4 ms·

So many people are grossly unaware of nuclear power and it's potential vs its risks. Many people in the USA live much closer to a nuclear power plant than they

So many people are grossly unaware of nuclear power and it's potential vs its risks. Many people in the USA live much closer to a nuclear power plant than they realize. It has huge potential but its scare factor keep it from widespread adoption.

gravy 7y ago
This is kind of why I'm a little concerned with how well HBO's Chernobyl is being received...I really hope it doesn't lead to widespread fears of nuclear plants.
- arethuza 7y ago
  HBO's Chernobyl really is very good, but the writer made an execellent point: "The lesson of Chernobyl isn't that modern nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that lying, arrogance and suppression of criticism is dangerous. The flaws that led to Chernobyl are the same flaws shown by climate change deniers today." https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/1115135743045718016?lang=en https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/1115135743045718016?lang=... Edit: Purely by coincidence I read "Chernobyl: History of a Tregedy" by Serhii Plokhy a few months back - one of the few books that has moved me to tears - the self sacrifice of many who worked there with full knowledge of what the awful consequences would be is stunning. "If not us then who?"
  - gravy 7y ago
    That's exactly true. That's the lesson I'm getting out of the series.
    - ambicapter 7y ago
      Its just as forbidding for the future of nuclear though. If there's one thing you can count on, is that people don't change.
      - mooseburger 7y ago
        Eh. The Soviet Union really was a uniquely dysfunctional place. The level of reality denial and sucking up to the higher ups that led to Chernobyl is not commonplace.
        ambicapter 7y ago
        People weren't very happy with the handling of Three Mile Island either.
  - DubiousPusher 7y ago
    Regardless of the writer's intentions it is probably having an effect. I was formerly fairly pro-nuclear and since watching the show I've begun reconsidering my position. It isn't that the plant failed and the vivid depictions of that which have most affected me. It's the depictions of the knock on effects which were barely stemmed after the failure that have caused me to reconsider. The most concerning thing about Chernobyl is not the initial explosion. It's the impact the secondary and tertiary disasters could have had if the Soviet government had not acted to mitigate them. Those are cases in which millions of people are affected and regions the size of Alabama become uninhabitable. I personally was not aware that a failure at a plant could cascade into those kind of issues. I didn't realize that Chernobyl could have been much much worse. And that is my problem. I believe fundamentally in human fallibility. We and our best machines will always find new ways to fail. Always. In some cases, the risks are acceptable. Such is the case with flying in a plane. No matter how good aircraft and our safety procedures get. The loss of a plane, however tragic does not impact the future of our planet of our species. What's more, the law of large numbers says if you make nuclear power ubiquitous, it's almost a guarantee that some 1/1000, 1/10000, or even 1/1000000, event will occur. For me, I'm not against nuclear now but I am much less gung-ho and that's due to this show. I look forward to learning more though and perhaps my opinion will sway back.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  If it's any consolation, the meme "nuclear is failing because of unreasonable fears" is wrong. Nuclear is failing because it costs too much, and that cost is driven by complexity and low learning effects, not regulation.
nickik 7y ago
What keeps it from widespread adoption isn't that people are scared. Its the regulatory framework that was put into place after the accidents. They have killed the industry and pretty much all progress.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  The nuclear industry isn't very good at making reactors, but nuclear proponents are really good at making excuses.
- Taylor_OD 7y ago
  I don't think this is true. Ask people how they feel about nuclear energy. Then ask them how they feel about living near a nuclear plant. Regulations are difficult to navigate but if there is sufficient want and need then they will be navigated. See any government contract work.
  - nickik 7y ago
    I'm sorry but this is just not true. There is a large amount of difference between navigating regulation a software contract or a road compared to a nuclear plant. Its quite literally impossible to operate a prototype reactor for example. You literally need to build a production version on your first try to even get fissile materials. To actually being able to regulate something you need to pay the DoE and they don't even give you a timeline. "Hallo I like to build this new reactor, here are the plans", "Thanks now give us 100M$ and 2-4 years and then we will tell you all the things that we required, then you can submit it again (with more money of course)".

gravy 7y ago

This is kind of why I'm a little concerned with how well HBO's Chernobyl is being received...I really hope it doesn't lead to widespread fears of nuclear plants.

arethuza 7y ago
HBO's Chernobyl really is very good, but the writer made an execellent point: "The lesson of Chernobyl isn't that modern nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that lying, arrogance and suppression of criticism is dangerous. The flaws that led to Chernobyl are the same flaws shown by climate change deniers today." https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/1115135743045718016?lang=en https://twitter.com/clmazin/status/1115135743045718016?lang=... Edit: Purely by coincidence I read "Chernobyl: History of a Tregedy" by Serhii Plokhy a few months back - one of the few books that has moved me to tears - the self sacrifice of many who worked there with full knowledge of what the awful consequences would be is stunning. "If not us then who?"
- gravy 7y ago
  That's exactly true. That's the lesson I'm getting out of the series.
  - ambicapter 7y ago
    Its just as forbidding for the future of nuclear though. If there's one thing you can count on, is that people don't change.
    - mooseburger 7y ago
      Eh. The Soviet Union really was a uniquely dysfunctional place. The level of reality denial and sucking up to the higher ups that led to Chernobyl is not commonplace.
      - ambicapter 7y ago
        People weren't very happy with the handling of Three Mile Island either.
- DubiousPusher 7y ago
  Regardless of the writer's intentions it is probably having an effect. I was formerly fairly pro-nuclear and since watching the show I've begun reconsidering my position. It isn't that the plant failed and the vivid depictions of that which have most affected me. It's the depictions of the knock on effects which were barely stemmed after the failure that have caused me to reconsider. The most concerning thing about Chernobyl is not the initial explosion. It's the impact the secondary and tertiary disasters could have had if the Soviet government had not acted to mitigate them. Those are cases in which millions of people are affected and regions the size of Alabama become uninhabitable. I personally was not aware that a failure at a plant could cascade into those kind of issues. I didn't realize that Chernobyl could have been much much worse. And that is my problem. I believe fundamentally in human fallibility. We and our best machines will always find new ways to fail. Always. In some cases, the risks are acceptable. Such is the case with flying in a plane. No matter how good aircraft and our safety procedures get. The loss of a plane, however tragic does not impact the future of our planet of our species. What's more, the law of large numbers says if you make nuclear power ubiquitous, it's almost a guarantee that some 1/1000, 1/10000, or even 1/1000000, event will occur. For me, I'm not against nuclear now but I am much less gung-ho and that's due to this show. I look forward to learning more though and perhaps my opinion will sway back.
pfdietz 7y ago
If it's any consolation, the meme "nuclear is failing because of unreasonable fears" is wrong. Nuclear is failing because it costs too much, and that cost is driven by complexity and low learning effects, not regulation.

nickik 7y ago

What keeps it from widespread adoption isn't that people are scared. Its the regulatory framework that was put into place after the accidents. They have killed the industry and pretty much all progress.

pfdietz 7y ago
The nuclear industry isn't very good at making reactors, but nuclear proponents are really good at making excuses.
Taylor_OD 7y ago
I don't think this is true. Ask people how they feel about nuclear energy. Then ask them how they feel about living near a nuclear plant. Regulations are difficult to navigate but if there is sufficient want and need then they will be navigated. See any government contract work.
- nickik 7y ago
  I'm sorry but this is just not true. There is a large amount of difference between navigating regulation a software contract or a road compared to a nuclear plant. Its quite literally impossible to operate a prototype reactor for example. You literally need to build a production version on your first try to even get fissile materials. To actually being able to regulate something you need to pay the DoE and they don't even give you a timeline. "Hallo I like to build this new reactor, here are the plans", "Thanks now give us 100M$ and 2-4 years and then we will tell you all the things that we required, then you can submit it again (with more money of course)".