4 ms·

With just a few "minor" issues with safety and waste.

by thesimon 11y ago

ghouse 11y ago
And high cost (relatively speaking to wind in windy areas, sun in sunny areas, and natural gas in North America)
zajd 11y ago
How is being the safest way to generate power an issue, wouldn't that be a benefit?
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  False premisis: it's not the safest method (see SSREN, the IPCC's study of carbon-neutral energy generation). It is safer than fossil fuel generation, but not solar and wind, nor, in Europe and America, hydro (India and especially China have had some spectacular hydro failures). More specifically, when nuclear works well, it works very, very well. When it fails, however, it fails especially spectacularly.
  - zajd 11y ago
    Actually, it is http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#587be0a549d2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      That's not accessible. As I said: IPCC's SRREN gives mortality/GWh statistics, and nuclear is not the safest, by that measure. Data included Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but not Fukushima. Actually, I've previously discussed both here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are_your_arguments_concerning_nuclear_power/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are... NB: Conca is a rather partisan pro-nuclear advocate. I've found his credibility wanting and bias quite evident in past. The IPCC's report: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ Risks are in one of the appendixes (I'm not on a device which makes sorting this out trivial at the moment).
      - wbc 11y ago
        the report is 1088 pages and has appendices everywhere, can you point out where you found the risk comparison? A ctr-f for risk finds 511 uses
        dredmorbius 11y ago
        One of the appendices is risks of differrent generating methods. Should show up in the table of contents. And yeah, I know it's long....
        dredmorbius 11y ago
        Starting at p. 993: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf And p. 745: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob2 11y ago
With just a few "minor" issues with safety History shows that nuclear power is very safe as long as you don't build the plants in tsunami-prone seismic zones, operate them for decades beyond their intended service life, or allow a bunch of unhinged Russians to play "Hold my vodka and watch this" in the control room. ...and waste. We've also learned that disposal of radioactive waste isn't a problem as long as you mix it with carbon-combustion products and spew it into the air, like coal plants do. Out of sight, out of mind appears to be the optimal way to deal with deadly pollution.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  On nuclear safety, consider that France runs on something like 80% nuclear power. Hardly anyone knows this, because French nuclear plants are run well, and haven't had any disasters.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    A few years ago you could have said the same about japan.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      I can't remember where I read it, but Japan apparently has a history of playing fast and loose with nuclear stuff. Their safety record prior to Fukushima was far from spotless.
      - tobltobs 11y ago
        After a nuclear accident in France you will be able to read the same about the "safety record" in France. The safety record of eg. Fessenheim does not sound reassuring.
        CamperBob2 11y ago
        Regardless, it would take a pretty bad nuclear accident to do as much harm as existing carbon-based power plants do when operating as designed. Not all harm involves glowing green blobs of radioactive doom on CNN.

With just a few "minor" issues with safety and waste.

ghouse 11y ago

And high cost (relatively speaking to wind in windy areas, sun in sunny areas, and natural gas in North America)

zajd 11y ago

How is being the safest way to generate power an issue, wouldn't that be a benefit?

dredmorbius 11y ago
False premisis: it's not the safest method (see SSREN, the IPCC's study of carbon-neutral energy generation). It is safer than fossil fuel generation, but not solar and wind, nor, in Europe and America, hydro (India and especially China have had some spectacular hydro failures). More specifically, when nuclear works well, it works very, very well. When it fails, however, it fails especially spectacularly.
- zajd 11y ago
  Actually, it is http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#587be0a549d2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    That's not accessible. As I said: IPCC's SRREN gives mortality/GWh statistics, and nuclear is not the safest, by that measure. Data included Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but not Fukushima. Actually, I've previously discussed both here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are_your_arguments_concerning_nuclear_power/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are... NB: Conca is a rather partisan pro-nuclear advocate. I've found his credibility wanting and bias quite evident in past. The IPCC's report: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ Risks are in one of the appendixes (I'm not on a device which makes sorting this out trivial at the moment).
    - wbc 11y ago
      the report is 1088 pages and has appendices everywhere, can you point out where you found the risk comparison? A ctr-f for risk finds 511 uses
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        One of the appendices is risks of differrent generating methods. Should show up in the table of contents. And yeah, I know it's long....
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        Starting at p. 993: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf And p. 745: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

CamperBob2 11y ago

With just a few "minor" issues with safety History shows that nuclear power is very safe as long as you don't build the plants in tsunami-prone seismic zones, operate them for decades beyond their intended service life, or allow a bunch of unhinged Russians to play "Hold my vodka and watch this" in the control room. ...and waste. We've also learned that disposal of radioactive waste isn't a problem as long as you mix it with carbon-combustion products and spew it into the air, like coal plants do. Out of sight, out of mind appears to be the optimal way to deal with deadly pollution.

clock_tower 11y ago
On nuclear safety, consider that France runs on something like 80% nuclear power. Hardly anyone knows this, because French nuclear plants are run well, and haven't had any disasters.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  A few years ago you could have said the same about japan.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    I can't remember where I read it, but Japan apparently has a history of playing fast and loose with nuclear stuff. Their safety record prior to Fukushima was far from spotless.
    - tobltobs 11y ago
      After a nuclear accident in France you will be able to read the same about the "safety record" in France. The safety record of eg. Fessenheim does not sound reassuring.
      - CamperBob2 11y ago
        Regardless, it would take a pretty bad nuclear accident to do as much harm as existing carbon-based power plants do when operating as designed. Not all harm involves glowing green blobs of radioactive doom on CNN.