6 ms·
Nuclear power is very safe if run by sensible humans without external pressure. I just don't trust humans to accomplish this for the next thousand years withou
by std_throwaway 10y ago
Nuclear power is very safe if run by sensible humans without external pressure.
I just don't trust humans to accomplish this for the next thousand years without fail. Even less if a nuclear power plant is run for profit. Even less if storage of nuclear waste does not give off any profit and safe storage needs to be ensured for thousands of years.
- CmdrSprinkles 10y agoThis is also a largely solved problem in the form of self contained plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_autonomous_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_... Basically, the idea is that you remove the human factor where possible (and modern robotics/drone technology can handle where humans ARE needed... to a degree) and build it with the focus on protecting that valuable waste from bad folk. There are definitely some concerns still, but this combined with much safer reactor technology gets rid of a lot of the concerns. One of the big problems is that even a lot of existing tech is still very old because people are terrified of nuclear energy and don't want to build new stuff. Which leads to making do with old stuff and finding ways to retrofit. Which is basically NASA's problem just with fear instead of apathy leading to crap budgets.
- PolLambert 10y agoNew nuclear power plants are designed to be safe even when run by unsensible humans (up to 72h) Any nuclear storage has to designed to be safe and secure from the second you close it up, irrespective of what humans will be doing the next thousands of years. (except of course, deliberately opening said storage)
- std_throwaway 10y agoI'm not aware that we have such storage and I'm very sure that we have not tested such storage for long-term stability.
- mikeash 10y agoI question the generally-accepted necessity of such storage. Yes, nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years. But chemical waste such as arsenic and mercury remain dangerous forever, but we don't take anything like those precautions when disposing of those.
- edblarney 10y agoCANDU reactors in Canada, I think are designed to be run by nobody at all. They require heavy water to keep the reaction going. No heavy water, it just cools down. If anything 'breaks' - no heavy water, no chain reaction. I'm grossly oversimplifying, but you get the idea. I suggest that if we actually put our minds to it, we could develop a kind of 'dumb reactor' that didn't require any kind of intervention at all, other than maintenance.
- CmdrSprinkles 10y agoAlready done and has been for a while. Here is a quick wiki article on the subject/an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_autonomous_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_... Plenty more can be found if you have access to read actual articles and not just wikipedia
- kalleboo 10y agoI also don't trust humans to handle nuclear power safely. But the types of grids and storage systems needed for renewables are not quite on the horizon, and right now the alternative is fossil fuels which have a far worse track record than nuclear. Nuclear worst case is a localized area is poisoned for generations. Fossil fuels best case is the whole planet becomes a struggle for human life. Can't we hedge our bets?
- ageofwant 10y agoThe area directly surrounding Chernobyl is a lush green wildlife haven. Its paradise compared to say, Sydney CBD.
- wojt_eu 10y agoIn the mean time coal power plants kill more people than Chernobyl disaster every year. "A United Nations study estimates the final total of premature deaths associated with the disaster will be around 4000, mostly from an estimated 3% increase in cancers which are already common causes of death in the region." - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/) "Air pollution from Europe's 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european... [Edit] I just took top results from Google, without much research. My point is that even though I fear nuclear disasters too, we should try and compare numbers and trade-offs.
- perlpimp 10y agocoal soot is also radioactive. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- walkingolof 10y agoNuclear disasters are more permanent and thus a bigger risk, I live in a place where it rained on that day in -86, we still have not gone back to normal, fishing, hunting etc
- mikeash 10y agoHow long will it take for the mercury emitted by coal plants to leave the ecosystem?
- tobltobs 10y agoOne of the standard arguments of nuclear power supporter is that radioactive materials exist naturally in soil and rock, therefore the additional radiation caused by by nuclear waste is neglect able. Is there any reason why nuclear power supporters do not apply the same logic to other energy sources?
- hueving 10y agoClassic irrational fear. Even with the old reactors included, how many deaths has nuclear caused compares to coal/natural gas? I would rather have us running on 100 fukushima era plants than the stupidity of continually burning dinosaurs until we ruin the environment.
- rimantas 10y agoYou can include hydro too. Banqiao Dam. Or Sayano–Shushenskaya power station accident in 2009 if you want more recent one.
- ceejayoz 10y agoBanqiao Dam killed one hundred seventy one THOUSAND people, for anyone who's skimming past. If a nuclear plant killed that many it'd be the end of nuclear power.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoBut nuclear power can kill slowly over decades. Can we come up with the true number of deaths (or shortened lives) from radiation? Its hard to compare.
- ceejayoz 10y ago> Can we come up with the true number of deaths (or shortened lives) from radiation? Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_... Estimates will range a bit, but we can say with complete confidence that all nuclear accidents thus far haven't come anywhere near that one dam failure.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoReading that page, I see estimates from 1/10 to 10X the dam failure. I can't see how it could be said "haven't come anywhere near"