3 ms·

Or, nuclear.

by ethbro 7y ago

Or, nuclear.

rickycook 7y ago
does modern nuclear eschew digital controls? i mean... i’m sure they have manual cutoffs and sensors that humans monitor; can’t have some rogue hacker able to turn a nuclear plant into a huge catastrophe from the other side of the world and all... but i’d think they’d be largely automated to reduce human error?
- ethbro 7y ago
  Parent was talking about the necessity of networked digital control systems to manage intermittent renewable sources. My point was that a grid comprised of a higher percentage of nuclear wouldn't need as advanced networked feedback, as sources wouldn't be turning on and off suddenly. Indeed there would be local digital monitoring and control with nuclear, but that's a much less risky threat vector.
- droithomme 7y ago
  Digital elements in control is not the same as internet controlled. There is no valid reason to make nuclear power plant controls accessible for control by internet.
- waste_monk 7y ago
  It would be crazy to make it network-controllable, but you could have a data diode to allow power generation metrics and other monitoring data pass from the control network to the outside world.
jimmaswell 7y ago
If we didn't let scaremongerers ruin nuclear with politics we could have had a 100% carbon-neutral (I don't count transportation because we can move to electric vehicles) grid with more cheap power available than we could find a use for by now. Nuclear is statistically the safest form of energy in terms of deaths/kWh and waste storage is massively overblown, not even accounting for how we could be recycling that waste in new plant designs if it weren't for the fubar politics around it.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > Nuclear is statistically the safest form of energy in terms of deaths/kWh This is somewhat misleading, because the major risks are things like birth defects and cancers which are really hard to attribute to any specific cause. Not to mention that it's stochastic; we probably won't have a disaster, but if we do it ruins a huge land area at tremendous cost. Also, this doesn't work for every country.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Exactly, according to Russia, only 31 people died as a result of Chernobyl.

Or, nuclear.

by ethbro 7y ago

Or, nuclear.

does modern nuclear eschew digital controls? i mean... i’m sure they have manual cutoffs and sensors that humans monitor; can’t have some rogue hacker able to turn a nuclear plant into a huge catastrophe from the other side of the world and all... but i’d think they’d be largely automated to reduce human error?

ethbro 7y ago
Parent was talking about the necessity of networked digital control systems to manage intermittent renewable sources. My point was that a grid comprised of a higher percentage of nuclear wouldn't need as advanced networked feedback, as sources wouldn't be turning on and off suddenly. Indeed there would be local digital monitoring and control with nuclear, but that's a much less risky threat vector.
droithomme 7y ago
Digital elements in control is not the same as internet controlled. There is no valid reason to make nuclear power plant controls accessible for control by internet.
waste_monk 7y ago
It would be crazy to make it network-controllable, but you could have a data diode to allow power generation metrics and other monitoring data pass from the control network to the outside world.

jimmaswell 7y ago

If we didn't let scaremongerers ruin nuclear with politics we could have had a 100% carbon-neutral (I don't count transportation because we can move to electric vehicles) grid with more cheap power available than we could find a use for by now. Nuclear is statistically the safest form of energy in terms of deaths/kWh and waste storage is massively overblown, not even accounting for how we could be recycling that waste in new plant designs if it weren't for the fubar politics around it.

pjc50 7y ago
> Nuclear is statistically the safest form of energy in terms of deaths/kWh This is somewhat misleading, because the major risks are things like birth defects and cancers which are really hard to attribute to any specific cause. Not to mention that it's stochastic; we probably won't have a disaster, but if we do it ruins a huge land area at tremendous cost. Also, this doesn't work for every country.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Exactly, according to Russia, only 31 people died as a result of Chernobyl.