6 ms·

"Yea, nuclear has so far been the safest form of base load power we have ever used. Unfortunately anything at all related to nuclear is covered by the media ord

"Yea, nuclear has so far been the safest form of base load power we have ever used. Unfortunately 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 other sources of power." I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. I don't see the problem being that nuclear can't be made safe. I see the problem being that operators are motivated to stretch the margin of safety in order to make a buck and lawmakers appear to be prepared to let them and the one thing nuclear operators will never, ever, ever, EVER stand for is allowing the privatization of that risk (i.e. let insurance companies instead of taxpayers shoulder the risk).

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
"I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist." It's worth noting that even formally qualified scientists are susceptible to bias, and politics. There are even scientists who are practising religious adherents. Angel Merkel was previously the minister for Environment and Nuclear Safety. I'd suggest that is potentially more informative than that she has a doctorate in physical chemistry.
gozur88 10y ago
>I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. What was telling is she didn't want to do it but was forced by public opinion, the fact that she proceed to run to the front of the parade notwithstanding.
opo 10y ago
>...I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. Are you trying to argue that keeping coal plants and shutting down nuclear plants is a good idea? From a previous comment someone made, here are the death totals for generating power: Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) >...I don't see the problem being that nuclear can't be made safe. Actually you are wrong - NOTHING can be made 100% safe. Anyone who promises you something is 100% safe is simply a liar. Walking down the sidewalk has risk, much less walking down a street. When making choices the only thing you can do is choose the safer alternative. Planes are safer for a long trip than driving a car, but how many people are afraid to fly vs afraid to drive? Nuclear has has a very good safety record compared to the alternatives (utility solar farms might end up lower, but all others are much higher) but to the people who fear nuclear power, I know the numbers don't really matter - much as the person who is afraid of flying doesn't care it is safer.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  "Are you trying to argue that keeping coal plants and shutting down nuclear plants is a good idea?" Nope. I'm arguing that shutting down both is a good idea - which is why Germany is shutting coal plants too: https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/german-power-mix-over-time.png https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/germ... So... straw man? "Actually you are wrong - NOTHING can be made 100% safe." I'm pretty sure my implication of "acceptably safe" was fairly clear. So... another straw man.
  - opo 10y ago
    >...Nope. I'm arguing that shutting down both is a good idea - which is why Germany is shutting coal plants too: What you actually wrote was "I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist." You made an appeal to authority and didn't mention coal in your original statement. >...which is why Germany is shutting coal plants too You are somewhat misrepresenting the energy situation in Germany. >...Coal is still the largest source of power in Germany. ...In 2007 German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her party agreed to legislation to phase out Germany's hard coal mining sector. That does not mean that they support phasing out coal in general. There were plans to build about 25 new plants in the coming years. ... No concrete plan is in place to reduce coal-fired electricity generation. As of October 2015, the remaining coal plants still under planning include: Niederaussem, Profen, and Stade. The coal plants currently under construction include: Mannheim, Hamm D, Datteln, and Willhelmshaven. Between 2012 and 2015, six new plants went online. All of these plants are 600–1800 MWe ...A coal phase-out for Germany is implied in Germany's Climate Action Plan 2050, environment minister Barbara Hendricks said in an interview on 21 November 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_phase-out To eliminate a non CO2 producing energy source and continue to use the most dangerous source of power which is also the major producer of CO2 for a couple more decades (best case), is pretty irresponsible. Fukishima was a major accident and resulted in zero deaths to the public. You wrote: "I don't see the problem being that nuclear can't be made safe." and also seemed to approve of an entire county abandoning nuclear power when they are using power sources orders of magnitude more dangerous. It did sound like you meant that any accident from nuclear power would be unacceptable to you since the alternatives Germany will be using for decades are more dangerous to the human health and the environment. You now say that you meant "acceptable risk" - unfortunately that is a somewhat meaningless subjective term. You can only compare a choice against its alternatives and since we know we need to generate terawatts of power for our civilization to function, the real question is what is the relative risk from generating power from different sources. From a previous comment someone made, here are the death totals for generating power: Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) If you demand zero risk when producing terrawatts of power, you aren't going to find it. In the same way that if you were afraid of jet travel, all anyone can say to you is that jet travel is safer than driving, not that there will be no plane crashes.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

"I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist." It's worth noting that even formally qualified scientists are susceptible to bias, and politics. There are even scientists who are practising religious adherents. Angel Merkel was previously the minister for Environment and Nuclear Safety. I'd suggest that is potentially more informative than that she has a doctorate in physical chemistry.

gozur88 10y ago

>I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. What was telling is she didn't want to do it but was forced by public opinion, the fact that she proceed to run to the front of the parade notwithstanding.

opo 10y ago

>...I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist. Are you trying to argue that keeping coal plants and shutting down nuclear plants is a good idea? From a previous comment someone made, here are the death totals for generating power: Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) >...I don't see the problem being that nuclear can't be made safe. Actually you are wrong - NOTHING can be made 100% safe. Anyone who promises you something is 100% safe is simply a liar. Walking down the sidewalk has risk, much less walking down a street. When making choices the only thing you can do is choose the safer alternative. Planes are safer for a long trip than driving a car, but how many people are afraid to fly vs afraid to drive? Nuclear has has a very good safety record compared to the alternatives (utility solar farms might end up lower, but all others are much higher) but to the people who fear nuclear power, I know the numbers don't really matter - much as the person who is afraid of flying doesn't care it is safer.

crdoconnor 10y ago
"Are you trying to argue that keeping coal plants and shutting down nuclear plants is a good idea?" Nope. I'm arguing that shutting down both is a good idea - which is why Germany is shutting coal plants too: https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/german-power-mix-over-time.png https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/germ... So... straw man? "Actually you are wrong - NOTHING can be made 100% safe." I'm pretty sure my implication of "acceptably safe" was fairly clear. So... another straw man.
- opo 10y ago
  >...Nope. I'm arguing that shutting down both is a good idea - which is why Germany is shutting coal plants too: What you actually wrote was "I thought it was telling that the only world leader who reacted to Fukushima by mandating the end of nuclear power wasn't a hippy but a physicist." You made an appeal to authority and didn't mention coal in your original statement. >...which is why Germany is shutting coal plants too You are somewhat misrepresenting the energy situation in Germany. >...Coal is still the largest source of power in Germany. ...In 2007 German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her party agreed to legislation to phase out Germany's hard coal mining sector. That does not mean that they support phasing out coal in general. There were plans to build about 25 new plants in the coming years. ... No concrete plan is in place to reduce coal-fired electricity generation. As of October 2015, the remaining coal plants still under planning include: Niederaussem, Profen, and Stade. The coal plants currently under construction include: Mannheim, Hamm D, Datteln, and Willhelmshaven. Between 2012 and 2015, six new plants went online. All of these plants are 600–1800 MWe ...A coal phase-out for Germany is implied in Germany's Climate Action Plan 2050, environment minister Barbara Hendricks said in an interview on 21 November 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_phase-out To eliminate a non CO2 producing energy source and continue to use the most dangerous source of power which is also the major producer of CO2 for a couple more decades (best case), is pretty irresponsible. Fukishima was a major accident and resulted in zero deaths to the public. You wrote: "I don't see the problem being that nuclear can't be made safe." and also seemed to approve of an entire county abandoning nuclear power when they are using power sources orders of magnitude more dangerous. It did sound like you meant that any accident from nuclear power would be unacceptable to you since the alternatives Germany will be using for decades are more dangerous to the human health and the environment. You now say that you meant "acceptable risk" - unfortunately that is a somewhat meaningless subjective term. You can only compare a choice against its alternatives and since we know we need to generate terawatts of power for our civilization to function, the real question is what is the relative risk from generating power from different sources. From a previous comment someone made, here are the death totals for generating power: Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) If you demand zero risk when producing terrawatts of power, you aren't going to find it. In the same way that if you were afraid of jet travel, all anyone can say to you is that jet travel is safer than driving, not that there will be no plane crashes.