plants that were really old rarely failed as well, before we added all this regulatory overhead. Weird how something "borderline unmanageable" causes way less damage than the alternatives.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Depends on if you count the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling because the regulators realized the risk was systemic, even though the cause was special. A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. It is still impossible to get private third party insurance for a nuclear plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J...
- illiarian 4y ago
  > the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. > A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 Severe as in: exploded? people died?
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    > Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. Typical nuclear proponents, trying to shift blame. The $2T is for the nuclear side of things.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      Typical nuclear fearmongers throwing nonsensical number about. "Japan has spent roughly 1 trillion yen ($7.3 billion) annually on the damage caused by the meltdowns at the Fukushima " That amounts to 84 billion dollars. That includes everything, including compensations and decomissioning. The cleanup itself is roughly 30 billion dollars. While the costs are still huge, note: this is for a plant that was both hit by an earthquake and flooded by unprecedented tsunami. Also note: even with all that in mind only one person died as the result of direct radiation exposure, and radiation levels in Fukushima region are normal or below average levels.
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        Lying with numbers? We should rely on the Japanese government instead of random HN:ers defending their pet technology. > The cost of dealing with the aftermath of the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant will reach 21.5 trillion yen, roughly double the government's initial prediction of 11 trillion yen, preliminary calculations released on Dec. 8 by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry have shown. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161209/p2a/00m/0na/009000c https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161209/p2a/00m/0na/00... > While the costs are still huge, note: this is for a plant that was both hit by an earthquake and flooded by unprecedented tsunami. Read again what I said. The cause was special, while the risk was systemic. All western countries require independent core cooling today because there have been too many near-misses with causes related to power failures. > Also note: even with all that in mind only one person died as the result of direct radiation exposure, and radiation levels in Fukushima region are normal or below average levels. Who said anything about radiation? We are talking about cost. The alternative is renewables, which are vastly safer and more economical than nuclear. Again, typical blame shifting. You are not doing nuclear power any service with coal based whataboutism.