Hacker News Reader

Comment by nl | Hacker News Reader

I agree with this entirely. I think too many self-declared science-minded people buy into the argument that "nuclear is a good solution" without looking at the numbers or risks. Whilst I understand the costs of fossil fuel use, I think that the distribution of risks associated with nuclear power makes cost estimation a lot more difficult that proponents assume (ie, safe almost always, very rare disasters that cause huge disruption).

However, my understanding is that Thorium-based fission reactors[1] reduce the risks somewhat. I haven't looked into this enough myself to decide either way, but I do have an open mind.

Fusion, OTOH is a totally different story. Maybe, one day we'll get that to work reliably and cheaply. I find it difficult to imagine a more significant change to the world we know.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

View on HN

That's why the reactor can use thorium! There are big benefits. But frankly all advanced reactors are cooled by natural forces so are immune to fuel overheating. The challenge is more that the consequences of accidents are way overestimated. Nobody died from radiation at Fukushima, and no one is going to. The land is not uninhabitable, some bureaucrat who sets limits non-scientifically just says it is. If people actually paid attention to data and not just assume things based on what pop culture or some bureaucrat has falsely led them to believe, people would realize the consequences of catastrophic meltdowns just aren't that bad. They shouldn't happen, but we shouldn't speculate wildly about indirect costs that are generally made up and use that as a basis for their thoughts on nuclear power. Your comments are right on in that people need to investigate nuclear. I find most people who do, find it to be a great option, while it is generally those who are opposed that didn't like it at the onset without knowing much about it and then refused to learn about it. That is why the opponents are the significant minority in the US. So your advice is good, but it's directed at the wrong crowd.

It might be worth noting that you are one of the founders of UPower.

WHO estimates the increased cancer risk of people living inside the Fukushima Prefecture as being up to 70% higher (thyroid cancer for girls exposed as infants)[1]. Numerous other studies indicate increased cancer risk[2].

During the Fukushima meltdown, radiation levels of 3–170 μSv/h (= 17 mrem/hour) were measured within 30 km of the reactor[2]. Safe levels are 5000 mrem/year[3].

As I understand it, many argue that these of cancer risk estimates are high. I'll be happy to change my mind once medical scientist working in the field change theirs.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-japan-nuclear-c...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk...

[3] http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/info.h...

To some degree, thorium is snake oil. They have some interesting properties and there are designs proposed that feature passive safety systems, but they remain largely unproven and they aren't the magic that people seem to often claim.

When it comes down to it, power generation is always risky. Reasonable efficiency demands that any power plant tries to maximize energy density, which is fundamentally in conflict with safety. Even solar and wind have risks, though obviously they are smaller than nuclear, coal or natural gas (though wind and solar are a different class of power generation and don't necessarily compete with those).

The main risks in nuclear power are loss of coolant, containment breach or a prompt criticality event. Thorium reactors are vulnerable to all of the above, but of course designs exploit various properties to mitigate the risk. The most famous thorium design is the liquid salt design, which is not as susceptible to loss of coolant flow accidents due to a reactivity feedback mechanism (it's subcritical if the liquid fuel stops being circulated), but it isn't inherently superior to other modern passively safe designs.

The real reason to be interested in thorium is that it has reduced proliferation concern and also thorium is available in places where uranium is rare (India). But it isn't fundamentally safer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com