45 ms·

Per gigawatt-hour, nuclear power as it stands may very well be the safest power source that we have got already. The biggest hurdle is irrational fear and the

Per gigawatt-hour, nuclear power as it stands may very well be the safest power source that we have got already. The biggest hurdle is irrational fear and the regulatory barriers consequent.

v_lisivka 8y ago
Yeah, it's sad that people refuse to live at Chornobyl, Fucusima, or many other safe places. So much of land is just wasted because of this irrational fear.
- thrower123 8y ago
  I grew up downstream of a whole set of International Paper and Boise-Meade paper mills on the Androscoggin River. I think I'd prefer Fukishima - there's less cancer there.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    I live near to Chornobyl. Many of us are died because of cancer, which is 2x-3x more common here, even when statistic diluted by clean areas. I can help you to move, if you wish.
beoh 8y ago
I wouldn't necessarily call it irrational. While there are far less incidents in nuclear power, their severity and long term harm are much greater while being very hard to get back under control as we have seen in the past. I would assume many would prefer to have broken a bone a few times in their life instead of a single shot in the head. This fear is very much understandable in my opinion. I do not mean to imply that there are less fatalities from other energy sources, especially since those harming the environment might cause the end of us all. It's much like the fear of flying, it is safer, but if something happens you cannot run nor stir to the side, you are completely of control and the outcome will be most certainly fatal.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  > their severity and long term harm are much greater This is false; Coal has more radioactive waste release to air, soil, and water. In the U.S. we store what we do capture in "ash pools".
ajross 8y ago
So... following that logic, air travel is the safest method available, so your argument is that we should stop regulating it? It's the safest method available because it is well regulated with an attendant long-standing culture of safety -- so much so that even a single breakdown (c.f. the 737 MAX) is considered an existential disaster for a manufacturer. For an argument from the other side: you're notably looking at (well regulated!) electrical industry statistics for your safety metrics, but if you include unregulated (military) applications things don't look nearly so rosy. There are a surprising number of reactors sitting on the bottom of the ocean right now...
beders 8y ago
A 1% failure rate is not irrational fear.
pfdietz 8y ago
No, the biggest hurdle is that it's grossly uneconomic.
- thrower123 8y ago
  Because it costs billions of dollars to check everything over in octuplet and build everything special because everyone is so damned afraid of The Bomb that we gave up on building them fifty years ago at scale. It's the safest thing going. https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1125561673555693569 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/11255616735556935...
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    The nuclear industry isn't very good at making reactors, but they're really good at making excuses.

Per gigawatt-hour, nuclear power as it stands may very well be the safest power source that we have got already. The biggest hurdle is irrational fear and the regulatory barriers consequent.

v_lisivka 8y ago

Yeah, it's sad that people refuse to live at Chornobyl, Fucusima, or many other safe places. So much of land is just wasted because of this irrational fear.

thrower123 8y ago
I grew up downstream of a whole set of International Paper and Boise-Meade paper mills on the Androscoggin River. I think I'd prefer Fukishima - there's less cancer there.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  I live near to Chornobyl. Many of us are died because of cancer, which is 2x-3x more common here, even when statistic diluted by clean areas. I can help you to move, if you wish.

beoh 8y ago

I wouldn't necessarily call it irrational. While there are far less incidents in nuclear power, their severity and long term harm are much greater while being very hard to get back under control as we have seen in the past. I would assume many would prefer to have broken a bone a few times in their life instead of a single shot in the head. This fear is very much understandable in my opinion. I do not mean to imply that there are less fatalities from other energy sources, especially since those harming the environment might cause the end of us all. It's much like the fear of flying, it is safer, but if something happens you cannot run nor stir to the side, you are completely of control and the outcome will be most certainly fatal.

smileysteve 8y ago
> their severity and long term harm are much greater This is false; Coal has more radioactive waste release to air, soil, and water. In the U.S. we store what we do capture in "ash pools".

ajross 8y ago

So... following that logic, air travel is the safest method available, so your argument is that we should stop regulating it? It's the safest method available because it is well regulated with an attendant long-standing culture of safety -- so much so that even a single breakdown (c.f. the 737 MAX) is considered an existential disaster for a manufacturer. For an argument from the other side: you're notably looking at (well regulated!) electrical industry statistics for your safety metrics, but if you include unregulated (military) applications things don't look nearly so rosy. There are a surprising number of reactors sitting on the bottom of the ocean right now...

beders 8y ago

A 1% failure rate is not irrational fear.

pfdietz 8y ago

No, the biggest hurdle is that it's grossly uneconomic.

thrower123 8y ago
Because it costs billions of dollars to check everything over in octuplet and build everything special because everyone is so damned afraid of The Bomb that we gave up on building them fifty years ago at scale. It's the safest thing going. https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1125561673555693569 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/11255616735556935...
- pfdietz 8y ago
  The nuclear industry isn't very good at making reactors, but they're really good at making excuses.