6 ms·

>there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My ho

>there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility? My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at work today.

Retric 10y ago
Risk X exists has nothing to do with risk Y. Nuclear powerplants increase risks so the local population should be compensated.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Hard to assess that risk. No modern plant has had catastrophic failure like that. Essentially there's no data to extrapolate from.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Fukushima exclusion zone disagrees with you. Sure, if we limited reactors to 'safe' locations that reduces risks, but we still put them in stupid areas such as near fault lines.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      "No modern plant"
      - Retric 10y ago
        "No true Scotsman." There are recent powerplants built with similar designs that would have had similar failure modes. The core issue was the sea wall not the powerplant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant was closer to the quake but it's giant sea wall made a huge difference.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Foul! The Fukushima plants were among the oldest in service. They were indeed not modern in design by any definition.
        Retric 10y ago
        The two direct deaths where from an insufficient sea wall not the reactor design. Saying future reactor designs fix the problem is a mistake. Because again it was not the reactor design that caused their deaths. So again, saying some hypothetical perfect design exists and it would obviously have a large enough see wall, and that is what your defending is a true Scotsman argument. PS: Remember, future designs also have future defects.
        Analog24 10y ago
        When people think of the Fukushima disaster the two direct and unfortunate deaths caused by the insufficient sea wall are not what come to mind. The meltdown of the reactor is the primary concern. If a meltdown had never occurred the Fukushima incident would have never been mentioned on this thread or in any other conversation about the safety issues with nuclear power. So I'm sorry but bringing up the inadequate sea wall is a complete straw man argument when talking about safety issues from nuclear power. Now, back on topic, the nuclear reactor meltdown at Fukushima was caused by a faulty reactor design. Really it was a poorly designed safety system. The Tsunami that came after the initial earthquake took out the backup power generators at the plant. These backup generators were responsible for powering the cooling pumps that are supposed to prevent a meltdown. This is the main fault in the design and one that is not present in modern reactor designs. Modern reactors now have passive safety systems, i.e. if the power fails the safety measures will be triggered automatically and will not depend on outside power to complete their task. One example of this is using an elevated water tower to store the cooling water with a valve that is kept shut electronically. In the case of a power failure the valve would automatically open (since that is where it's in a stable equilibrium) and gravity would 'pump' the cooling water onto the reactor preventing a meltdown.
  - natch 10y ago
    TEPCO had a modern plan to fix the issue before it happened. They decided not to act. Nuclear power takes the decision out of your hands, and puts it in the hands of organizations like that. I prefer something like solar which keeps power in my own control, local, decentralized, not decided by some huge behemoth that is driven by money and actuarial charts.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Yet the topic is, will future nuclear plants be needed to slow global warming? Future plants (indeed all current plants) will include safety plans and devices. Such plants have not had catastrophic events.
- mason240 10y ago
  Sure, but I live underneath an air traffic corridor. I want to be compensated for the chance that a plane crashes into my house.
  - Retric 10y ago
    I doubt the odds of that are anywhere close to the ~2/1,000 odds of a significant nuclear accident over 50 years of operation. Granted, it's hard to get real numbers and future designs may be safer. But, if you include military reactors there have been more than 2 significant accidents per 1,000 reactors. So while some people say they are very safe, people also said that about the Titanic.
natch 10y ago
If your house explodes due to natural gas, your property and that of all your neighbors and their neighbors and the surrounding community isn't contaminated for a period of time exceeding your natural lifespan. If you have a radiation accident instead, it very well may be. The two scenarios are quite different.
- mason240 10y ago
  They are identical scenarios. The only difference is the scale. In both scenarios I am "rolling the dice" on a catastrophic failure in exchange for energy - and if I am home when it happens it will shorten my lifespan significantly.
  - natch 10y ago
    Saying the scenarios are identical doesn't make them so. And scale matters. But... I'd say with truly modern nuclear power, safety is less of an issue. Perception of safety is still an issue. So your home value will go down. No biggie; you may be ok with that. The issue that really bugs me though is that with nuclear, a large government or corporate entity has decided to roll the dice for you on your behalf. With something like solar, there is more possibility for local and individual control. So instead of bond issues, taxes, state-mandated insurance fees, contracts, and control by faceless entities with names like TEPCO who make decisions like "no let's not do the safety retrofit" you get to decide for yourself. And, no gas explosions either! So, the best of both worlds. I prefer local control. Nuclear is too centralized.
    - mason240 10y ago
      The scenarios are the same. Gas explosion: house destroyed, possessions gone, death if I am home, move to a new home. Nuclear incident: house is uninhabitable, possessions gone, possibility of shortened lifespan if I receive excessive radiation, move to a new home. Actually you are right: they aren't the same because the nuclear incident has a better outcome. >I prefer local control. Nuclear is too centralized. I'm willing to bet that you don't actually believe this about any other type of government.
btian 10y ago
You're comparing two different things. If your house explodes, fix the source and rebuild the house. Maybe it's time for a major remodel anyway. If there's a nuclear incident, what are you going to do?
- mason240 10y ago
  The scenarios are the same. Gas explosion: house destroyed, possessions gone, death if I am home, move to a new home. Nuclear incident: house is uninhabitable, possessions gone, possibility of shortened lifespan if I receive excessive radiation, move to a new home
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Gas explosion: House destroyed, you still own the land, you can rebuild on the land. Even if you move to a new home, you can sell the land for the going rate in the are (which will likely drop because more land is coming on the market, but perhaps not too much). Nuclear incident: You own irradiated land. Good luck, maybe the government will buy it off you, or the power company if stipulated as some penalty. One destroys some of your local property, the other destroys the value of all your local property.

Retric 10y ago

Risk X exists has nothing to do with risk Y. Nuclear powerplants increase risks so the local population should be compensated.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Hard to assess that risk. No modern plant has had catastrophic failure like that. Essentially there's no data to extrapolate from.
- Retric 10y ago
  Fukushima exclusion zone disagrees with you. Sure, if we limited reactors to 'safe' locations that reduces risks, but we still put them in stupid areas such as near fault lines.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    "No modern plant"
    - Retric 10y ago
      "No true Scotsman." There are recent powerplants built with similar designs that would have had similar failure modes. The core issue was the sea wall not the powerplant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant was closer to the quake but it's giant sea wall made a huge difference.
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Foul! The Fukushima plants were among the oldest in service. They were indeed not modern in design by any definition.
        Retric 10y ago
        The two direct deaths where from an insufficient sea wall not the reactor design. Saying future reactor designs fix the problem is a mistake. Because again it was not the reactor design that caused their deaths. So again, saying some hypothetical perfect design exists and it would obviously have a large enough see wall, and that is what your defending is a true Scotsman argument. PS: Remember, future designs also have future defects.
        Analog24 10y ago
        When people think of the Fukushima disaster the two direct and unfortunate deaths caused by the insufficient sea wall are not what come to mind. The meltdown of the reactor is the primary concern. If a meltdown had never occurred the Fukushima incident would have never been mentioned on this thread or in any other conversation about the safety issues with nuclear power. So I'm sorry but bringing up the inadequate sea wall is a complete straw man argument when talking about safety issues from nuclear power. Now, back on topic, the nuclear reactor meltdown at Fukushima was caused by a faulty reactor design. Really it was a poorly designed safety system. The Tsunami that came after the initial earthquake took out the backup power generators at the plant. These backup generators were responsible for powering the cooling pumps that are supposed to prevent a meltdown. This is the main fault in the design and one that is not present in modern reactor designs. Modern reactors now have passive safety systems, i.e. if the power fails the safety measures will be triggered automatically and will not depend on outside power to complete their task. One example of this is using an elevated water tower to store the cooling water with a valve that is kept shut electronically. In the case of a power failure the valve would automatically open (since that is where it's in a stable equilibrium) and gravity would 'pump' the cooling water onto the reactor preventing a meltdown.
- natch 10y ago
  TEPCO had a modern plan to fix the issue before it happened. They decided not to act. Nuclear power takes the decision out of your hands, and puts it in the hands of organizations like that. I prefer something like solar which keeps power in my own control, local, decentralized, not decided by some huge behemoth that is driven by money and actuarial charts.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Yet the topic is, will future nuclear plants be needed to slow global warming? Future plants (indeed all current plants) will include safety plans and devices. Such plants have not had catastrophic events.
mason240 10y ago
Sure, but I live underneath an air traffic corridor. I want to be compensated for the chance that a plane crashes into my house.
- Retric 10y ago
  I doubt the odds of that are anywhere close to the ~2/1,000 odds of a significant nuclear accident over 50 years of operation. Granted, it's hard to get real numbers and future designs may be safer. But, if you include military reactors there have been more than 2 significant accidents per 1,000 reactors. So while some people say they are very safe, people also said that about the Titanic.

natch 10y ago

If your house explodes due to natural gas, your property and that of all your neighbors and their neighbors and the surrounding community isn't contaminated for a period of time exceeding your natural lifespan. If you have a radiation accident instead, it very well may be. The two scenarios are quite different.

mason240 10y ago
They are identical scenarios. The only difference is the scale. In both scenarios I am "rolling the dice" on a catastrophic failure in exchange for energy - and if I am home when it happens it will shorten my lifespan significantly.
- natch 10y ago
  Saying the scenarios are identical doesn't make them so. And scale matters. But... I'd say with truly modern nuclear power, safety is less of an issue. Perception of safety is still an issue. So your home value will go down. No biggie; you may be ok with that. The issue that really bugs me though is that with nuclear, a large government or corporate entity has decided to roll the dice for you on your behalf. With something like solar, there is more possibility for local and individual control. So instead of bond issues, taxes, state-mandated insurance fees, contracts, and control by faceless entities with names like TEPCO who make decisions like "no let's not do the safety retrofit" you get to decide for yourself. And, no gas explosions either! So, the best of both worlds. I prefer local control. Nuclear is too centralized.
  - mason240 10y ago
    The scenarios are the same. Gas explosion: house destroyed, possessions gone, death if I am home, move to a new home. Nuclear incident: house is uninhabitable, possessions gone, possibility of shortened lifespan if I receive excessive radiation, move to a new home. Actually you are right: they aren't the same because the nuclear incident has a better outcome. >I prefer local control. Nuclear is too centralized. I'm willing to bet that you don't actually believe this about any other type of government.

btian 10y ago

You're comparing two different things. If your house explodes, fix the source and rebuild the house. Maybe it's time for a major remodel anyway. If there's a nuclear incident, what are you going to do?

mason240 10y ago
The scenarios are the same. Gas explosion: house destroyed, possessions gone, death if I am home, move to a new home. Nuclear incident: house is uninhabitable, possessions gone, possibility of shortened lifespan if I receive excessive radiation, move to a new home
- kbenson 10y ago
  Gas explosion: House destroyed, you still own the land, you can rebuild on the land. Even if you move to a new home, you can sell the land for the going rate in the are (which will likely drop because more land is coming on the market, but perhaps not too much). Nuclear incident: You own irradiated land. Good luck, maybe the government will buy it off you, or the power company if stipulated as some penalty. One destroys some of your local property, the other destroys the value of all your local property.