5 ms·

Of course it is cleaner. Until you need to deal with nuclear waste. And until the accident. Afterwards, it is not. How many Fukushimas and Chernobyls are we sup

Of course it is cleaner. Until you need to deal with nuclear waste. And until the accident. Afterwards, it is not. How many Fukushimas and Chernobyls are we supposed to experience? Do we first need to have a plant like Tricastin blow up, wiping out Rhône valley wines and all of Provence for thousands of years? No thanks.

flukus 10y ago
"Chernobyl was just soviet mismanagement, the west is safe", "fukishima was an unexpected tsunami, everyone else is safe", "newer reactor designs are safe". The nuclear industry move the goal posts after every disaster.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Fukushima was not an unavoidable "act of God" as you seem to imply. Fukushima was a galloping series of well-documented fuckups and ignored warnings going back to its construction in 1967. There are no moving goalposts. And coal plants put more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear, even accounting for the historical odds of catastrophic failure. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
  - flukus 10y ago
    > Fukushima was a galloping series of well-documented fuckups and ignored warnings going back to its construction in 1967. Exactly. Let me know when you fix humans, companies and governments, then I'll trust nuclear.
    - aperrien 10y ago
      Have fun with global warming then. I think that humanity needs to come to terms with renewables and nuclear power (with fusion being the best case scenario) for the future of everyone on this planet.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Fortunately renewables are now becoming cheaper than either coal or nuclear. If we had our act together we could have reached the current point a decade ago.
        boomboomsubban 10y ago
        If we had our act together, we could have worked out the problems with nuclear power fifty years ago. We don't, and I don't see why you think we suddenly will get it together for "renewables."
        flukus 10y ago
        Because renewables are getting it together with a fraction of the government involvement and subsidies that nuclear takes. In my country they're succeeding despite the government trying to stack the playing field against them.
        boomboomsubban 10y ago
        So what percentage of "renewables" does hydroelectricity account for? And why does Wikipedia's discussion of energy subsidies counter your claim, with hydroelectric alone receiving more than nuclear? By the way, renewables is in quotes as you could consider some forms of nuclear power renewable, yet you clearly don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States
        petre 10y ago
        Unfortunately renewables provide little in terms of base load alternatives that could replace coal and nuclear.
        flukus 10y ago
        That's where storage can improve things. Also, wind is near enough to baseload if it's spread over a large geographical area. It works down to wind speeds of 5-10 Km/h, which is constant enough that humans don't even feel it at those speeds.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      So you're okay with the working-as-intended continuous rolling catastrophe that is coal, but the rare and preventable fuckups of nuclear are too much? This seems like the same risk-evaluation glitch that makes people drive long-distance instead of flying, because terrorism, even though driving is orders of magnitude more deadly even with terrorism factored in.
      - flukus 10y ago
        This is a false dichotomy, we have more options on the table than coal or nuclear.
        wbl 10y ago
        Not at 10 cents a kWh, and if we want the lights to turn on when we want.
        pdkl95 10y ago
        Developing countries currently in the process of bringing a basic[1] modern standard of living to their people. They do not have the luxury of choosing any power source other than the absolute cheapest, which is currently and will continue to be coal for a long time. Many other options become available if you fix the local economy, reduce exploitation from foreign businesses, and grow local governments into a modern democracy that is interested in long-term problems. So > [... l]et me know when you fix humans, companies and governments[.] [1] e.g. washing machines that allow ~half of their population (usually women) to have the free time to get an education and contribute to the economy instead of spending all day hand-washing clothes/etc.
- rz2k 10y ago
  Furthermore, neither of those accidents were anything like the worst case scenarios possible. They required heroics individual beyond what was imagined necessary in their designs to keep the disasters so small. I think the issue is further complicated by the under siege mentality that many nuclear energy proponents feel. If they think that opponents don't appreciate the benefits and exaggerate the risks, then they will tend to publicly downplay risks, and possibly believe their own rhetoric rather than looking for vulnerabilities to the system and engineering in additional safety measures. Finally, how many designs that we call relatively dangerous now, were called dangerous while being constructed and put on line?
  - rtpg 10y ago
    Were they not the worst case scenarios? My understanding is that Chernobyl and the Fukushima reactor were both built by cutting huge corners, and that these flaws ended up leading to the disasters. On the other side of the spectrum, things like planes get built and work because we know that planes falling out of the sky is super bad! Would it not be possible to ,for lack of a better word, be more careful?
    - toyg 10y ago
      That would require money. Energy companies are in the business of making money. Nuclear plants cost HUGE money to build, they deliver terrible value for money henceforth, and after a couple of decades they have to be shut down (in theory), so what's a company gotta do to make money? Cut corners.
- petre 10y ago
  The regulators also move the goal posts after evey disaster, even if it isn't not nuclear related. New reactor containments have to be designed to withstand airplane impact due to 9/11. Existing reactors also have to comply with this rule since 2008. http://www.troutmansandersenergyreport.com/2009/02/nrc-requires-reactors-to-withstand-airplane-crashes/ http://www.troutmansandersenergyreport.com/2009/02/nrc-requi...
adrianN 10y ago
We put the nuclear "waste" in breeder reactors. Problem solved. What's left decays fairly quickly and needs a couple of warehouses every fifty years. No form of energy generation causes zero deaths. Chernobyl was a reckless expirement that went wrong. Fukushima is in no way comparable to Chernobyl regarding the amount of radiation released. We could increase security by stopping to demonize nuclear power and make it possible to build modern plants instead of running decades old designs with known flaws.
cathartes 10y ago
This is my own objection to nuclear energy. It's arguably very safe. It could be made clean, even the by-products. But a mistake doesn't cost one generation, it costs many. The odds for an incident are supposed to be ridiculously low, yet I've seen two catastrophic meltdowns just in my lifetime. I don't feel any energy need is worth even risking the rightful inheritance of so many descendants, ...
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  Does it really? Do you have any evidence of it costing more than one generation anything? Not even Chernobyl disaster did that.
  - cathartes 10y ago
    If you were born and raised in Chernobyl city or Pripyat, your prospects for having a normal life in those places would be dashed almost beyond comprehension. Maybe these places are not especially significant to you or me, but is this not "evidence" enough? (Addendum: And, yes, a good amount of money is still being spent to keep this disaster contained: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement)
    - int_19h 10y ago
      For 170,000 dead who had the misfortune of living downstream of Banqiao Dam, their prospects got dashed as well. That's, what, 3.5x of Pripyat population? Yet I don't see a scramble to shut down all hydro plants.
      - cathartes 10y ago
        170k dead, and millions displaced. And, honestly, I think the outcry would be furious if such a dam disaster occurred today in the USA, rather than China in 1975. Without sounding like I'm belittling the scale of that disaster, I still think of flood recovery as being relatively "short term" (a decade or two) compared to the aftermath of a nuclear meltdown (decades, possibly hundreds of years). That Chernobyl wasn't(/isn't) a bigger problem is partly due to reasonably effective intervention by an international team. The potential here is frightening enough that I don't think we should need high body counts to weigh the consequences.

flukus 10y ago

"Chernobyl was just soviet mismanagement, the west is safe", "fukishima was an unexpected tsunami, everyone else is safe", "newer reactor designs are safe". The nuclear industry move the goal posts after every disaster.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Fukushima was not an unavoidable "act of God" as you seem to imply. Fukushima was a galloping series of well-documented fuckups and ignored warnings going back to its construction in 1967. There are no moving goalposts. And coal plants put more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear, even accounting for the historical odds of catastrophic failure. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- flukus 10y ago
  > Fukushima was a galloping series of well-documented fuckups and ignored warnings going back to its construction in 1967. Exactly. Let me know when you fix humans, companies and governments, then I'll trust nuclear.
  - aperrien 10y ago
    Have fun with global warming then. I think that humanity needs to come to terms with renewables and nuclear power (with fusion being the best case scenario) for the future of everyone on this planet.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Fortunately renewables are now becoming cheaper than either coal or nuclear. If we had our act together we could have reached the current point a decade ago.
      - boomboomsubban 10y ago
        If we had our act together, we could have worked out the problems with nuclear power fifty years ago. We don't, and I don't see why you think we suddenly will get it together for "renewables."
        flukus 10y ago
        Because renewables are getting it together with a fraction of the government involvement and subsidies that nuclear takes. In my country they're succeeding despite the government trying to stack the playing field against them.
        boomboomsubban 10y ago
        So what percentage of "renewables" does hydroelectricity account for? And why does Wikipedia's discussion of energy subsidies counter your claim, with hydroelectric alone receiving more than nuclear? By the way, renewables is in quotes as you could consider some forms of nuclear power renewable, yet you clearly don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States
      - petre 10y ago
        Unfortunately renewables provide little in terms of base load alternatives that could replace coal and nuclear.
        flukus 10y ago
        That's where storage can improve things. Also, wind is near enough to baseload if it's spread over a large geographical area. It works down to wind speeds of 5-10 Km/h, which is constant enough that humans don't even feel it at those speeds.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    So you're okay with the working-as-intended continuous rolling catastrophe that is coal, but the rare and preventable fuckups of nuclear are too much? This seems like the same risk-evaluation glitch that makes people drive long-distance instead of flying, because terrorism, even though driving is orders of magnitude more deadly even with terrorism factored in.
    - flukus 10y ago
      This is a false dichotomy, we have more options on the table than coal or nuclear.
      - wbl 10y ago
        Not at 10 cents a kWh, and if we want the lights to turn on when we want.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        Developing countries currently in the process of bringing a basic[1] modern standard of living to their people. They do not have the luxury of choosing any power source other than the absolute cheapest, which is currently and will continue to be coal for a long time. Many other options become available if you fix the local economy, reduce exploitation from foreign businesses, and grow local governments into a modern democracy that is interested in long-term problems. So > [... l]et me know when you fix humans, companies and governments[.] [1] e.g. washing machines that allow ~half of their population (usually women) to have the free time to get an education and contribute to the economy instead of spending all day hand-washing clothes/etc.
rz2k 10y ago
Furthermore, neither of those accidents were anything like the worst case scenarios possible. They required heroics individual beyond what was imagined necessary in their designs to keep the disasters so small. I think the issue is further complicated by the under siege mentality that many nuclear energy proponents feel. If they think that opponents don't appreciate the benefits and exaggerate the risks, then they will tend to publicly downplay risks, and possibly believe their own rhetoric rather than looking for vulnerabilities to the system and engineering in additional safety measures. Finally, how many designs that we call relatively dangerous now, were called dangerous while being constructed and put on line?
- rtpg 10y ago
  Were they not the worst case scenarios? My understanding is that Chernobyl and the Fukushima reactor were both built by cutting huge corners, and that these flaws ended up leading to the disasters. On the other side of the spectrum, things like planes get built and work because we know that planes falling out of the sky is super bad! Would it not be possible to ,for lack of a better word, be more careful?
  - toyg 10y ago
    That would require money. Energy companies are in the business of making money. Nuclear plants cost HUGE money to build, they deliver terrible value for money henceforth, and after a couple of decades they have to be shut down (in theory), so what's a company gotta do to make money? Cut corners.
petre 10y ago
The regulators also move the goal posts after evey disaster, even if it isn't not nuclear related. New reactor containments have to be designed to withstand airplane impact due to 9/11. Existing reactors also have to comply with this rule since 2008. http://www.troutmansandersenergyreport.com/2009/02/nrc-requires-reactors-to-withstand-airplane-crashes/ http://www.troutmansandersenergyreport.com/2009/02/nrc-requi...

adrianN 10y ago

We put the nuclear "waste" in breeder reactors. Problem solved. What's left decays fairly quickly and needs a couple of warehouses every fifty years. No form of energy generation causes zero deaths. Chernobyl was a reckless expirement that went wrong. Fukushima is in no way comparable to Chernobyl regarding the amount of radiation released. We could increase security by stopping to demonize nuclear power and make it possible to build modern plants instead of running decades old designs with known flaws.

cathartes 10y ago

This is my own objection to nuclear energy. It's arguably very safe. It could be made clean, even the by-products. But a mistake doesn't cost one generation, it costs many. The odds for an incident are supposed to be ridiculously low, yet I've seen two catastrophic meltdowns just in my lifetime. I don't feel any energy need is worth even risking the rightful inheritance of so many descendants, ...

AstralStorm 10y ago
Does it really? Do you have any evidence of it costing more than one generation anything? Not even Chernobyl disaster did that.
- cathartes 10y ago
  If you were born and raised in Chernobyl city or Pripyat, your prospects for having a normal life in those places would be dashed almost beyond comprehension. Maybe these places are not especially significant to you or me, but is this not "evidence" enough? (Addendum: And, yes, a good amount of money is still being spent to keep this disaster contained: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement)
  - int_19h 10y ago
    For 170,000 dead who had the misfortune of living downstream of Banqiao Dam, their prospects got dashed as well. That's, what, 3.5x of Pripyat population? Yet I don't see a scramble to shut down all hydro plants.
    - cathartes 10y ago
      170k dead, and millions displaced. And, honestly, I think the outcry would be furious if such a dam disaster occurred today in the USA, rather than China in 1975. Without sounding like I'm belittling the scale of that disaster, I still think of flood recovery as being relatively "short term" (a decade or two) compared to the aftermath of a nuclear meltdown (decades, possibly hundreds of years). That Chernobyl wasn't(/isn't) a bigger problem is partly due to reasonably effective intervention by an international team. The potential here is frightening enough that I don't think we should need high body counts to weigh the consequences.