4 ms·

its "worst case" pales in comparison to fossil fuel's "guaranteed outcome by 2100." I'm fairly certain nuclear catastrophe is far worse than global warming.

sq_ 7y ago
I can’t say I agree with you there. Worst case for nuclear power is highly contaminated local areas (highly unlikely with modern designs), whereas the worst case for climate change is global environmental collapse.
- eximius 7y ago
  I'm a nuclear proponent, but this ignores airborne particles and ecological collapse which can propagate and have very broad effects. Those things can be managed, but the 'worst case' of nuclear is not negligible. Though even poor management of nuclear materials very quickly eliminates the worst cases.
  - sq_ 7y ago
    You’re very much correct, although I think the reality of the threat of wide scale contamination is often overstated. To use Chernobyl as an example, since that’s the worst case of an airborne release from a nuclear plant that I know of, the absolute worst case in the case of a steam explosion breaching the other reactors’ containment was contamination of a significant portion of Europe. Modern reactors are designed so that such things are almost impossible, even without competent operators. The worst case for climate change is a mass extinction event. So while I agree with you that the worst case of nuclear is non negligible, the probabilities and scale of such events push me towards the opinion that nuclear energy is an extremely good option for limiting our use of fossil fuels in the near future.
- 7952 7y ago
  Of course a serious nuclear incident may cause a reversion to fossil fuels. That may not be rational but that is human nature. Not much you can do about that. So the worse case of nuclear power is actually global warming caused by fossil fuels. And an eye watering San up bill that has opportunity costs for decades.
yongjik 7y ago
Unless your idea of a "nuclear catastrophe" includes a global thermonuclear war, no, it really isn't.
DuskStar 7y ago
Chernobyl made around 1,000 sq mi 'uninhabitable' for around a century. (Some of the area will be safe to occupy in far less time, some in far more) If we learned nothing from that accident and had one such accident per decade while providing all the world's electricity, we would lose about 10,000 square miles of land to radioactive contamination. Those assumptions seem extremely unfavorable to me - accidents should be less frequent and less severe with modern reactor designs and sane operating procedures. But yet, powering the US alone with solar would take approximately 17,500 square miles - and irradiated zones from nuclear accidents are less damaging to the environment than solar panels are.
- colordrops 7y ago
  Chernobyl only took out 10,000 square miles because they got lucky. If they didn't drain water tanks it could have exploded making a huge portion of the continent uninhabitable. Also, using 17,500 square miles doesn't equal damage. The land could be reclaimed in negligible time by removing the panels, unlike nuclear contamination.
  - gjm11 7y ago
    > it could have exploded making a huge portion of the continent uninhabitable Some details and references for this would be nice. I find it hard to believe, though of course sometimes things I find hard to believe turn out to be true :-).
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      The area under the reactor core was filled with water, and if the corium (molten core material) had contacted that water it would have caused a steam explosion and launched additional material outside of the reactor building. There's an interesting StackOverflow post relating to this here: [0] That just deals with the size of the steam explosion though, not the potential effects. (And for reference, I've seen the largest explosion that did occur listed as ~10T equivalent) 0: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large...

sq_ 7y ago

I can’t say I agree with you there. Worst case for nuclear power is highly contaminated local areas (highly unlikely with modern designs), whereas the worst case for climate change is global environmental collapse.

eximius 7y ago
I'm a nuclear proponent, but this ignores airborne particles and ecological collapse which can propagate and have very broad effects. Those things can be managed, but the 'worst case' of nuclear is not negligible. Though even poor management of nuclear materials very quickly eliminates the worst cases.
- sq_ 7y ago
  You’re very much correct, although I think the reality of the threat of wide scale contamination is often overstated. To use Chernobyl as an example, since that’s the worst case of an airborne release from a nuclear plant that I know of, the absolute worst case in the case of a steam explosion breaching the other reactors’ containment was contamination of a significant portion of Europe. Modern reactors are designed so that such things are almost impossible, even without competent operators. The worst case for climate change is a mass extinction event. So while I agree with you that the worst case of nuclear is non negligible, the probabilities and scale of such events push me towards the opinion that nuclear energy is an extremely good option for limiting our use of fossil fuels in the near future.
7952 7y ago
Of course a serious nuclear incident may cause a reversion to fossil fuels. That may not be rational but that is human nature. Not much you can do about that. So the worse case of nuclear power is actually global warming caused by fossil fuels. And an eye watering San up bill that has opportunity costs for decades.

yongjik 7y ago

Unless your idea of a "nuclear catastrophe" includes a global thermonuclear war, no, it really isn't.

DuskStar 7y ago

Chernobyl made around 1,000 sq mi 'uninhabitable' for around a century. (Some of the area will be safe to occupy in far less time, some in far more) If we learned nothing from that accident and had one such accident per decade while providing all the world's electricity, we would lose about 10,000 square miles of land to radioactive contamination. Those assumptions seem extremely unfavorable to me - accidents should be less frequent and less severe with modern reactor designs and sane operating procedures. But yet, powering the US alone with solar would take approximately 17,500 square miles - and irradiated zones from nuclear accidents are less damaging to the environment than solar panels are.

colordrops 7y ago
Chernobyl only took out 10,000 square miles because they got lucky. If they didn't drain water tanks it could have exploded making a huge portion of the continent uninhabitable. Also, using 17,500 square miles doesn't equal damage. The land could be reclaimed in negligible time by removing the panels, unlike nuclear contamination.
- gjm11 7y ago
  > it could have exploded making a huge portion of the continent uninhabitable Some details and references for this would be nice. I find it hard to believe, though of course sometimes things I find hard to believe turn out to be true :-).
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    The area under the reactor core was filled with water, and if the corium (molten core material) had contacted that water it would have caused a steam explosion and launched additional material outside of the reactor building. There's an interesting StackOverflow post relating to this here: [0] That just deals with the size of the steam explosion though, not the potential effects. (And for reference, I've seen the largest explosion that did occur listed as ~10T equivalent) 0: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large...