8 ms·

We saw another downside of nuclear power in Ukraine: When Russian troops attacked towards Enerhodar and there was shelling in the area the safety of the reacto

• peppertree 4y ago
  Nuclear energy is safe but humans are not.
  • boredemployee 4y ago
    Yep. It's amazing the effort we have to spent to avoid disasters provoked by our own specie.
  • themitigating 4y ago
    Yes. So we have to make decisions with those two factors in mind
  • otikik 4y ago
    We have people dying of breathing complications right now and we have so much CO2 in our atmosphere that we're changing the weather. We need nuclear energy precisely because humans are not safe.
• anonporridge 4y ago
  This is one of the few good arguments against nuclear, especially large installations that produce a huge percentage of a region's power. Even if you can design it in such a way that an external attack is very unlikely to cause a meltdown, it's a juicy and easy target for an adversary to cripple your electricity production. A few dozen well placed missiles might be all you need to take an entire nation that's heavily nuclear dependent to its knees. On the other hand, solar and wind are hugely decentralized and distributed, making an attack that destroys these generators drastically more expensive. An adversary might still be able to take out the grid by targeting transmission infrastructure, but recovering from it should be relatively quick because the actual generators are all still intact. But perhaps this flaw is alleviated by smaller scale reactors that produce a much smaller percentage of a region's electricity.
  • timr 4y ago
    > it's a juicy and easy target for an adversary to cripple your electricity production. A few dozen well placed missiles might be all you need to take an entire nation that's heavily nuclear dependent to its knees. This is true for any other system of centralized energy production, including, notably, the one we have right now.
    • afterburner 4y ago
      Note that we actually have wind and solar right now.
  • bob1029 4y ago
    > An adversary might still be able to take out the grid by targeting transmission infrastructure, but recovering from it should be relatively quick because the actual generators are all still intact. The most difficult part of the grid is the transmission infrastructure. The most valuable, high-lead-time part probably being the HV transformers that live near power plants.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Good planning would include keeping spares out of harm's way. One wonders whether famously-protected Finland keeps spares.
  • Flankk 4y ago
    Nuclear power plants create large amounts of waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years. In the United States, most nuclear waste is stored on site at the plant. This is because there is simply nowhere else to put it. Uranium is a natural material and will eventually run out, much like fossil fuels. In other words, cross nuclear off the list of sustainable energy. Solar energy would be the most obvious sustainable source, we just need better ways of converting the energy.
    • RaitoBezarius 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• tehsauce 4y ago
  Look at the numbers though. Fossil fuels kill many people every year, while nuclear accidents are almost entirely hypothetical. The point of the article is to show that fears like the ones expressed above just aren’t supported by the data.
  • lioeters 4y ago
    > nuclear accidents are almost entirely hypothetical Nothing to see here. > Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima nuclear disaster (2011), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), the Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).
    • tehsauce 4y ago
      All of those accidents combined killed less than 10% of the people that are killed by fossil fuel pollution every single year. Most nuclear accidents are entirely hypothetical.
      • pfdietz 4y ago
        If you have to resort to "it's better than fossil fuels" you have damned nuclear with faint praise. And you have also wasted our time, because nuclear is competing with renewables now, not with fossil fuels.
        • endominus 4y ago
          Okay, how about; it's safer than literally every other method of energy production? Less deaths per thousand terawatt-hours produced (90) than wind (150), solar (440), or hydroelectric (1400). https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
          • pfdietz 4y ago
            I already addressed that argument. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32295591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32295591 If a statistical human life is worth $9 M, then 440 deaths per thousand TWh adds $0.004/kWh to the cost of solar. This cannot overcome the large cost advantage solar and wind have over nuclear in most places (even with storage costs included). Also, the 440 figure is, I believe, assuming rooftop solar. At scale to power the world solar will be mostly ground mounted. If you don't agree with that statistical value, and think it should be higher, why you've just argued we're not imposing enough safety systems on nuclear plants -- because $9 M is the value the NRC uses when determining if additional safety systems are warranted.
• TheDong 4y ago
  Hydroelectric dams typically cause even more damage when they fail, but I rarely see people worrying about whether using them for power will lead to war-time issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure Of course, the Geneva Convention bans attacking dams, just like it bans attacking nuclear power plants. The pollution from burning coal has already killed more people than nuclear disasters conceivably could. If we could use only wind and solar power to fully replace fossil fuels and hydro, that could be a reasonable argument... But it seems unrealistic to get enough energy without using some higher-density sources of energy, whether that's hydro or nuclear or oil, and if we're picking based on which one causes the least death, even accounting for wars and failures, nuclear seems to be a head and shoulder above the rest. The primary thing that seems to be driving using coal plants and not using nuclear is purely monetary cost: nuclear plants take a huge up-front investment, coal plants already exist, and wind/solar can be transitioned to gradually with less up-front cost. The talk about nuclear's "danger" to me seems, quite plausibly, to be a post-facto justification based on not wanting to put up the money.
  • timr 4y ago
    You should note that this is more than a theoretical concern. The world spent months fretting about Mosul dam in Iraq, not that many years ago: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2016/12/11/mosul-dam-collapse-will-be-worse-than-a-nuclear-bomb https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2016/12/11/mosul-dam-coll... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/a-bigger-problem-than-isis https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/a-bigger-probl... Until we live in a world where we can micro-generate terawatts of power on a fully distributed, dynamic electrical grid -- if that's even possible -- the only practical technologies we have for satisfying our hunger for energy involve concentrated areas of high potential energy. Big energy, big target.
  • thatfrenchguy 4y ago
    The other issue with solar/wind of course being that it’s not a suitable electricity source for base load on a grid :-/
    • 4y ago
• squarefoot 4y ago
  Russians never wanted to truly damage any reactor, including the one at Zaporizhzhia; they made some noise to spread fear and remind the world about the dangers of nuclear war and what could happen should anyone think of attacking them over there. Then they seized the reactors to take control of powerful sources of energy so they could cut them at will, then amassed weapons there for being the safest places around. Their strategy there was 50% PsyOps, that is, propaganda, and 50% military tactics. I find it extremely unlikely, but should something nasty happens to any of the Ukrainian nuclear reactors, it will be 99.9% by mistake.
  • Krssst 4y ago
    Could one aim be to increase anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe to further delay/prevent nuclear power development which would reduce dependency on Russian fossil fuels? Although this would have no effect short-term since plants take a long time to build.
• TheDudeMan 4y ago
  When you say "nuclear", do you mean all forms of fission reactors? Or do you mean today's inferior designs? Your comment makes sense in the context of conventional light-water reactors. However, there exist more advanced reactor designs that are essentially meltdown-proof.
  • kuhewa 4y ago
    How close are they to commercial implementation
    • devonkim 4y ago
      The small nuclear reactor designs by NuScale are commercially viable and are going to be approved by the nuclear regulatory commission rather soon. Thorium isn’t as important as the small and modular aspects. Also Gen IV and breeder reactors are basically perfectly viable commercially if it was held to the same kind of scrutiny as most other power sources whether it’s coal or solar. But politically it’s not viable which is expressed by being so hard to finance with long time scales that investors simply don’t have the patience and nobody can raise the capital worthwhile to bother trying. It’s very much a chicken-egg dynamic impeding its viability similar to what popular renewables faced for different reasons for several decades. Note that South Korea and France both have large operational nuclear power that is rather cheap to deploy because they basically copy-paste the same proven design and processes again and again. South Korea in particular has been under constant threat of attack by its neighbors for basically over a thousand years now yet went with nuclear decades ago. Comparatively, Switzerland didn’t choose nuclear for reasons I can’t quite remember even though they are fully capable technologically and in terms of process / bureaucracy able to manage the systems perfectly safely. Unsure about France’s reasoning but it’s difficult to compare power costs between France and neighboring Germany in good faith comparisons of energy policy either due to how different their electrical grid needs are.
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        NuScale is extremely heavily subsidized, both in development (50%) and initial deployments (100%), by US taxpayers. It is absolutely uncompetitive, without.
• Barrin92 4y ago
  particularly relevant because the need for more energy is by far strongest in regions that are geopolitical hotbeds with often unstable governments and threats of terrorism. With nuclear infrastructure both as a target and source for material.
• bob1029 4y ago
  > Solar has less single points of failure and if it fails not much happens On the surface this is very true. However, types of solar have caveats that do not manifest until you have a certain amount of utilization in the grid. Photovoltaics do not contribute to inertia. This is the Newtonian concept that ensures instantaneous voltage stability separate from any active demand/generation management functions. The more inertia you have, the more work it takes to speed up or slow down the grid. Hypothetically, a grid that is 50% PV solar and 50% others would experience severe stability issues if the other class of generation were to be substantially impacted (i.e. your big-bang-for-buck military targets). You cannot run a power grid on PV solar alone. It just won't work at scale.
  • cesarb 4y ago
    > Photovoltaics do not contribute to inertia. Besides "synthetic inertia" on the PV inverters, there exist also synchronous condensers (basically a motor/generator spinning a heavy mass) which can already be found in many substations.
  • throw827474737 4y ago
    > Photovoltaics do not contribute to inertia. This is the Newtonian concept that ensures instantaneous voltage stability separate from any active demand/generation management functions. Wait what, Newton's inertia was about physical objects, not voltage stability? You talking base vs peak demand or what?
    • phyzome 4y ago
      That voltage stability is electromagnetically coupled to huge chunks of spinning iron. That's your inertia. It buffers voltage spikes. Solar, and surprisingly enough wind as well, do not contribute to this stability. It's one of the big challenges we need to figure out.
      • phyzome 4y ago
        Actually, this is something I'm not clear on: Why can't we just add free-spinning "generators" to the grid to contribute inertia?
• criley2 4y ago
  It's a weird argument to say "Nuclear does this, solar does not" as if the two are against one another and you are comparing them. Here, I'll do the same thing: "Nuclear produces power 24/7, while solar can only usefully produce power for ~8 hours a day, or 1/3 of the day". Sure, for that 1/3 of the day, solar does not have political problems like being shut down for danger. However, for 2/3 of the day, nuclear does not have the physics problem of being useless. Each solution has pros and cons and I want my power to come from both.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Solar + storage produces 24/7, overwhelmingly cheaper and without risk of regional poisoning.
    • criley2 4y ago
      Real world grid scale solar + storage is not cheaper, and humanity doesn't even have the battery capacity and won't for some time longer. And speaking of regional poisoning, I guess all of those heavy metal mines in poorer countries creating some quite dystopian scenes of large scale ecological destruction leading to total ecosystem collapse are OK because "NIMBY"! Can't wait to 10X that, especially when I remember that the energy density of nuclear fuels is so insanely high that the mining impact for powering all of humanity on it is something like 50X less than powering all of humanity on lithium batteries!
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        Heavy metal mines, like uranium? Because what other heavy metals are you imagining?
        • criley2 4y ago
          You missed the part (well, you IGNORED the part...) where I talk about energy density. That's obvious because you don't want to compare the amount of lithium required for billions of cars and grid scale solar to cover 16 hours of energy per day. You ignored it because 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Not only is uranium extremely energy dense, but power facilities are extremely small. Nuclear facilities are by far the smallest energy producing facilities, and solar fields are among the largest (both in terms of space and raw materials). This produces mining and material savings at every single step. A world powered by Uranium only would require probably somewhere between 10,000X to 100,000 less mining than a world powered by solar batteries. The energy density of uranium is truly amazing.
• SapporoChris 4y ago
  You do have a relevant point. In time of war safety of many things cannot be guaranteed. However, I promise you, for the Ukrainians the bigger issue is not the reactor. It is a concern, but it is not the major concern.
  • sph 4y ago
    While Russia has been irresponsible with how they dealt with Ukrainian nuclear reactors, I don't think they're that much of a problem in case of invasion as you suggest: if an attacker really wants your land, they'd prefer if it is not covered by nuclear fallout.
• dongobongo 4y ago
  In some respects, vulnerability to attack is a feature, not a flaw for promoting peace and collaboration instead of violence. A country with nuclear reactors is less likely to piss neighbors off enough to lead to an invasion. If invasion occurs, everyone will be extra careful. A country with nuclear reactors is less likely to be bombed to shit by other countries due to the reactor's radioactivity inventory potentially containing other countries as well as the country in question - ie. don't spoil the prize.
  • josephcsible 4y ago
    > In some respects, vulnerability to attack is a feature, not a flaw for promoting peace and collaboration instead of violence. A country with nuclear reactors is less likely to piss neighbors off enough to lead to an invasion. That feels like saying "a woman who's not allowed to carry pepper spray is less likely to dress provocatively enough to lead to getting raped".
• jaredklewis 4y ago
  That’s an interesting, theoretical point. The containment structures around a nuclear plants are designed to withstand forces more powerful than even advanced artillery, so there’s really no chance a stray rocket breaks the structure. A concerted effort is a possibility, but it’s not a tactic we’ve ever see used so far and I think the strategic value of doing so is limited. If an adversary had a fully subterranean power grid, maybe an attack on a nuclear plant could make sense, but that’s hypothetical because most energy infrastructure around the world is not protected in anyway. But another takeaway from the current conflict is how incredible nuclear is at shoring up energy security. A nuclear plant can easily keep 18 months of fuel onsite as required storage space is trivial. A 2 or 3 year strategic reserve of uranium would likewise be a trivial project. Meanwhile other base load sources like coal need dozens of rail cars worth of coal every single day. Gas needs a pipeline or again daily shipments of LNG. So now Russia has cut off the gas and energy costs in Europe are exploding and they are having to build out tons of new LNG infrastructure. Russia can basically turn the heat off in Europe because they under invested in nuclear power.
• _Algernon_ 4y ago
  In peace time CO2 emissions from nuclear are at the same order of magnitude as hydro. Similarly, the number of deaths per twh produced is also similar to hydro. Both are at least an order of magnitude lower than coal. A hydro plant can be attacked in a war situation just as much as a nuclear plant, so I don't see how that should be weighted as highly as you seem to imply. In fact, I'd argue that energy dependence on nations such as Russia are a much higher risk to geopolitical stability than nuclear power.
  • donny2018 4y ago
    Also, we can build a nuclear plant in a desert country (where I live), but not much hydro. In fact, our hydro plants are generating less and less energy every year as our rivers are drying up.
    • liuzs 4y ago
      Sadly nuclear plants cannot run without cooling water from rivers or sea.
      • donny2018 4y ago
        True, but again there is Palo Verde nuclear plant that is located in the middle of the desert in Arizona and is cooled by sewage water from nearby cities. Some new fast reactor designs don't even need water for cooling. Also, China has built an experimental thorium reactor in Gobi desert which also doesn't need water for cooling. I believe a lot if interesting stuff is coming in a few years.
        • ncmncm 4y ago
          Just, not nuclear stuff.
          • donny2018 4y ago
            What does that mean
• Gatsky 4y ago
  A counterpoint is that wind and solar are impossible to defend in a conflict (especially off-shore wind), and can be irretrievably wrecked with minimal risk to the attacking force. I don't think this should be any sort of impediment to putting renewables everywhere we can though. If there is a war big enough that countries are destroying each other's energy infrastructure we'll almost all be dead anyway. Nuclear winters will kill solar production (and also most of the demand, I guess).
• internet_user 4y ago
  Solar leaks heavy metals into top soil. Most of solar is not recycled properly. Nobody seems to worry about that at all. If a solar facility gets carpet bombed during a war, you think it's more likely it will all just get somewhat cleaned up, and lots of it will be left in-situ and plowed over, or someone will actually remove every little dust particle? I think the lazy way out is what is most likely.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    There is no heavy metal in solar to leak. If you have to make shit up to support your argument, why even bother?
    • internet_user 4y ago
      what? Lead and cadmium ARE heavy metals. You didn't know? https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/OR-1695.pdf https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/OR-1695.pdf "Solar panel waste can include heavy metals such as silver, lead, arsenic and cadmium that – at certain levels – may be classified as hazardous waste"
• stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Balancing that against the future of the planet, I know which one I'll choose; nuclear all day long.