4 ms·
I was pro-nuclear because I believe these systems are technically safe and sound, we need nuclear to reduce the dependence of fossil fuels, we need nuclear to b
by segfaultbuserr 7y ago
I was pro-nuclear because I believe these systems are technically safe and sound, we need nuclear to reduce the dependence of fossil fuels, we need nuclear to balance the unstable power output from solar and wind, also that the Generation III+ reactors are promising, we need to widely deploy them and continue to advance the technology.
Today, I still believe the technology, but I doubt about its practicality, both financially and politically.
1. If we do a cost-benefit analysis, we must realize that the political resistance of the nuclear power plant is parts of its cost, it doesn't matter whether the anti-nuclear politicians or activists are correct or not, in either way, it simply adds to the cost of the project. Sometimes the cost is serious - the complete halt of the project is not out of the possibilities, and it means billions of tax dollars are wasted on useless projects.
2. Also, the strong pressure and paranoia on its safety, both from the public, and from the engineers, is sometimes responsible for the escalating costs of the projects, as more and more safety upgrades are implemented over time. I'm not saying that safety is not important, but it means there are hidden costs. And because safety is paramount, you can't just ignore them,
e.g. a safety risk is discovered in incident X, to avoid similar problems, all the XYZ reactors must be upgraded!
e.g. the nuclear reactor Y has an minor anomaly Z, it's believed that the issue is not a big deal, but for safety, the reactors are switched off until the reason is determined! (6 months later) Engineers have determined the issue is a completely normal phenomenon within the design! (3 months later) The executive/legislative body finally allowed the reactors to be restarted...
Just think about how much economic damage is done in this process... Worse, any such problems, even it was the direct result of being safety-minded, will be attacked by the anti-nuclear activists and politicians, further contributing to problem No.1, make the cost even greater.
3. In addition, a nuclear power plant requires highly competent personnels, companies and regulatory agencies to run and monitor. Mismanagement due to incompetency can make its safety risks much higher than the projected risks. It's not a big problem if it's operated with a good record of safety in some countries with a government that has a relatively good public image, but in other countries it's a big problem. I've once asked a networking engineer from Taiwan about the nuclear protests over the Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant, he said he was against the project, not because he doesn't believe the technology (which is the most common reason in the anti-nuclear movement), but that he has no confidence that the miserable government is competent enough to operate it.
4. Furthermore, the political resistance of deep underground nuclear waste disposal repository is even higher. One should realize that currently there are already thousands buckets of nuclear waste waiting for proper disposal, and without a deep underground repository, by doing nothing, the risks for the environment is much more higher. Unfortunately, as long as the political resistance exists, it adds a huge cost to everything nuclear. Not to mention the environmental risks of continue producing more nuclear waste without a repository.
5. Finally, even in China - one of the biggest supporters of nuclear power - the ambitious construction projects are slowing down due to reason No.1 and No.2, despite that the political resistance is not a big problem in its authoritarian political system. Competition of cheap solar and wind is another reason.
> China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news.
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-...
I'm really uncertain about everything now. What is your opinion regarding my observations?
- brazzy 7y ago> Mismanagement due to incompetency can make its safety risks much higher than the projected risks. I've once asked a networking engineer from Taiwan about the nuclear protests over the Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant, he said he was against the project, not because he doesn't believe the technology, but that he has no confidence that the government is competent enough to operate it. This is IMO a factor that is talked about far too little. It doesn't matter how safe the technology is in theory, in practice it will be run by people who are fallible, and often incompetent and/or greedy. IMO the latter is an even bigger concern. If you can make a buck by cutting corners and flouting security protocols, someone somewhere will do it.
- tempguy9999 7y agoIt's talked about too little because the nuke industry won't, and the guy on the street just wants power as cheap as possible and screw the implications; they don't want to think about it so they won't. To me this political/managerial drawback is the only drawback to nuclear power; the sole and single downside. But it's a killer because of human nature.
- segfaultbuserr 7y agoActually I see issue 1, 2, 4 as more relevant issues on the practicality of nuclear power. But as you want more about human issues, a classic work is Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies by Charles Perrow. The book shows that any complex system is likely to fail due to its inherent complexity, and due to the external social organization. Worth reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents
- tempguy9999 7y agoExcellent, will check it out, thank! Actually just looked at the wiki page, that's enough for me to order it today. In return may I offer this absolutely bitchin' tome Safeware by Nancy Leveson https://www.amazon.co.uk/Safeware-System-Safety-Computers-19/dp/0201119722/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Safeware-System-Safety-Computers-19... which I can't recommend enough. It's aimed at a lower level than your book AFAICT (lower level = less about interconnectedness of large systems) but it's a must read.