5 ms·

We've also seen the only arguments against nuclear power be based on old reactor designs and NIMBY handwaving.

FeepingCreature 9y ago
I think there is a good argument, though few people actually bring it, that nuclear reactors and radioactive material disposal can be safe and reliable, but no nuclear reactor or disposal site we are institutionally capable of building will be safe enough to trust. Ie. the problem is civilizational, not technological, inadequacy.
- Zigurd 9y ago
  The argument can be further simplified: Nuclear power hasn't got a track record of being economical or safe. The costs of contaminating areas like Fukushima and Chernobyl are astronomical an uninsurable. Spent fuel is piling up. End of life costs are known to be very high, but are also unbounded and unfunded. Maybe alt-fuel reactors are the answer. Maybe the industry can be optimized based on current technology. But there is no demonstration that this is true.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    According to this Scientific American article, radiation from coal has a track record of being more harmful than radiation from nuclear: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... They, however, certainly downplay the tail risk of nuclear.
    - sfifs 9y ago
      From the same article: > McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.
    - Zigurd 9y ago
      Coal, oil, and even gas are dirty and dangerous. But they are investable and insurable, with less (but definitely not zero) government support. I'm all for pricing-in the externalities. And if that makes nuclear a relatively better investment, hurrah! If new technologies turn nuclear into something supportable in normal capital markets, hurrah! But there is no proof-of-concept yet.
Tomte 9y ago
Even if the "new reactor types cannot possibly do harm" was true, that's exactly what you told us the last few decades. Every reactor was safe. It was physically impossible that all those safety systems could be overridden, defective, whatever. Impossible. And every time we saw that it's not true. After several decades of this we don't trust you anymore. As no sane person would. You might even be objectively right. But your safety arguments werde wrong the first two hundred times. Why listen to your explanation of your two hundred and first attempt? Let's try something else where experience doesn't virtually guarantee us that we'll be burnt.
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  You're right, I'm also sure you don't drive a car because of how unsafe they were 50 years ago as well, nor do you fly planes, because why trust them now when they lied before? > And every time we saw that it's not true. Every time? That seems a bit excessive does it not?
- learc83 9y ago
  I think you really need to think about who the you is that you're addressing here. It's very easy to dismiss any information you disagree with if you over-generalize like that. For example: "You told us the earth was headed for a new ice age. Why should we believe you now when you say it's getting too warm?"
  - zmix 9y ago
    I agree, but I think it's pretty obvious he was addressing everyone who said: "Nuclear power is safe, those who say otherwise are not realistic".
    - learc83 9y ago
      That's my point, they're conflating everyone now saying "nuclear power is safe", with some people 60 years ago who said "nuclear power is safe". I didn't mean that who they were addressing was unclear.
- 9y ago
patall 9y ago
You mean like just last month when greenpeace activists got to shoot fireworks next to used fuel pool: - https://phys.org/news/2017-10-greenpeace-fireworks-french-nuclear-safety.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-greenpeace-fireworks-french-nu... Or the still not practically solved used fuel problem. Or that Germany already now often does not run nuclear power plants (that are for now still allowed to run) because they are too expensive.

I think there is a good argument, though few people actually bring it, that nuclear reactors and radioactive material disposal can be safe and reliable, but no nuclear reactor or disposal site we are institutionally capable of building will be safe enough to trust. Ie. the problem is civilizational, not technological, inadequacy.

Zigurd 9y ago
The argument can be further simplified: Nuclear power hasn't got a track record of being economical or safe. The costs of contaminating areas like Fukushima and Chernobyl are astronomical an uninsurable. Spent fuel is piling up. End of life costs are known to be very high, but are also unbounded and unfunded. Maybe alt-fuel reactors are the answer. Maybe the industry can be optimized based on current technology. But there is no demonstration that this is true.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  According to this Scientific American article, radiation from coal has a track record of being more harmful than radiation from nuclear: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... They, however, certainly downplay the tail risk of nuclear.
  - sfifs 9y ago
    From the same article: > McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.
  - Zigurd 9y ago
    Coal, oil, and even gas are dirty and dangerous. But they are investable and insurable, with less (but definitely not zero) government support. I'm all for pricing-in the externalities. And if that makes nuclear a relatively better investment, hurrah! If new technologies turn nuclear into something supportable in normal capital markets, hurrah! But there is no proof-of-concept yet.

Tomte 9y ago

Even if the "new reactor types cannot possibly do harm" was true, that's exactly what you told us the last few decades. Every reactor was safe. It was physically impossible that all those safety systems could be overridden, defective, whatever. Impossible. And every time we saw that it's not true. After several decades of this we don't trust you anymore. As no sane person would. You might even be objectively right. But your safety arguments werde wrong the first two hundred times. Why listen to your explanation of your two hundred and first attempt? Let's try something else where experience doesn't virtually guarantee us that we'll be burnt.

ntsplnkv2 9y ago
You're right, I'm also sure you don't drive a car because of how unsafe they were 50 years ago as well, nor do you fly planes, because why trust them now when they lied before? > And every time we saw that it's not true. Every time? That seems a bit excessive does it not?
learc83 9y ago
I think you really need to think about who the you is that you're addressing here. It's very easy to dismiss any information you disagree with if you over-generalize like that. For example: "You told us the earth was headed for a new ice age. Why should we believe you now when you say it's getting too warm?"
- zmix 9y ago
  I agree, but I think it's pretty obvious he was addressing everyone who said: "Nuclear power is safe, those who say otherwise are not realistic".
  - learc83 9y ago
    That's my point, they're conflating everyone now saying "nuclear power is safe", with some people 60 years ago who said "nuclear power is safe". I didn't mean that who they were addressing was unclear.
9y ago

patall 9y ago

You mean like just last month when greenpeace activists got to shoot fireworks next to used fuel pool: - https://phys.org/news/2017-10-greenpeace-fireworks-french-nuclear-safety.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-greenpeace-fireworks-french-nu... Or the still not practically solved used fuel problem. Or that Germany already now often does not run nuclear power plants (that are for now still allowed to run) because they are too expensive.