18 ms·

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 sta

by 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.
      - jlarocco 10y ago
        Is large scale energy storage any better than just using nuclear energy? They don't have the "nuclear" tag scaring people away, but modern batteries and capacitors are still very dangerous and have a lot of environmental hazards to go along with them.
        putsteadywere 10y ago
        Gravity based energy storage is inexpensive to construct and reliable. It is wasteful - but we're capturing an incredibly tiny proportion of the energy available from wind and solar for electricity. [0]: http://www.powermag.com/let-gravity-store-the-energy/ http://www.powermag.com/let-gravity-store-the-energy/ [1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-storage-hits-the-rails-out-west/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-storage-hi...
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        > Is large scale energy storage any better than just using nuclear energy? Yes. > but modern batteries and capacitors are still very dangerous and have a lot of environmental hazards to go along with them. This is just absurd compared to handling nuclear fuel and waste. https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-safety/ https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-saf... "Tesla set fire to a Powerpack to test its safety features – the results are impressive"
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        If you generated all of the energy you used via atomic power at the end of your life the total size of that waste is about the size of a coke can. 1. How much lithium waste will be produced each year by this process? Aren't we talking creating more batteries than we ever have before by several orders of magnitude here? We send most of our ewaste to the third world to be burned currently, this sounds like an ecological disaster. 2. Do you really believe that in 75 years time the United States won't have the ability to safely store or simply hurl 400 million coke cans at the sun? A big project for sure but the reward is virtually unlimited, virtually free energy.
- musesum 10y ago
  I had the same attitude. What changed my mind were two documentaries: 1) Pandora's promise 2) Thorium remix
- hansjorg 10y ago
  I share your mistrust, but why not let nuclear reactors be run as non-profits by e.g. energy institutes at universities?
- smsm42 10y ago
  Every technology is subject to human error and inherently dangerous. In fact we have many technologies that are way more dangerous to humans than nuclear - cars, chemical plants, pharmaceuticals, etc. There is no rational reason to single out nuclear technologies as being in need of unachievable absolute perfection when we are fine (not ideal, but also not so bad that it's not worth it) with many dangerous ones the way they are. I think it has more to do with irrational fears than rational risk assessments.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- opo 10y ago
  >...That mistrust is based on historical facts What historical facts would those be? Historically nuclear has been about the safest form of mass power when looking at accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents Anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so people have an understandable perception that it is much more dangerous than the reality. A recent example would be the evacuation at the Oroville dam - almost 200,000 people were forcibly evacuated since the worst case failure scenario would have have been a tidal wave of water 30 feet high rushing down stream. This made the news for maybe a day. Can you imagine the type of coverage the media would have given if 200,000 people had to be evacuated near a nuclear power plant? http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/12/us/california-oroville-dam-failure/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/12/us/california-oroville-dam-fai... NASA has estimated that using nuclear power has saved an estimated 1.8 million lives that would have been lost if the power has been replaced by coal/gas: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-... (And yes, I know the people who oppose nuclear power usually will say they don't like coal and natural gas either, but we are going to need a predictable, reliable form of base load power for a long time. One of these three ways of generating electricity has much less health consequences than the other.)
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    It's a little dishonest to state a casualty rate when the spent, toxic fuel going to be deadly for a few hundred thousand years yet. That problem is so very far from solved, and it's a massive problem.
    - koolba 10y ago
      > That problem is so very far from solved, and it's a massive problem. I thought the problem was solved: 1. Dig hole. 2. Put it in hole. 3. Guard hole.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        There's a fourth dimension to it - remembering why the hole needs to be guarded for 10000 years. And if you imagine trying to have a conversation with a human from 10000 years ago, you'll realize how non-trivial that is - no language, culture or knowledge capture system would survive for this long intact. There is a fascinating body of research about how to solve this problem (with no definite answer). E.g. see https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/how-to-send-a-message-1000-years-to-the-future/385720/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/how-t...
- officelineback 10y ago
  That reminds me of one of an engineer's maxim: If you make something idiot proof, the world invents a better idiot.
- astrodust 10y ago
  So far the number of nuclear plant incidents has been pretty minor especially considering how many nuclear plants are in operation. Meanwhile how many people have died in propane bottling plant explosions? In coal mining? In off-shore drilling incidents? It's not perfectly safe, not even close, but it's statistically one of the least dangerous power generation methods.
  - RockyMcNuts 10y ago
    Statistically, it's very safe to be a turkey on a turkey farm until shortly before Thanksgiving. A lot of stuff that is theoretically guaranteed to be a disaster looks very safe and profitable until shortly before disaster strikes.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      We all know what happens to turkeys at thanksgiving, but we don't all know what the worst, or even average case is for a nuclear accident, nor how that is affected by the type of nuclear technology. This is an argument taking advantage of people's fear and ignorance. An appropriate response to the turkey statement along these lines is to ask where the farm is and what people it serves. There are many farms in the world where statistically, Thanksgiving makes no difference to the mortality of the Turkeys.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Statistically there are far more large-scale hydroelectric projects in the US that will kill thousands of people if they fail if those facilities are not properly maintained. A dam failure is unavoidable without lots of pre-planning, and even then, as recent events have shown, you can anticipate a problem and still not be able to deal with it. Nuclear plants can, in a worst case scanario, be given the SCRAM treatment to shut them down hard. If that procedure is successful then the reactor is off. The worst case is probably like Chernobyl but involving multiple reactors. The probability of that is pretty low not only because Chernobyl served as a wake-up call, but because what happened at Chernobyl was an unfortunate chain of events that focused on only one reactor. So in the worst case secnario you have a disaster which creates a new national park-sized area you can't live in. Compared with coal plants which used to render large portions of the continent unlivable for the hottest, haziest, smoggiest days in the summer, that's an acceptable risk.
- bsder 10y ago
  > Even with newer designs, I think human error and regulatory capture is too dangerous to make COAL viable. Note the change from nuclear to coal. Just so you know, you get more radiation from coal burning plants than nuclear plants. Don't believe me: http://boingboing.net/2011/08/18/what-fukushima-can-teach-us-about-coal-pollution.html http://boingboing.net/2011/08/18/what-fukushima-can-teach-us... Original paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422.abstract tl;dr: Fukushima radioactivity measurements regularly get swamped by radioactive sulfur from coal burning plants in China.
  - Confusion 10y ago
    This. So much this. People don't know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to nuclear power, but it doesn't stop them from talking about it as if they were experts.
    - saiya-jin 10y ago
      well, you described much of internet these days

by bgentry 10y ago

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.
    - jlarocco 10y ago
      Is large scale energy storage any better than just using nuclear energy? They don't have the "nuclear" tag scaring people away, but modern batteries and capacitors are still very dangerous and have a lot of environmental hazards to go along with them.
      - putsteadywere 10y ago
        Gravity based energy storage is inexpensive to construct and reliable. It is wasteful - but we're capturing an incredibly tiny proportion of the energy available from wind and solar for electricity. [0]: http://www.powermag.com/let-gravity-store-the-energy/ http://www.powermag.com/let-gravity-store-the-energy/ [1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-storage-hits-the-rails-out-west/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-storage-hi...
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        > Is large scale energy storage any better than just using nuclear energy? Yes. > but modern batteries and capacitors are still very dangerous and have a lot of environmental hazards to go along with them. This is just absurd compared to handling nuclear fuel and waste. https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-safety/ https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-saf... "Tesla set fire to a Powerpack to test its safety features – the results are impressive"
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        If you generated all of the energy you used via atomic power at the end of your life the total size of that waste is about the size of a coke can. 1. How much lithium waste will be produced each year by this process? Aren't we talking creating more batteries than we ever have before by several orders of magnitude here? We send most of our ewaste to the third world to be burned currently, this sounds like an ecological disaster. 2. Do you really believe that in 75 years time the United States won't have the ability to safely store or simply hurl 400 million coke cans at the sun? A big project for sure but the reward is virtually unlimited, virtually free energy.
musesum 10y ago
I had the same attitude. What changed my mind were two documentaries: 1) Pandora's promise 2) Thorium remix
hansjorg 10y ago
I share your mistrust, but why not let nuclear reactors be run as non-profits by e.g. energy institutes at universities?
smsm42 10y ago
Every technology is subject to human error and inherently dangerous. In fact we have many technologies that are way more dangerous to humans than nuclear - cars, chemical plants, pharmaceuticals, etc. There is no rational reason to single out nuclear technologies as being in need of unachievable absolute perfection when we are fine (not ideal, but also not so bad that it's not worth it) with many dangerous ones the way they are. I think it has more to do with irrational fears than rational risk assessments.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
opo 10y ago
>...That mistrust is based on historical facts What historical facts would those be? Historically nuclear has been about the safest form of mass power when looking at accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents Anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media orders of magnitude more than other power sources so people have an understandable perception that it is much more dangerous than the reality. A recent example would be the evacuation at the Oroville dam - almost 200,000 people were forcibly evacuated since the worst case failure scenario would have have been a tidal wave of water 30 feet high rushing down stream. This made the news for maybe a day. Can you imagine the type of coverage the media would have given if 200,000 people had to be evacuated near a nuclear power plant? http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/12/us/california-oroville-dam-failure/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/12/us/california-oroville-dam-fai... NASA has estimated that using nuclear power has saved an estimated 1.8 million lives that would have been lost if the power has been replaced by coal/gas: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-... (And yes, I know the people who oppose nuclear power usually will say they don't like coal and natural gas either, but we are going to need a predictable, reliable form of base load power for a long time. One of these three ways of generating electricity has much less health consequences than the other.)
- lostlogin 10y ago
  It's a little dishonest to state a casualty rate when the spent, toxic fuel going to be deadly for a few hundred thousand years yet. That problem is so very far from solved, and it's a massive problem.
  - koolba 10y ago
    > That problem is so very far from solved, and it's a massive problem. I thought the problem was solved: 1. Dig hole. 2. Put it in hole. 3. Guard hole.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      There's a fourth dimension to it - remembering why the hole needs to be guarded for 10000 years. And if you imagine trying to have a conversation with a human from 10000 years ago, you'll realize how non-trivial that is - no language, culture or knowledge capture system would survive for this long intact. There is a fascinating body of research about how to solve this problem (with no definite answer). E.g. see https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/how-to-send-a-message-1000-years-to-the-future/385720/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/how-t...
officelineback 10y ago
That reminds me of one of an engineer's maxim: If you make something idiot proof, the world invents a better idiot.
astrodust 10y ago
So far the number of nuclear plant incidents has been pretty minor especially considering how many nuclear plants are in operation. Meanwhile how many people have died in propane bottling plant explosions? In coal mining? In off-shore drilling incidents? It's not perfectly safe, not even close, but it's statistically one of the least dangerous power generation methods.
- RockyMcNuts 10y ago
  Statistically, it's very safe to be a turkey on a turkey farm until shortly before Thanksgiving. A lot of stuff that is theoretically guaranteed to be a disaster looks very safe and profitable until shortly before disaster strikes.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    We all know what happens to turkeys at thanksgiving, but we don't all know what the worst, or even average case is for a nuclear accident, nor how that is affected by the type of nuclear technology. This is an argument taking advantage of people's fear and ignorance. An appropriate response to the turkey statement along these lines is to ask where the farm is and what people it serves. There are many farms in the world where statistically, Thanksgiving makes no difference to the mortality of the Turkeys.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Statistically there are far more large-scale hydroelectric projects in the US that will kill thousands of people if they fail if those facilities are not properly maintained. A dam failure is unavoidable without lots of pre-planning, and even then, as recent events have shown, you can anticipate a problem and still not be able to deal with it. Nuclear plants can, in a worst case scanario, be given the SCRAM treatment to shut them down hard. If that procedure is successful then the reactor is off. The worst case is probably like Chernobyl but involving multiple reactors. The probability of that is pretty low not only because Chernobyl served as a wake-up call, but because what happened at Chernobyl was an unfortunate chain of events that focused on only one reactor. So in the worst case secnario you have a disaster which creates a new national park-sized area you can't live in. Compared with coal plants which used to render large portions of the continent unlivable for the hottest, haziest, smoggiest days in the summer, that's an acceptable risk.
bsder 10y ago
> Even with newer designs, I think human error and regulatory capture is too dangerous to make COAL viable. Note the change from nuclear to coal. Just so you know, you get more radiation from coal burning plants than nuclear plants. Don't believe me: http://boingboing.net/2011/08/18/what-fukushima-can-teach-us-about-coal-pollution.html http://boingboing.net/2011/08/18/what-fukushima-can-teach-us... Original paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422.abstract tl;dr: Fukushima radioactivity measurements regularly get swamped by radioactive sulfur from coal burning plants in China.
- Confusion 10y ago
  This. So much this. People don't know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to nuclear power, but it doesn't stop them from talking about it as if they were experts.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    well, you described much of internet these days