4 ms·

Nuclear power unfortunately comes with invisible tail risk. No mathematical model can predict it. Unless power plants are built deep below the ground eventually

Nuclear power unfortunately comes with invisible tail risk. No mathematical model can predict it. Unless power plants are built deep below the ground eventually something will bring the catastrophe.

nukemandan 8y ago
or just below ground : http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Autonomous%20Battery%20Reactors.pdf http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%2...
- VyperCard 8y ago
  Does one exist right now commercially?
  - nukemandan 8y ago
    right now? not that I know of. Regulatory frameworks that make sense vs the present standards are in the works.
  - nukemandan 8y ago
    check out this: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608271/small-reactors-could-kick-start-the-stalled-nuclear-sector/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608271/small-reactors-cou...
ALittleLight 8y ago
I don't think that's true. We've used nuclear power for decades with exceptionally few problems or deaths. There are single hydroelectric dam failures that have killed more people than everyone who has ever died from nuclear power - including Chernobyl, Three mile island, Fukushima, etc. Banqio dam killed 174,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam Chernobyl, on the other hand, the deadliest and worst nuclear power plant disaster in history killed 45 directly and was possibly responsible for increased cancer incidence adding another 4-6,000 cancer deaths. Should we discontinue hydroelectric power because all dams will eventually fail and may flood inhabited areas? Nuclear power is incredibly safe.
- superpermutat0r 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure no one has done the tail analysis for pesticides, cars, nuclear or hydro, before they were introduced en masse. I'd much rather have close to 0 deaths from all of the above guaranteed, when catastrophe happens. I'm aware that nuclear is probably the only thing that will solve the energy crisis. But I'm wary of the long term risks. Just like I would be with the dam.
realusername 8y ago
There's currently no electricity generation technology with lower death/kwH than nuclear.
- superpermutat0r 8y ago
  To illustrate my point, animal agriculture done today and in the past has invisible tail risk that can wipe out significant amount of population (livestock to human viral or bacterial disease transfer), but someone will point out that it has lower death count on average than, I don't know, hunting. Nuclear energy is currently not a massive part of our energy production.
  - realusername 8y ago
    > Nuclear energy is currently not a massive part of our energy production. depends where you are talking about, there's a lot of reactors in the world, plenty enough to do statistics.

Nuclear power unfortunately comes with invisible tail risk. No mathematical model can predict it. Unless power plants are built deep below the ground eventually something will bring the catastrophe.

nukemandan 8y ago

or just below ground : http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Autonomous%20Battery%20Reactors.pdf http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%2...

VyperCard 8y ago
Does one exist right now commercially?
- nukemandan 8y ago
  right now? not that I know of. Regulatory frameworks that make sense vs the present standards are in the works.
- nukemandan 8y ago
  check out this: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608271/small-reactors-could-kick-start-the-stalled-nuclear-sector/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608271/small-reactors-cou...

ALittleLight 8y ago

I don't think that's true. We've used nuclear power for decades with exceptionally few problems or deaths. There are single hydroelectric dam failures that have killed more people than everyone who has ever died from nuclear power - including Chernobyl, Three mile island, Fukushima, etc. Banqio dam killed 174,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam Chernobyl, on the other hand, the deadliest and worst nuclear power plant disaster in history killed 45 directly and was possibly responsible for increased cancer incidence adding another 4-6,000 cancer deaths. Should we discontinue hydroelectric power because all dams will eventually fail and may flood inhabited areas? Nuclear power is incredibly safe.

superpermutat0r 8y ago
I'm pretty sure no one has done the tail analysis for pesticides, cars, nuclear or hydro, before they were introduced en masse. I'd much rather have close to 0 deaths from all of the above guaranteed, when catastrophe happens. I'm aware that nuclear is probably the only thing that will solve the energy crisis. But I'm wary of the long term risks. Just like I would be with the dam.

realusername 8y ago

There's currently no electricity generation technology with lower death/kwH than nuclear.

superpermutat0r 8y ago
To illustrate my point, animal agriculture done today and in the past has invisible tail risk that can wipe out significant amount of population (livestock to human viral or bacterial disease transfer), but someone will point out that it has lower death count on average than, I don't know, hunting. Nuclear energy is currently not a massive part of our energy production.
- realusername 8y ago
  > Nuclear energy is currently not a massive part of our energy production. depends where you are talking about, there's a lot of reactors in the world, plenty enough to do statistics.