4 ms·

I used to be pro-nuclear power but I've long since come to the conclusion that there are three fundamental problems that basically make nuclear power a non-star

by cletus 7y ago

I used to be pro-nuclear power but I've long since come to the conclusion that there are three fundamental problems that basically make nuclear power a non-starter: 1. While average deaths per kWh might be relatively low (compared to other forms of power generation) the worst case scenario is much, much worse. A coal plant just isn't capable of making a thousand square miles uninhabitable for centuries. 2. Companies just can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants. This requires long-term thinking way beyond quarterly profits. Because catastrophes are so unlikely but profit hits are so short term there is inevitable pressure to cut corners. 3. Governments have generally been pretty terrible at overseeing nuclear power industries. There are the dangers of regulatory capture and the temptation for politicians to kick the can down the street for the next guy to deal with. Political expediency is a powerful motivator. In the US, for example, the entire election/voting process has been politicized. Why is a Supervisor of Elections a political office? This is something fundamental to the function of our democracy and politicians are happy to throw it under the bus to get some short term political goal. Just look at the politics of climate change. That can't trump (pardon the pun) politics. What makes you think the safety and oversight of nuclear power generation will? 4. Nuclear waste. We still have no large-scale long-term plan for how to dispose of nuclear waste. What's more, governments seem to bear the cost for this rather than the corporations that profit from the power generated. The issues here range from making areas around sites uninhabitable (eg nuclear waste leaking into the water table) to human threats (eg certain isotopes make for great dirty bombs). Unless you have some solution for these problems, honestly I feel like you're wasting your time advocating for certainly fission power generation (and I'm not yet convinced nuclear fusion power generation is commercially viable).

colordrops 7y ago
That's a risky stance for HN. I fully agree though. The arguments for nuclear always seem to ignore the human element which is the main risk factor.
erentz 7y ago
> 1. While average deaths per kWh might be relatively low (compared to other forms of power generation) the worst case scenario is much, much worse. A coal plant just isn't capable of making a thousand square miles uninhabitable for centuries. Climate change is causing massive loss of land in the form of shifting climate and rising sea levels. And coal power's contribution to that lost land is far greater than the lost land at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Perhaps you deny climate change, but if you don't then you need to do a comparison of the portion of that climate change land loss attributable to each unit (GWh) of coal generation vs the portion of exclusion zone land lost per each unit of nuclear generation. Then think about the fact that in the coming decades we'll apparently need about another 100GW per year in new generating capacity for the developing world. They want reliable constant power, and a large portion of that is going to be coal if they don't have other options. > 2. Companies just can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants. This requires long-term thinking way beyond quarterly profits. Because catastrophes are so unlikely but profit hits are so short term there is inevitable pressure to cut corners. Few problems with this thinking. First this is why nuclear power plants are regulated. Second, we've actually been running an experiment on this for the past 50+ years, the results are in, and they're described in terms of land loss and deaths, which are less than other forms. There are also a number of walk away safe nuclear plant designs that have never been developed because we turned away from nuclear. > 3. Governments have generally been pretty terrible at overseeing nuclear power industries... This is just a continuation of 2. > 4. Nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is so damn small compared to waste from any other source. We do know how to dispose of it. Put it in a deep hole. Or burn it more in a breeder. > (eg certain isotopes make for great dirty bombs). Yikes. Please go visit a nuclear power plant and see if you can get your hands on it. I think if your goal is terrorism there are a few hundred easier ways to go about it. You're more likely to find materials for a dirty bomb from nuclear medicine sources.
- CyanBird 7y ago
  >Climate change is causing massive loss of land in the form of shifting climate and rising sea levels. And coal power's contribution to that lost land is far greater than the lost land at Chernobyl and Fukushima. False equivalency, as you are measuring the total land mass, to two specific accidents. This is a perfect example as to why no-body trusts Nuclear power advocacy, because it twists and turns facts into a mush with the aim of pushing the agenda. Building nuclear plants, & Uranium extraction and processing both release high amounts of CO2 gasses, to build nuclear plants isnt a magic wand that will fix global warming, it is an upfront cost, in the tens of billions of USD per plant, and after that comes the economic costs of constant subsidies. After all, nuclear power is the single most expensive way to produce energy after coal. >They want reliable constant power, and a large portion of that is going to be coal if they don't have other options. "They want reliable constant power", except you can deliver that with a matrix of solar+natural gas, or solar+wind+natural gas, or solar+gas+batteries. Again, you show yourself to not be discussing in good faith. Coal just like nuclear energy is simply not an economic endeavor anymore, it is all in gas, solar and wind. And energy matrices composed out of those can be highly reliable. >Few problems with this thinking. First this is why nuclear power plants are regulated. I mean, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl where all "regulated". "Known knowns, Known unknowns and Unknown unknowns". The risk costs of the Unknown unknowns for nuclear are simply stratospheric. Also, going once again back to price, the safer you make the nuclear plants, the more the cost, and the higher the subsidies they need to receive from consumers and governments. Also n2, as other people have mentioned in the thread, nuclear plants are always built by the lowest bidder, same with the staffing, same with the handling of nuclear waste. When you build a nuclear plant, you arent "trusting the best", you will always be trusting the cheapest guys in the business. >We do know how to dispose of it. Put it in a deep hole. Or burn it more in a breeder. Except.... We dont, Yuka Mountain isnt really operating, there are like 2 nuclear waste disposal in Europe, Onkalo and another site in Germany, and in the past there have been serious claims of dilapidation and abandonment [0] [0] https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-leaves-a-bitter-legacy/a-47420382 https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-l... When it comes to breeders, again, there's not a single one really working in the entire planet[1]. Spent nuclear fuel usually sits idly bye in rusting tanks [2, 3, 4], barrels, or besides the working reactors in the pools. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-bre... [2] https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-storage-site-report/a-43399896 https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-st... [3] https://www.thelocal.se/20140224/rust-found-on-vattenfall-nuclear-waste-barrels https://www.thelocal.se/20140224/rust-found-on-vattenfall-nu... [4] https://www.smh.com.au/national/rusted-barrels-of-radioactive-waste-cost-csiro-30-million-20170307-gusb6v.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/rusted-barrels-of-radioactiv... If you want people to actually believe what you say, you need to speak truthfully of how things actually work, not lie and give a rose tinted version of the facts
Balgair 7y ago
> 1. While average deaths per kWh might be relatively low (compared to other forms of power generation) the worst case scenario is much, much worse. A coal plant just isn't capable of making a thousand square miles uninhabitable for centuries. This is one of the main issues with nuclear technology in general. We just don't have a good 'training data set' for many of the energy applications. With weapons, we have a very good suspicion that 'tatical' uses of the technology will cause the end of the world. The probabilities are well-enough known and the outcomes are dire enough that we've been living in 'pax-nuclei' for nearly 80 years now. With medicine, we know how nuclear based medtech works and we have a 'good enough' idea that the benefits outweight the costs. Yes, the contrast dye is not good for you, but it'll give us a really good idea where the blockage is. Yes, the radiation chemo is not fun, but the cancer will kill you before the radiation does. The probabilities are well known and the expected values are understood. However, with nuclear energy, we do not have a good understanding of the expected values. Sure, the French run nuclear plants fairly well. But we thought that the Japanese did too, and look what happened when a 'black swan' came along. Deaths/KW-hr may be less for now, but we have a farily good suspicion that they could go up by a whole heck of a lot. Chernobyl was a disaster, but via the heroics of the people there, it was somewhat contained. What would have happened if they only had 90% of the heroes that were there? 80%? That fault-tree contains a lot of very bad situations. As such, it is not unreasonable to say that we need more information on nuclear energy before deciding on our energy future.
Grue3 7y ago
>A coal plant just isn't capable of making a thousand square miles uninhabitable for centuries. Neither is a nuclear plant. Cleaning up within a century seems feasible. A lot of Chernobyl exclusion zone is completely safe, it just hasn't been revised in decades. Just compare to how fast Fukushima exclusion zone is shrinking. And you're ignoring loss of land due to rising sea levels. >Companies just can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants. If companies can be trusted to run hydroelectric plants, which have a capability to drown everyone downstream, then they can be trusted to run nuclear. I've never seen anyone campaigning to end hydro even though potential for disaster is much bigger (and hydro disasters with more casualties than Chernobyl happened several times). >We still have no large-scale long-term plan for how to dispose of nuclear waste Given the amount of nuclear waste that is produces this seems a weak concern. Anything that's heavily radioactive is just an energy source to be reused (and there's a lot of research being done on this). And the alternative is a lot (and I mean a lot) of solar panels and batteries, and these need to be disposed of as well.
- LorenPechtel 7y ago
  The Fukushima exclusion zone should never have existed in the first place. More people died in the evacuation than if everyone had just stayed put. And the waste is a political issue, not a scientific one. Reprocess it to recover the fuel and useful isotopes. What's left decays to ambient in 10,000 years--and even if we used nuclear power forever it would never amount to more than one year's worth of fly ash from coal plants. And that fly ash is nasty stuff. A nuclear plant that emitted radiation like a coal plant would be shut down pronto.
extra88 7y ago
> 4. Nuclear waste. We still have no large-scale long-term plan for how to dispose of nuclear waste. In North America, I think we do have a plan, put it in Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. Its use has been blocked for various reasons.
EamonnMR 7y ago
Collectively all of the coal plants are going to render the world's coastlines uninhabitable, except to fish.

by cletus 7y ago

colordrops 7y ago

That's a risky stance for HN. I fully agree though. The arguments for nuclear always seem to ignore the human element which is the main risk factor.

erentz 7y ago

> 1. While average deaths per kWh might be relatively low (compared to other forms of power generation) the worst case scenario is much, much worse. A coal plant just isn't capable of making a thousand square miles uninhabitable for centuries. Climate change is causing massive loss of land in the form of shifting climate and rising sea levels. And coal power's contribution to that lost land is far greater than the lost land at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Perhaps you deny climate change, but if you don't then you need to do a comparison of the portion of that climate change land loss attributable to each unit (GWh) of coal generation vs the portion of exclusion zone land lost per each unit of nuclear generation. Then think about the fact that in the coming decades we'll apparently need about another 100GW per year in new generating capacity for the developing world. They want reliable constant power, and a large portion of that is going to be coal if they don't have other options. > 2. Companies just can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants. This requires long-term thinking way beyond quarterly profits. Because catastrophes are so unlikely but profit hits are so short term there is inevitable pressure to cut corners. Few problems with this thinking. First this is why nuclear power plants are regulated. Second, we've actually been running an experiment on this for the past 50+ years, the results are in, and they're described in terms of land loss and deaths, which are less than other forms. There are also a number of walk away safe nuclear plant designs that have never been developed because we turned away from nuclear. > 3. Governments have generally been pretty terrible at overseeing nuclear power industries... This is just a continuation of 2. > 4. Nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is so damn small compared to waste from any other source. We do know how to dispose of it. Put it in a deep hole. Or burn it more in a breeder. > (eg certain isotopes make for great dirty bombs). Yikes. Please go visit a nuclear power plant and see if you can get your hands on it. I think if your goal is terrorism there are a few hundred easier ways to go about it. You're more likely to find materials for a dirty bomb from nuclear medicine sources.

CyanBird 7y ago
>Climate change is causing massive loss of land in the form of shifting climate and rising sea levels. And coal power's contribution to that lost land is far greater than the lost land at Chernobyl and Fukushima. False equivalency, as you are measuring the total land mass, to two specific accidents. This is a perfect example as to why no-body trusts Nuclear power advocacy, because it twists and turns facts into a mush with the aim of pushing the agenda. Building nuclear plants, & Uranium extraction and processing both release high amounts of CO2 gasses, to build nuclear plants isnt a magic wand that will fix global warming, it is an upfront cost, in the tens of billions of USD per plant, and after that comes the economic costs of constant subsidies. After all, nuclear power is the single most expensive way to produce energy after coal. >They want reliable constant power, and a large portion of that is going to be coal if they don't have other options. "They want reliable constant power", except you can deliver that with a matrix of solar+natural gas, or solar+wind+natural gas, or solar+gas+batteries. Again, you show yourself to not be discussing in good faith. Coal just like nuclear energy is simply not an economic endeavor anymore, it is all in gas, solar and wind. And energy matrices composed out of those can be highly reliable. >Few problems with this thinking. First this is why nuclear power plants are regulated. I mean, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl where all "regulated". "Known knowns, Known unknowns and Unknown unknowns". The risk costs of the Unknown unknowns for nuclear are simply stratospheric. Also, going once again back to price, the safer you make the nuclear plants, the more the cost, and the higher the subsidies they need to receive from consumers and governments. Also n2, as other people have mentioned in the thread, nuclear plants are always built by the lowest bidder, same with the staffing, same with the handling of nuclear waste. When you build a nuclear plant, you arent "trusting the best", you will always be trusting the cheapest guys in the business. >We do know how to dispose of it. Put it in a deep hole. Or burn it more in a breeder. Except.... We dont, Yuka Mountain isnt really operating, there are like 2 nuclear waste disposal in Europe, Onkalo and another site in Germany, and in the past there have been serious claims of dilapidation and abandonment [0] [0] https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-leaves-a-bitter-legacy/a-47420382 https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-l... When it comes to breeders, again, there's not a single one really working in the entire planet[1]. Spent nuclear fuel usually sits idly bye in rusting tanks [2, 3, 4], barrels, or besides the working reactors in the pools. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-bre... [2] https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-storage-site-report/a-43399896 https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-st... [3] https://www.thelocal.se/20140224/rust-found-on-vattenfall-nuclear-waste-barrels https://www.thelocal.se/20140224/rust-found-on-vattenfall-nu... [4] https://www.smh.com.au/national/rusted-barrels-of-radioactive-waste-cost-csiro-30-million-20170307-gusb6v.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/rusted-barrels-of-radioactiv... If you want people to actually believe what you say, you need to speak truthfully of how things actually work, not lie and give a rose tinted version of the facts

Balgair 7y ago

> 1. While average deaths per kWh might be relatively low (compared to other forms of power generation) the worst case scenario is much, much worse. A coal plant just isn't capable of making a thousand square miles uninhabitable for centuries. This is one of the main issues with nuclear technology in general. We just don't have a good 'training data set' for many of the energy applications. With weapons, we have a very good suspicion that 'tatical' uses of the technology will cause the end of the world. The probabilities are well-enough known and the outcomes are dire enough that we've been living in 'pax-nuclei' for nearly 80 years now. With medicine, we know how nuclear based medtech works and we have a 'good enough' idea that the benefits outweight the costs. Yes, the contrast dye is not good for you, but it'll give us a really good idea where the blockage is. Yes, the radiation chemo is not fun, but the cancer will kill you before the radiation does. The probabilities are well known and the expected values are understood. However, with nuclear energy, we do not have a good understanding of the expected values. Sure, the French run nuclear plants fairly well. But we thought that the Japanese did too, and look what happened when a 'black swan' came along. Deaths/KW-hr may be less for now, but we have a farily good suspicion that they could go up by a whole heck of a lot. Chernobyl was a disaster, but via the heroics of the people there, it was somewhat contained. What would have happened if they only had 90% of the heroes that were there? 80%? That fault-tree contains a lot of very bad situations. As such, it is not unreasonable to say that we need more information on nuclear energy before deciding on our energy future.

Grue3 7y ago

>A coal plant just isn't capable of making a thousand square miles uninhabitable for centuries. Neither is a nuclear plant. Cleaning up within a century seems feasible. A lot of Chernobyl exclusion zone is completely safe, it just hasn't been revised in decades. Just compare to how fast Fukushima exclusion zone is shrinking. And you're ignoring loss of land due to rising sea levels. >Companies just can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants. If companies can be trusted to run hydroelectric plants, which have a capability to drown everyone downstream, then they can be trusted to run nuclear. I've never seen anyone campaigning to end hydro even though potential for disaster is much bigger (and hydro disasters with more casualties than Chernobyl happened several times). >We still have no large-scale long-term plan for how to dispose of nuclear waste Given the amount of nuclear waste that is produces this seems a weak concern. Anything that's heavily radioactive is just an energy source to be reused (and there's a lot of research being done on this). And the alternative is a lot (and I mean a lot) of solar panels and batteries, and these need to be disposed of as well.

LorenPechtel 7y ago
The Fukushima exclusion zone should never have existed in the first place. More people died in the evacuation than if everyone had just stayed put. And the waste is a political issue, not a scientific one. Reprocess it to recover the fuel and useful isotopes. What's left decays to ambient in 10,000 years--and even if we used nuclear power forever it would never amount to more than one year's worth of fly ash from coal plants. And that fly ash is nasty stuff. A nuclear plant that emitted radiation like a coal plant would be shut down pronto.

extra88 7y ago

> 4. Nuclear waste. We still have no large-scale long-term plan for how to dispose of nuclear waste. In North America, I think we do have a plan, put it in Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. Its use has been blocked for various reasons.

EamonnMR 7y ago

Collectively all of the coal plants are going to render the world's coastlines uninhabitable, except to fish.