3 ms·

As with many article about proponents of power from nuclear fission it totally misses the cost rise due to future accidents. If past is any indication, those wi

by fpoling 11y ago

As with many article about proponents of power from nuclear fission it totally misses the cost rise due to future accidents. If past is any indication, those will inevitably happen increasing the operation cost for all plants. We literally export the cost of dealing with the mess into the future to get cheaper prices now.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> We literally export the cost of dealing with the mess into the future to get cheaper prices now. That's true of a lot more than nuclear fission...
BurningFrog 11y ago
> If past is any indication, those will inevitably happen increasing the operation cost for all plants. What we can learn from the past is that advanced technologies become much safer over time. I don't have the numbers here, but air travel is maybe 1000 times safer than when it started. So I'd be very confident assuming the accident rate in the future to be vastly less than during the first few decades of nuclear energy.
- fpoling 11y ago
  The problem is that total potential harm from a nuclear accident is very big. It is limited, but if the limit is all fission materials from the reactor dispersed into the air or used to produce a real nuke by terrorists, then the cost can be loss of millions human lives. Compare that with aviation where the worst that can happen is a loss of airplane and few buildings. Given this potential threat anything that will be discovered to increase its probability will increase operation cost of reactors in the future. This is just not the case with planes. There minimizing the risk beyond a certain threshold is sufficient especially since it is known that an error in estimation of that threshold is bounded.
  - BurningFrog 11y ago
    > the cost can be loss of millions human lives Can it really? That would be an order of magnitude worse than the Hiroshima bomb.
greg5green 11y ago
Oil, natural gas and coal also transport these costs into the future. Why does this stop nuclear and not them?
- fpoling 11y ago
  Oh, this must stop oil and gas even faster than nuclear as the total potential harm is catastrophic climate change that one cannot rule out. It is just the article talks about operation costs of nuclear completely ignoring future costs increases.
erkkie 11y ago
I'll just put this out here https://www.quora.com/How-does-nuclear-energy-compare-to-other-sources-of-energy-in-deaths-per-kWh https://www.quora.com/How-does-nuclear-energy-compare-to-oth... (per kwh nuclear kills less than coal)

by fpoling 11y ago

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> We literally export the cost of dealing with the mess into the future to get cheaper prices now. That's true of a lot more than nuclear fission...

BurningFrog 11y ago

> If past is any indication, those will inevitably happen increasing the operation cost for all plants. What we can learn from the past is that advanced technologies become much safer over time. I don't have the numbers here, but air travel is maybe 1000 times safer than when it started. So I'd be very confident assuming the accident rate in the future to be vastly less than during the first few decades of nuclear energy.

fpoling 11y ago
The problem is that total potential harm from a nuclear accident is very big. It is limited, but if the limit is all fission materials from the reactor dispersed into the air or used to produce a real nuke by terrorists, then the cost can be loss of millions human lives. Compare that with aviation where the worst that can happen is a loss of airplane and few buildings. Given this potential threat anything that will be discovered to increase its probability will increase operation cost of reactors in the future. This is just not the case with planes. There minimizing the risk beyond a certain threshold is sufficient especially since it is known that an error in estimation of that threshold is bounded.
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  > the cost can be loss of millions human lives Can it really? That would be an order of magnitude worse than the Hiroshima bomb.

greg5green 11y ago

Oil, natural gas and coal also transport these costs into the future. Why does this stop nuclear and not them?

fpoling 11y ago
Oh, this must stop oil and gas even faster than nuclear as the total potential harm is catastrophic climate change that one cannot rule out. It is just the article talks about operation costs of nuclear completely ignoring future costs increases.

erkkie 11y ago

I'll just put this out here https://www.quora.com/How-does-nuclear-energy-compare-to-other-sources-of-energy-in-deaths-per-kWh https://www.quora.com/How-does-nuclear-energy-compare-to-oth... (per kwh nuclear kills less than coal)