4 ms·

Your comparison is invalid.

by _def 7y ago

munk-a 7y ago
My comparison of the dangers of nuclear power to a paint bucket of uranium? As someone who grew up in Boston I have lived within 40 miles of a nuclear power plant for a decent chunk of my life. The times that nuclear power has caused disasters it has always been closely tied to mismanagement and human errors - which are solvable problems if we're open about the costs to utilize nuclear power in a manner more similar to France. I'm pretty sure you're more likely to be killed by a particularly ill mannered seabass than a nuclear power plant explosion (It definitely, for realsies, looks like being struck by lightning is a much more common way to die, but the specific counts are hard to dig up)
- Joakal 7y ago
  I like nuclear power. But as you point out, human "error" is why I'm against it. It was not even human error for Fukushima, they had ignored experts because the solution would hit the company's bottom line. So the solution is having it government owned. But unfortunately, there's a clear history of governments selling assets. Sorry, but until there's tiny reactors, the risk is huge because; human nature not science. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japa-nuclear-risks/special-report-japan-engineers-knew-tsunami-could-overrun-plant-idUSTRE72S2UA20110329 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japa-nuclear-risks/specia...
- tcbawo 7y ago
  Does the decommissioning process for a nuclear plant involve returning the space to other uses? Does it become a permanent dead zone? Half-lives of thousands of years are no joke. Practically infinite is a long time.
  - jcrawfordor 7y ago
    Yes. In the United States the NRC requires that civilian nuclear power plants be remediated to a point where the property can be released for unlimited use within 60 years of termination of the license. Most of this time span is provided for financial reasons, not technical, as decommissioning is financially secured by a trust fund which gains value with time (the use and investment of which is monitored by the NRC). The NRC does recognize an "entombment" state for facilities in which they are secured so as to be permanently safe, but this does not remove the 60-year requirement, so is usually done when another facility on the same site still has an active license, preventing full-site remediation.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    > Practically infinite is a long time. Nuclear power plants are not large. They're definitely smaller than the literally hundreds of acres of equivalent solar panels. [1] [1] Solar requires 3.4 acres/GWh/yr according to 2013 study. (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf). The smallest U.S. nuclear power plant was built in 1970 and generates 582 MW (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3). That's 3.4 acres/GWh/yr * 1000 GWh/MWh * 582 MW / 24 h/day / 365 day/yr = 225 acres of solar panels.
- goto11 7y ago
  > The times that nuclear power has caused disasters it has always been closely tied to mismanagement and human errors Is is really really hard to solve the problem of human mismanagement though. The technical challenges with nuclear are solvable, but the human factor is not. Take something like the space shuttle disasters - arguable both do to bad management. If NASA cant solve this problem even with the brightest minds and enormous resources, how can nuclear? If someone can solve the problem of human mismanagement, I'm all for nuclear.
- _def 7y ago
  > (It definitely, for realsies, looks like being struck by lightning is a much more common way to die, but the specific counts are hard to dig up) Of course. But what are the chances that almost every human in a big city get's struck by a lightning at the same time? It only has to happen once. I can't understand how people can think so carelessly when it comes to something this dangerous. "It's really really really unlikely that something goes horribly wrong" something goes horribly wrong "welp." We better find us some more planets to fuck up.

Your comparison is invalid.

by _def 7y ago

Your comparison is invalid.

My comparison of the dangers of nuclear power to a paint bucket of uranium? As someone who grew up in Boston I have lived within 40 miles of a nuclear power plant for a decent chunk of my life. The times that nuclear power has caused disasters it has always been closely tied to mismanagement and human errors - which are solvable problems if we're open about the costs to utilize nuclear power in a manner more similar to France. I'm pretty sure you're more likely to be killed by a particularly ill mannered seabass than a nuclear power plant explosion (It definitely, for realsies, looks like being struck by lightning is a much more common way to die, but the specific counts are hard to dig up)

Joakal 7y ago
I like nuclear power. But as you point out, human "error" is why I'm against it. It was not even human error for Fukushima, they had ignored experts because the solution would hit the company's bottom line. So the solution is having it government owned. But unfortunately, there's a clear history of governments selling assets. Sorry, but until there's tiny reactors, the risk is huge because; human nature not science. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japa-nuclear-risks/special-report-japan-engineers-knew-tsunami-could-overrun-plant-idUSTRE72S2UA20110329 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japa-nuclear-risks/specia...
tcbawo 7y ago
Does the decommissioning process for a nuclear plant involve returning the space to other uses? Does it become a permanent dead zone? Half-lives of thousands of years are no joke. Practically infinite is a long time.
- jcrawfordor 7y ago
  Yes. In the United States the NRC requires that civilian nuclear power plants be remediated to a point where the property can be released for unlimited use within 60 years of termination of the license. Most of this time span is provided for financial reasons, not technical, as decommissioning is financially secured by a trust fund which gains value with time (the use and investment of which is monitored by the NRC). The NRC does recognize an "entombment" state for facilities in which they are secured so as to be permanently safe, but this does not remove the 60-year requirement, so is usually done when another facility on the same site still has an active license, preventing full-site remediation.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > Practically infinite is a long time. Nuclear power plants are not large. They're definitely smaller than the literally hundreds of acres of equivalent solar panels. [1] [1] Solar requires 3.4 acres/GWh/yr according to 2013 study. (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf). The smallest U.S. nuclear power plant was built in 1970 and generates 582 MW (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3). That's 3.4 acres/GWh/yr * 1000 GWh/MWh * 582 MW / 24 h/day / 365 day/yr = 225 acres of solar panels.
goto11 7y ago
> The times that nuclear power has caused disasters it has always been closely tied to mismanagement and human errors Is is really really hard to solve the problem of human mismanagement though. The technical challenges with nuclear are solvable, but the human factor is not. Take something like the space shuttle disasters - arguable both do to bad management. If NASA cant solve this problem even with the brightest minds and enormous resources, how can nuclear? If someone can solve the problem of human mismanagement, I'm all for nuclear.
_def 7y ago
> (It definitely, for realsies, looks like being struck by lightning is a much more common way to die, but the specific counts are hard to dig up) Of course. But what are the chances that almost every human in a big city get's struck by a lightning at the same time? It only has to happen once. I can't understand how people can think so carelessly when it comes to something this dangerous. "It's really really really unlikely that something goes horribly wrong" something goes horribly wrong "welp." We better find us some more planets to fuck up.