Comment by Duff | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Duff | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of coal by any stretch of the imagination.

But, you can accurately quantify the risks of coal using current facts, because the direct effects of coal power are measurable. When you stop using coal, the effects start to go away.

Even with rooftop solar, you can measure the risks of maintenance personnel falling off of roofs and production accidents. Again, current risks that can be measured and evaluated. If you take the panel off of your roof, there is zero risk of someone dying as a result of your panel. In the year 2200, I can say conclusively that no human will be injured as a result of the solar panel on my roof.

Nuclear is different, because while the operating lifetime of the plant is dozens of years, it leaves behind waste products which introduce life-threatening risks for hundreds or thousands of years. Nobody on earth has a viable long-term strategy for managing waste products today, nor an ETA for when that strategy will be devised and implemented.

That doesn't mean that nuclear energy is evil or otherwise morally reprehensible -- it is not. But ignoring obvious long term risks by narrowing the scope of what you consider a risk to be is not an apples to apples comparison.

I'm not trying to say you support coal. However, you are trying to saddle the nuclear option with future problems which have not actually happened yet. How is that fair?

FWIW I do not see what is so hard about long term storage of nuclear waste. 1. Go to somewhere which never has earthquakes 2. build a shed 3. put the waste in it

Build a shed? Obviously you do not know about Yucca Mountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_re...

There are, in fact, perfectly good methods for permanently disposing of nuclear waste, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that the waste material be retrievable for a certain period after emplacement. So we have to get rid of it... but keep it close. Therein lies most of the long-term safety issues with storing/disposing of it.

Why do they have that requirement?

From 'Retrievability of high-level nuclear waste from geologic repositories - Regulatory and rock mechanics/design considerations' by Naiem S.Tanious, Mysore S.Nataraja, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Jaak J.K.Daemen, University of Arizona

"The NRC will require retrieval to protect public health and safety in the event the site, design, or operations proves to be unsuitable. Based on performance confirmation data, the NRC will determine whether the repository system or subsystem (natural or engineered) has failed or is expected to fail to meet the performance criteria. If such failure is determined at any time during the preclosure period, the NRC may direct the DOE to retrieve the waste. The DOE could retrieve waste for its own reasons without being directed by the NRC. Such activity, however, must be carried out under applicable NRC regulations governing movement of waste. It should be noted that the NRC retrievability provision in Part 60 is only intended to protect the public radiological health and safety."

Summary: in case the repository method is all screwed up and we gotta put it somewhere else.

<I>Nobody on earth has a viable long-term strategy for managing waste products today,</i>

IIRC this is not true. There are, however, a strategies that people don't like.

Doesn't mean they're not viable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com