3 ms·

I don't know enough here to comment on who's right, but when the magnitude of catastrophic failure is large enough, model error is appreciably important. So in

by fovc 8y ago

I don't know enough here to comment on who's right, but when the magnitude of catastrophic failure is large enough, model error is appreciably important. So in those cases past experience is a very important input into the decision, even if not perfectly correlated. If anything, it proves that identifying all failure modes is challenging, and theoretically safe is not the same as practically safe.

bluGill 8y ago
The magnitude of the error has been overstated though. There were issues, but a coal powerplant is worse for public health than the known disasters.
- Teknoman117 8y ago
  Hydroelectic as well technically. A set of hydroelectric dam failures in China in 1975 killed more people directly from the event (171,000) than is estimated for the direct and future deaths caused from Chernobyl and Fukushima combined.
gh02t 8y ago
"So in those cases past experience is a very important input into the decision, even if not perfectly correlated." Of course it is, which is why modern reactor designs have incorporated safety features based on these accidents and older designs have been retrofitted (with some exceptions that are legitimately concerning). It's entirely true that it is impossible to predict every mode of catastrophic failure, but that does not mean it's impossible to create designs that are resilient to unplanned disasters. No type of power plant can be perfectly safe, but for assessing practical safety records, in terms of deaths / TWh generated, even estimating conservatively nuclear power is safer than any other source of power (including wind and solar). Some references for this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw... https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...

by fovc 8y ago

bluGill 8y ago

The magnitude of the error has been overstated though. There were issues, but a coal powerplant is worse for public health than the known disasters.

Teknoman117 8y ago
Hydroelectic as well technically. A set of hydroelectric dam failures in China in 1975 killed more people directly from the event (171,000) than is estimated for the direct and future deaths caused from Chernobyl and Fukushima combined.

gh02t 8y ago

"So in those cases past experience is a very important input into the decision, even if not perfectly correlated." Of course it is, which is why modern reactor designs have incorporated safety features based on these accidents and older designs have been retrofitted (with some exceptions that are legitimately concerning). It's entirely true that it is impossible to predict every mode of catastrophic failure, but that does not mean it's impossible to create designs that are resilient to unplanned disasters. No type of power plant can be perfectly safe, but for assessing practical safety records, in terms of deaths / TWh generated, even estimating conservatively nuclear power is safer than any other source of power (including wind and solar). Some references for this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw... https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...