5 ms·

There might not be many mistakes if we weren't forced to use reactors designed in the 50s and built in the 60s when we barely understood nuclear chemistry, but

There might not be many mistakes if we weren't forced to use reactors designed in the 50s and built in the 60s when we barely understood nuclear chemistry, but rather modern designs using advanced nuclear chemistry and advanced materials and design improvements. If nuclear power was equated to cars then arguing about nuclear safety using our current examples of failure would be like arguing about automobile safety risks using a Model A.

Teknoman117 8y ago
The largest sticking point for me with nuclear is the whole bigger is better mentality. I'm all for it if we're going with passively safe designs. In theory this could help the whole decentralized grid ideas along. I think it would go a long way to ease public fear if we actually built reactors that can't melt down under any circumstance. I'm just scared of the big reactors. Nothing on this Earth is going to passively remove 1.5 GW of heat coming from something the volume of a hot water heater. We also need to be recycling our waste like the other nations which use nuclear power, not just chuck what's still 90% useful material in a holding tank for eternity.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  People think about this completely upsides down IMO. Nature is killing more people every year than have been killed by nuclear in all its time. The sun is killing more people than dies of nuclear (Melanomas and skin cancer) I could go on. Nuclear isn't as dangerous as it's been claimed and with never reactors the actual security procedure is physical. On top of that investments into thorium and fusion could have gotten us much further. It's not that bigger is better it's that bigger is safer from a number of perspectives. Nuclear is by far the safest, greenest, most scalable, reliable energy source we know how to use and it's many times safer than the very mother nature everyone seems to want to save. Nature doesn't give us a safe, friendly environment we then make unsafe it gives us a hostile and dangerous environment which we then make safe. Funny how disagreement in this always gets met with downvotes rather than at least argument or reasoned disagreement. Why is it so hard for people to disagree about this without it turning into a downvote competition?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514492/20-years-on-Britain-still-feels-the-effects-of-Chernobyl.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514492/20-years-on-... https://www.guernicamag.com/the-fallout/ https://www.guernicamag.com/the-fallout/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior The problem with nuclear has always been trust, and repeated breaches of trust - often in regards to weapons proliferation, from which fission can never really be separated. See the ongoing efforts to prevent Iran's nuclear programme, for example. It also has a nasty habit of cost overruns, because projects don't scale down. How overrun is Hinckley Point C now again? Whereas solar cells scale down to the level of a few square milimeters on a watch or calculator. The great lesson of silicon valley - AWS and everything else - is that "big bang" projects always get beaten by things that can start tiny and scale incrementally. We need to deploy solar and wind now. Maybe in the 25 year lifetime of a solar panel we can get a nuclear plant finished. Maybe fusion will work. Maybe someone will find a way to stop Thorium reactors dissolving their own plumbing.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      That's not a problem with nuclear that's a problem with people. Cost overruns come from extreme security legislation and the fact that we haven't built enough so those are simply not proper arguments. Add on top of that that solar will never, as in never ever be able to deliver cheap (at scale), clean, plentiful and consistent energy which is the minimum requirement for any type of energy any sane person would support. Promoting something that is currently not providing more than 1% of the worlds energy being heavily favored politically and with plenty of subsidies and which will never support maybe more than 10% of the worlds energy needs which is being very generous sounds like something the world will look back at in a hundred years and think "What the hell were they thinking".
      - pjc50 8y ago
        > That's not a problem with nuclear that's a problem with people. This is very much the "true communism has never been tried" argument, isn't it? Unless you know a way of building it without people?
- jabl 8y ago
  > The largest sticking point for me with nuclear is the whole bigger is better mentality. Historically, bigger reactors (and bigger turbines etc.) have been one of the few things that have reduced the $/kWh. Now, if you have followed developments in the nuclear sector, you are surely aware that SMR's (small modular reactor) are all the rage these days. There are certainly good engineering reasons behind them as well; more series production in factories with less built on-site, easier to provide passive safety due to smaller size, etc., but so far they have not been deployed in reality, so it remains to be seen whether they will be able to provide a lower $/kWh in reality. But certainly they are an interesting development, we'll see if they become a commercial success as well. As for recycling, with current uranium prices being so low it doesn't make economic sense. But I can certainly see the appeal (breeder reactors are catnip for physicists).
merb 8y ago
well the problem most often comes down to money. if we would operate the power plants within their calculated/fixed lifespan it would've been a better world. however due to the money inside the energy markets many plants will life way above their safety standards. it happens today and it would happen with future plants. besides the waste is not recycable
- peter_retief 8y ago
  It is actually recycled :) Maybe is we spent a bit more research on recovery it could be at 100%
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Yes, the waste is actually recyclable and will become even more so in the future. Anyone who is against nuclear simply hasn't looked at the facts. If you did and still came out against nuclear I would be pretty surprised and love to hear your arguments.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The fuel is potentially recyclable. The large amount of contaminated material making up a nuclear power plant isn't.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      But that contaminated material is easily stored. You are spreading false information.
      - merb 8y ago
        in the usa it is maybe easily to store it. but in germany it is a huge problem. asse II is probably already wrecked and nobody knows for sure if "konrad" can withstand the time.
        ThomPete 8y ago

Teknoman117 8y ago

The largest sticking point for me with nuclear is the whole bigger is better mentality. I'm all for it if we're going with passively safe designs. In theory this could help the whole decentralized grid ideas along. I think it would go a long way to ease public fear if we actually built reactors that can't melt down under any circumstance. I'm just scared of the big reactors. Nothing on this Earth is going to passively remove 1.5 GW of heat coming from something the volume of a hot water heater. We also need to be recycling our waste like the other nations which use nuclear power, not just chuck what's still 90% useful material in a holding tank for eternity.

ThomPete 8y ago
People think about this completely upsides down IMO. Nature is killing more people every year than have been killed by nuclear in all its time. The sun is killing more people than dies of nuclear (Melanomas and skin cancer) I could go on. Nuclear isn't as dangerous as it's been claimed and with never reactors the actual security procedure is physical. On top of that investments into thorium and fusion could have gotten us much further. It's not that bigger is better it's that bigger is safer from a number of perspectives. Nuclear is by far the safest, greenest, most scalable, reliable energy source we know how to use and it's many times safer than the very mother nature everyone seems to want to save. Nature doesn't give us a safe, friendly environment we then make unsafe it gives us a hostile and dangerous environment which we then make safe. Funny how disagreement in this always gets met with downvotes rather than at least argument or reasoned disagreement. Why is it so hard for people to disagree about this without it turning into a downvote competition?
- pjc50 8y ago
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514492/20-years-on-Britain-still-feels-the-effects-of-Chernobyl.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514492/20-years-on-... https://www.guernicamag.com/the-fallout/ https://www.guernicamag.com/the-fallout/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior The problem with nuclear has always been trust, and repeated breaches of trust - often in regards to weapons proliferation, from which fission can never really be separated. See the ongoing efforts to prevent Iran's nuclear programme, for example. It also has a nasty habit of cost overruns, because projects don't scale down. How overrun is Hinckley Point C now again? Whereas solar cells scale down to the level of a few square milimeters on a watch or calculator. The great lesson of silicon valley - AWS and everything else - is that "big bang" projects always get beaten by things that can start tiny and scale incrementally. We need to deploy solar and wind now. Maybe in the 25 year lifetime of a solar panel we can get a nuclear plant finished. Maybe fusion will work. Maybe someone will find a way to stop Thorium reactors dissolving their own plumbing.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    That's not a problem with nuclear that's a problem with people. Cost overruns come from extreme security legislation and the fact that we haven't built enough so those are simply not proper arguments. Add on top of that that solar will never, as in never ever be able to deliver cheap (at scale), clean, plentiful and consistent energy which is the minimum requirement for any type of energy any sane person would support. Promoting something that is currently not providing more than 1% of the worlds energy being heavily favored politically and with plenty of subsidies and which will never support maybe more than 10% of the worlds energy needs which is being very generous sounds like something the world will look back at in a hundred years and think "What the hell were they thinking".
    - pjc50 8y ago
      > That's not a problem with nuclear that's a problem with people. This is very much the "true communism has never been tried" argument, isn't it? Unless you know a way of building it without people?
jabl 8y ago
> The largest sticking point for me with nuclear is the whole bigger is better mentality. Historically, bigger reactors (and bigger turbines etc.) have been one of the few things that have reduced the $/kWh. Now, if you have followed developments in the nuclear sector, you are surely aware that SMR's (small modular reactor) are all the rage these days. There are certainly good engineering reasons behind them as well; more series production in factories with less built on-site, easier to provide passive safety due to smaller size, etc., but so far they have not been deployed in reality, so it remains to be seen whether they will be able to provide a lower $/kWh in reality. But certainly they are an interesting development, we'll see if they become a commercial success as well. As for recycling, with current uranium prices being so low it doesn't make economic sense. But I can certainly see the appeal (breeder reactors are catnip for physicists).

merb 8y ago

well the problem most often comes down to money. if we would operate the power plants within their calculated/fixed lifespan it would've been a better world. however due to the money inside the energy markets many plants will life way above their safety standards. it happens today and it would happen with future plants. besides the waste is not recycable

peter_retief 8y ago
It is actually recycled :) Maybe is we spent a bit more research on recovery it could be at 100%
ThomPete 8y ago
Yes, the waste is actually recyclable and will become even more so in the future. Anyone who is against nuclear simply hasn't looked at the facts. If you did and still came out against nuclear I would be pretty surprised and love to hear your arguments.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The fuel is potentially recyclable. The large amount of contaminated material making up a nuclear power plant isn't.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    But that contaminated material is easily stored. You are spreading false information.
    - merb 8y ago
      in the usa it is maybe easily to store it. but in germany it is a huge problem. asse II is probably already wrecked and nobody knows for sure if "konrad" can withstand the time.
      - ThomPete 8y ago