5 ms·

I think the engineering and construction is not a solved problem (+nuclear waste). All new plants have construction delays and cost overruns. Of course, one co

by ju-st 11y ago

I think the engineering and construction is not a solved problem (+nuclear waste). All new plants have construction delays and cost overruns. Of course, one could argue that overly strict regulations (which may only exist because of public concerns) are the reason for these problems. But the reason for the safety of the existing reactors are these strict regulations, so I think loosening these rules is not a good idea.

simoncion 11y ago
The US already has many-decades-old well-understood, field-tested fission reactor designs. The construction of those is a solved problem. As I understand it, France and several other countries have substantially newer, field-tested fission reactor designs. I've heard that there exist still-newer fission reactor designs that have not been constructed at large power-plant scale. So, the engineering and construction of the power plant is a solved problem. The political problem of what to do with the fission products is -sadly- not a solved problem in the US. > All new plants have construction delays and cost overruns. Cost overruns are -sadly- a symptom of our not-infrequently-nuts-as-shit federal bidding process. Construction delays are a symptom of our failure to enact a system similar to some other countries where -after a lengthy plan-scrutinization and public comment period- approved public works projects become law and are immune to construction delays due to public outrage, outcry, legal challenge, or general meddling. None of that is unique to fission power plan construction. :)
- afterburner 11y ago
  > delays due to public outrage, outcry, legal challenge, or general meddling I think you're confused. He means delays due to engineering/construction issues, not political issues. If you are claiming these do not exist, then you are out to lunch and not talking seriously. Furthermore, politics is a factor in nuclear safety. Consider that the Fukushima plant life was extended beyond its advisable lifespan. This was almost certainly because the idea looked like the cheaper one at the time, since shutting down a nuclear plant is a lengthy and expensive process. Keeping it running is politically a very tempting option, and such human factors will dominate safety considerations long after anything has been "solved".
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > If you are claiming these do not exist... I'm not. ju-st is implying either that we don't know how to build power plant sized fission reactors, that we've never built and operated one successfully and safely for decades, or both. All projects in the US have delays and cost overruns. I addressed this in my reply to his comment. That doesn't mean that the design and construction of the thing being constructed isn't a solved problem. > Consider that the Fukushima plant life was extended beyond its ["advisable"] lifespan. And yet: > When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly. [0] Nuclear power is less dangerous than even solar power, hydroelectric power, or wind power! > Rooftop solar power has a per terawatt death rate ten times worse than nuclear power because of - I kid you not - people falling off roofs when installing the panel. Hydroelectric power has a worse fatality rate because of dams bursting and flooding people. Even wind power has a worse fatality per terawatt rate - seventy three people have died in windmill related accidents. [0] [0] http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html
    - afterburner 11y ago
      Why is stuff being "solved" part of the discussion at all? Are you accounting for very-low-probability catastrophic scenarios? People are notoriously bad at that. Is this the study that took all roof-related deaths as solar-panel-related? Can you seriously not tell the difference between the danger of centuries-long contamination and waste that is dangerous for thousands of years, vs the very regular, understandable, and limited liability of everyday accidents? Are you a part of the nuclear lobby? Do you like to waste money?
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > Why is stuff being "solved" part of the discussion at all? Because ju-st stated "I think the engineering and construction [of fission reactors] is not a solved problem" [0]. This is untrue. We have well-tested fission reactor designs and know how to put them together. This is a solved problem. > Is this the study that took all roof-related deaths as solar-panel-related? I can't parse this. Would you be so kind as to restate the question? :) I'm not sure why the fact that a nuclear plant (that's been -as you say- running past its optimal design life) that * Got hit with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded * Then got hit immediately after by a twenty foot high tsunami * Then exploded * Then melted down kills fewer people than a single average coal-fired power plant [1] kills every year as a part of normal operation, fails to significantly increase the cancer risk of the majority of on-site containment workers, and fails to create centuries-long contamination [2] fails to make you question your assumptions about the failure modes of these power generation devices. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10259794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10259794 [1] According to http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_01.html http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_01.html , there were 300 such coal plants in the US in 2013. :) [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/04/fukushima-rice_n_6414612.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/04/fukushima-rice_n_64... Four-and-a-half years is far less than 100 or 200 or 500. :)

by ju-st 11y ago

simoncion 11y ago

The US already has many-decades-old well-understood, field-tested fission reactor designs. The construction of those is a solved problem. As I understand it, France and several other countries have substantially newer, field-tested fission reactor designs. I've heard that there exist still-newer fission reactor designs that have not been constructed at large power-plant scale. So, the engineering and construction of the power plant is a solved problem. The political problem of what to do with the fission products is -sadly- not a solved problem in the US. > All new plants have construction delays and cost overruns. Cost overruns are -sadly- a symptom of our not-infrequently-nuts-as-shit federal bidding process. Construction delays are a symptom of our failure to enact a system similar to some other countries where -after a lengthy plan-scrutinization and public comment period- approved public works projects become law and are immune to construction delays due to public outrage, outcry, legal challenge, or general meddling. None of that is unique to fission power plan construction. :)

afterburner 11y ago
> delays due to public outrage, outcry, legal challenge, or general meddling I think you're confused. He means delays due to engineering/construction issues, not political issues. If you are claiming these do not exist, then you are out to lunch and not talking seriously. Furthermore, politics is a factor in nuclear safety. Consider that the Fukushima plant life was extended beyond its advisable lifespan. This was almost certainly because the idea looked like the cheaper one at the time, since shutting down a nuclear plant is a lengthy and expensive process. Keeping it running is politically a very tempting option, and such human factors will dominate safety considerations long after anything has been "solved".
- simoncion 11y ago
  > If you are claiming these do not exist... I'm not. ju-st is implying either that we don't know how to build power plant sized fission reactors, that we've never built and operated one successfully and safely for decades, or both. All projects in the US have delays and cost overruns. I addressed this in my reply to his comment. That doesn't mean that the design and construction of the thing being constructed isn't a solved problem. > Consider that the Fukushima plant life was extended beyond its ["advisable"] lifespan. And yet: > When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly. [0] Nuclear power is less dangerous than even solar power, hydroelectric power, or wind power! > Rooftop solar power has a per terawatt death rate ten times worse than nuclear power because of - I kid you not - people falling off roofs when installing the panel. Hydroelectric power has a worse fatality rate because of dams bursting and flooding people. Even wind power has a worse fatality per terawatt rate - seventy three people have died in windmill related accidents. [0] [0] http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html
  - afterburner 11y ago
    Why is stuff being "solved" part of the discussion at all? Are you accounting for very-low-probability catastrophic scenarios? People are notoriously bad at that. Is this the study that took all roof-related deaths as solar-panel-related? Can you seriously not tell the difference between the danger of centuries-long contamination and waste that is dangerous for thousands of years, vs the very regular, understandable, and limited liability of everyday accidents? Are you a part of the nuclear lobby? Do you like to waste money?
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > Why is stuff being "solved" part of the discussion at all? Because ju-st stated "I think the engineering and construction [of fission reactors] is not a solved problem" [0]. This is untrue. We have well-tested fission reactor designs and know how to put them together. This is a solved problem. > Is this the study that took all roof-related deaths as solar-panel-related? I can't parse this. Would you be so kind as to restate the question? :) I'm not sure why the fact that a nuclear plant (that's been -as you say- running past its optimal design life) that * Got hit with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded * Then got hit immediately after by a twenty foot high tsunami * Then exploded * Then melted down kills fewer people than a single average coal-fired power plant [1] kills every year as a part of normal operation, fails to significantly increase the cancer risk of the majority of on-site containment workers, and fails to create centuries-long contamination [2] fails to make you question your assumptions about the failure modes of these power generation devices. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10259794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10259794 [1] According to http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_01.html http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_01.html , there were 300 such coal plants in the US in 2013. :) [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/04/fukushima-rice_n_6414612.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/04/fukushima-rice_n_64... Four-and-a-half years is far less than 100 or 200 or 500. :)