13 ms·

> "This bit's in backward" This is why I'm against nuclear power. As safe as the technology could be, it still run by humans who make errors. If you think a b

> "This bit's in backward" This is why I'm against nuclear power. As safe as the technology could be, it still run by humans who make errors. If you think a bit being put in backwards isn't a big deal, check out the history of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. > The San Onofre station had technical problems over the years. In July 1982, Time wrote, "The firm Bechtel was ... embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre. Backwards. The reactor was installed backwards. It goes on. > In 2008, the San Onofre plant received multiple citations over issues such as failed emergency generators, improperly wired batteries and falsified fire safety data. In its annual review of 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified improvements but noted that in the area of human performance, "corrective actions to date have not resulted in sustained and measurable improvement”. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...

lochlainn 10y ago
>> falsified fire safety data In a situation where something that severe (and malicious) is found, what would even be the short-term response? Are the management of the plant completely replaced?
- lightbyte 10y ago
  I would hope someone went to jail for such an extremely dangerous form of fraud.
  - xorblurb 10y ago
    Well, falsification of certificates seems to be quite common by nuclear subcontractors, and depending of the number of alternative shops able to do (kind of) the same thing (minus or plus correct quality...) those who falsify stuff might get away with a mere slap on the wrist and safety authorities telling them that it is bad, don't do it again.
tonmoy 10y ago
Are you implying installing something backwards is catastrophically dangerous?
- MichaelApproved 10y ago
  I'm saying it catastrophically destroys my trust in the industry. You're saying that you trust an industry that... > In 2008, the San Onofre plant received multiple citations over issues such as failed emergency generators, improperly wired batteries and falsified fire safety data. In its annual review of 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified improvements but noted that in the area of human performance, "corrective actions to date have not resulted in sustained and measurable improvement”. There's a history of human error and negligence within the industry. That history of errors and negligence is why I am against nuclear power.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    That itself is not a strong argument against nuclear power - because the exact same thing happens in every industry. If you look around carefully - at your workplace, at the shop you buy your food in, at the construction workers building that block nearby - you'll find staggering amount of fraud and incompetence almost everywhere. It actually makes one wonder how our increasingly complex world still somewhat works. So keeping in mind that incompetence and fraud are commonplace and not something industry-specific, you have to consider what the numbers tell you about the safety of each option, and those numbers turn out to favour nuclear energy. Keep in mind that those statistics implicitly take into account all that incompetence and fraud you're worried about.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Another view is that this demonstrates that the plants are engineered to be safe enough that despite these types of mistakes, incompetence and fraud, nuclear costs far fewer lives than the alternatives.
    - lutorm 10y ago
      That argument sounds precipitously close to the reasoning that led to the Challenger disaster: "Even though this isn't supposed to happen, we've seen it before and it was fine" leading to a slow eroding of safety margins over time until at some point the shit hits the fan.
bgentry 10y ago
I think this is not an argument against nuclear power, but an argument against the very complicated reactor designs that are in widespread use. Because they start with an inherently unsafe design, they can only be made safe with many layers of protective measures. Newer reactor designs can avoid these issues. On a personal note, I grew up about 10-15 miles north of San Onofre, and I don't think many folks had an idea of how poorly that facility was run.
- MichaelApproved 10y ago
  > Newer reactor designs can avoid these issues. I have a fundamental mistrust of the industry and our government's ability to properly regulate it. That mistrust is based on historical facts. Even with newer designs, I think human error and regulatory capture is too dangerous to make nuclear viable.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    Which is shame, because it could just fix so many of our energy problems.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      It's the only viable fix we have currently, and if I were elected god king of a nation I would push initiatives to build not only enough capacity with atomic power to meet demand but excess to keep costs very low. People are worried about automation, the nation that can cheaply power automated factories and server farms in the future will prosper.
      - killjoywashere 10y ago
        Solar and wind have no catastrophic downside, and storage is a tractable problem. A chronically small, grey-haired workforce that the population depends on both to power their lives and prevent catastrophe makes that workforce too powerful. It becomes a governance problem. I highly recommend The Dictator's Handbook for more insight on this.
avar 10y ago
Being against nuclear for trivial reasons like these is why we have the alternative: coal plants. Those kill an estimated 300,000 thousand people per year[1]. It's only recently that renewables have become a realistic alternative in some (but not all) cases, but for decades we've had people dropping like flies due to coal, entirely because the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere as big of a deal by comparison. 1. https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/...
- MichaelApproved 10y ago
  > the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere as big of a deal by comparison. Science illiteracy has nothing to do with it. The industry has a history of non-trivial reasons for mistrust. Regarding coal plant deaths, I'm not in favor of coal either. The sooner we can move away from fossil the better.
  - kemiller 10y ago
    Statistical innumeracy is what causes the exaggerated categorical fear of nuclear's risks vs the empirical and very present risks posed by fossil fuels. You don't get to just "be against" fossil fuels; you have to propose a credible alternative. Wind and solar are just now starting to become credible, and aren't even all the way there yet. If we had had a less hysterical nuclear policy 40 years ago we would not be in as bad shape now as we are. AND we would also not be stuck with 1960s reactor designs.
  - avar 10y ago
    Yes it is science illiteracy. It's being blind to a much larger diffuse harm in the face of some concentrated but much smaller harm. It's arguably the most harmful kind of science illiteracy because it has the biggest impact on public policy. Everything from people opposing mandatory seat belt laws, to being overly concerned about e.g. genetically modified food or cell phone tower radiation. I'm sure you mean well, but really, people who hold exactly the opinion you hold are in the aggregate the reason for literally millions of deaths that didn't need to happen worldwide since WWII. We had all the data to indicate that burning fossil fuels was causing massive diffuse harm, nuclear was realistically the only alternative in most cases, but people didn't go for it because they were afraid, even though all the science showed that there was little to worry about in comparison to what we were already doing. Sure someone installed a reactor backwards, but how are minor incidents like these at all relevant compared to literally tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year because we keep using the alternative?
criddell 10y ago
What power sources do you prefer? Coal and other fossil fuels are probably even more deadly than nuclear. What else is viable today?
- MichaelApproved 10y ago
  Wind, solar, dams and wave. They may not replace coal and other fossil fuels today but we can substitute a lot of our energy needs with a concerted effort into those renewables.
  - vkou 10y ago
    I've got some bad news about hydro dams for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st... > 1,917 deaths > 26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless. > 1800 - 25000 people killed > 75 fatalities, due to turbine failure There's also the part where we have tapped out the Earth's exploitable hydro capacity. Hydro output is expected to grow by ~20% by 2050. [1] Unfortunately, it needs to grow by ~200%, if we want it to replace even half of the electricity currently generated by coal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Future_potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Future_potent...
    - markvdb 10y ago
      A large part of hydro actually is storage rather than production though. It's most valuable as a stabiliser for the electricity network.
      - vkou 10y ago
        Yes, but it also doubles up as a fairly reliable source of baseline power. It's a great energy source. It's also incredibly dangerous, and cannot replace coal.
    - djsumdog 10y ago
djsumdog 10y ago
You should read up on Browns Ferry Nuclear in Alabama. BFN has three reactors but one was taken out of service for decades because an engineer was checking for leaks on a hose using a flame and set the insulation on fire. Also they had a fin on one of the turbines of another reactor break off and it the reactor wall in the mid-2000s.

lochlainn 10y ago

>> falsified fire safety data In a situation where something that severe (and malicious) is found, what would even be the short-term response? Are the management of the plant completely replaced?

lightbyte 10y ago
I would hope someone went to jail for such an extremely dangerous form of fraud.
- xorblurb 10y ago
  Well, falsification of certificates seems to be quite common by nuclear subcontractors, and depending of the number of alternative shops able to do (kind of) the same thing (minus or plus correct quality...) those who falsify stuff might get away with a mere slap on the wrist and safety authorities telling them that it is bad, don't do it again.

tonmoy 10y ago

Are you implying installing something backwards is catastrophically dangerous?

MichaelApproved 10y ago
I'm saying it catastrophically destroys my trust in the industry. You're saying that you trust an industry that... > In 2008, the San Onofre plant received multiple citations over issues such as failed emergency generators, improperly wired batteries and falsified fire safety data. In its annual review of 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified improvements but noted that in the area of human performance, "corrective actions to date have not resulted in sustained and measurable improvement”. There's a history of human error and negligence within the industry. That history of errors and negligence is why I am against nuclear power.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  That itself is not a strong argument against nuclear power - because the exact same thing happens in every industry. If you look around carefully - at your workplace, at the shop you buy your food in, at the construction workers building that block nearby - you'll find staggering amount of fraud and incompetence almost everywhere. It actually makes one wonder how our increasingly complex world still somewhat works. So keeping in mind that incompetence and fraud are commonplace and not something industry-specific, you have to consider what the numbers tell you about the safety of each option, and those numbers turn out to favour nuclear energy. Keep in mind that those statistics implicitly take into account all that incompetence and fraud you're worried about.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Another view is that this demonstrates that the plants are engineered to be safe enough that despite these types of mistakes, incompetence and fraud, nuclear costs far fewer lives than the alternatives.
  - lutorm 10y ago
    That argument sounds precipitously close to the reasoning that led to the Challenger disaster: "Even though this isn't supposed to happen, we've seen it before and it was fine" leading to a slow eroding of safety margins over time until at some point the shit hits the fan.

bgentry 10y ago

I think this is not an argument against nuclear power, but an argument against the very complicated reactor designs that are in widespread use. Because they start with an inherently unsafe design, they can only be made safe with many layers of protective measures. Newer reactor designs can avoid these issues. On a personal note, I grew up about 10-15 miles north of San Onofre, and I don't think many folks had an idea of how poorly that facility was run.

MichaelApproved 10y ago
> Newer reactor designs can avoid these issues. I have a fundamental mistrust of the industry and our government's ability to properly regulate it. That mistrust is based on historical facts. Even with newer designs, I think human error and regulatory capture is too dangerous to make nuclear viable.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Which is shame, because it could just fix so many of our energy problems.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    It's the only viable fix we have currently, and if I were elected god king of a nation I would push initiatives to build not only enough capacity with atomic power to meet demand but excess to keep costs very low. People are worried about automation, the nation that can cheaply power automated factories and server farms in the future will prosper.
    - killjoywashere 10y ago
      Solar and wind have no catastrophic downside, and storage is a tractable problem. A chronically small, grey-haired workforce that the population depends on both to power their lives and prevent catastrophe makes that workforce too powerful. It becomes a governance problem. I highly recommend The Dictator's Handbook for more insight on this.

avar 10y ago

Being against nuclear for trivial reasons like these is why we have the alternative: coal plants. Those kill an estimated 300,000 thousand people per year[1]. It's only recently that renewables have become a realistic alternative in some (but not all) cases, but for decades we've had people dropping like flies due to coal, entirely because the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere as big of a deal by comparison. 1. https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/...

MichaelApproved 10y ago
> the public is too science illiterate to understand that nuclear isn't anywhere as big of a deal by comparison. Science illiteracy has nothing to do with it. The industry has a history of non-trivial reasons for mistrust. Regarding coal plant deaths, I'm not in favor of coal either. The sooner we can move away from fossil the better.
- kemiller 10y ago
  Statistical innumeracy is what causes the exaggerated categorical fear of nuclear's risks vs the empirical and very present risks posed by fossil fuels. You don't get to just "be against" fossil fuels; you have to propose a credible alternative. Wind and solar are just now starting to become credible, and aren't even all the way there yet. If we had had a less hysterical nuclear policy 40 years ago we would not be in as bad shape now as we are. AND we would also not be stuck with 1960s reactor designs.
- avar 10y ago
  Yes it is science illiteracy. It's being blind to a much larger diffuse harm in the face of some concentrated but much smaller harm. It's arguably the most harmful kind of science illiteracy because it has the biggest impact on public policy. Everything from people opposing mandatory seat belt laws, to being overly concerned about e.g. genetically modified food or cell phone tower radiation. I'm sure you mean well, but really, people who hold exactly the opinion you hold are in the aggregate the reason for literally millions of deaths that didn't need to happen worldwide since WWII. We had all the data to indicate that burning fossil fuels was causing massive diffuse harm, nuclear was realistically the only alternative in most cases, but people didn't go for it because they were afraid, even though all the science showed that there was little to worry about in comparison to what we were already doing. Sure someone installed a reactor backwards, but how are minor incidents like these at all relevant compared to literally tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year because we keep using the alternative?

criddell 10y ago

What power sources do you prefer? Coal and other fossil fuels are probably even more deadly than nuclear. What else is viable today?

MichaelApproved 10y ago
Wind, solar, dams and wave. They may not replace coal and other fossil fuels today but we can substitute a lot of our energy needs with a concerted effort into those renewables.
- vkou 10y ago
  I've got some bad news about hydro dams for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st... > 1,917 deaths > 26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless. > 1800 - 25000 people killed > 75 fatalities, due to turbine failure There's also the part where we have tapped out the Earth's exploitable hydro capacity. Hydro output is expected to grow by ~20% by 2050. [1] Unfortunately, it needs to grow by ~200%, if we want it to replace even half of the electricity currently generated by coal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Future_potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Future_potent...
  - markvdb 10y ago
    A large part of hydro actually is storage rather than production though. It's most valuable as a stabiliser for the electricity network.
    - vkou 10y ago
      Yes, but it also doubles up as a fairly reliable source of baseline power. It's a great energy source. It's also incredibly dangerous, and cannot replace coal.
  - djsumdog 10y ago

djsumdog 10y ago

You should read up on Browns Ferry Nuclear in Alabama. BFN has three reactors but one was taken out of service for decades because an engineer was checking for leaks on a hose using a flame and set the insulation on fire. Also they had a fin on one of the turbines of another reactor break off and it the reactor wall in the mid-2000s.