3 ms·

> whereas replacing some of that demand with nuclear can't happen because of orders of magnitude less volume of much easier to handle (and reprocessable in the

> whereas replacing some of that demand with nuclear can't happen because of orders of magnitude less volume of much easier to handle (and reprocessable in the future) waste is somehow a show-stopper I don't think the main issue is with the nuclear waste. It's with the fact that even though it's possible to build and operate safe nuclear plants, human nature gets in the way and prevents that from happening.

odkamkfn 7y ago
If we compare the year with the worst nuclear accident in history so far to a completely unremarkable year of fossil fuels, nuclear comes out ahead when it comes to safety.
Iv 7y ago
Passive safety makes it sure that clueless operator can only result in a safe shutdown of the core and that it is physically impossible to maintain supercriticality in a core, basically by making it melt and separate into several sub-critical components.
- moneytide1 7y ago
  It sounds like this measure would have prevented Chernobyl. The problem there wasn't all human operator - cheap graphite tips on the control rods?
  - p_l 7y ago
    It wasn't being cheap, but accepting things that didn't pass Soviet safety rules was one, another was that the process was not followed. Same design RBMK reactors have been operated for years without issue, but the Chernobyl plant did a test in wrong order,meaning that the safety measures that were backups for the tests... Weren't running. After significant human process training, the rest of Chernobyl NPP operated till around 2005
    - moneytide1 7y ago
      Instead of us being frightened away from the benefits of nuclear because of the detriment demonstrated by the disaster, we should view Chernobyl as a necessary mistake meant to permanently lock in standards for even the most careless of governments. Even Fukushima comes to mind, even though a larger-than-expected natural disaster was the cause. After parsing the Wiki: "... the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings..." Sounds like there was still human engineering negligence. Perhaps that can teach us to restrict new reactors inland. As some have pointed out in this thread, oil sand waste dumps could ultimately be more harmful than nuclear waste...
WalterBright 7y ago
> It's with the fact that even though it's possible to build and operate safe nuclear plants, human nature gets in the way and prevents that from happening. People have managed to do that with airliners, even though flying at 30,000 feet in -40F temps, insufficient oxygen, in a tin balloon filled with gas has nothing inherently safe about it. And yet airline travel is incredibly safe. I.e. since we can make that safe, we can do that with reactors. (For contrast, ever wonder how the US got the B-17's to England during WW2? The combat crews, as their first job, flew them there across the Atlantic. My dad (B-17 navigator) said more than a few took off from Newfoundland and were never heard from again. After the war they came back on a ship. Lindbergh came back on a ship, too.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
erentz 7y ago
But isn’t this “nuclear’s weakness is humans” argument disproven by history? We humans have been running nuclear plants for a very long time and yet deaths from nuclear power are still lower than all other power sources, and much much much lower of course than fossil sources. So it seems more correct to say, actually we humans are better at running nuclear power safely than any other power source.

odkamkfn 7y ago

If we compare the year with the worst nuclear accident in history so far to a completely unremarkable year of fossil fuels, nuclear comes out ahead when it comes to safety.

Iv 7y ago

Passive safety makes it sure that clueless operator can only result in a safe shutdown of the core and that it is physically impossible to maintain supercriticality in a core, basically by making it melt and separate into several sub-critical components.

moneytide1 7y ago
It sounds like this measure would have prevented Chernobyl. The problem there wasn't all human operator - cheap graphite tips on the control rods?
- p_l 7y ago
  It wasn't being cheap, but accepting things that didn't pass Soviet safety rules was one, another was that the process was not followed. Same design RBMK reactors have been operated for years without issue, but the Chernobyl plant did a test in wrong order,meaning that the safety measures that were backups for the tests... Weren't running. After significant human process training, the rest of Chernobyl NPP operated till around 2005
  - moneytide1 7y ago
    Instead of us being frightened away from the benefits of nuclear because of the detriment demonstrated by the disaster, we should view Chernobyl as a necessary mistake meant to permanently lock in standards for even the most careless of governments. Even Fukushima comes to mind, even though a larger-than-expected natural disaster was the cause. After parsing the Wiki: "... the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for Units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings..." Sounds like there was still human engineering negligence. Perhaps that can teach us to restrict new reactors inland. As some have pointed out in this thread, oil sand waste dumps could ultimately be more harmful than nuclear waste...

WalterBright 7y ago

> It's with the fact that even though it's possible to build and operate safe nuclear plants, human nature gets in the way and prevents that from happening. People have managed to do that with airliners, even though flying at 30,000 feet in -40F temps, insufficient oxygen, in a tin balloon filled with gas has nothing inherently safe about it. And yet airline travel is incredibly safe. I.e. since we can make that safe, we can do that with reactors. (For contrast, ever wonder how the US got the B-17's to England during WW2? The combat crews, as their first job, flew them there across the Atlantic. My dad (B-17 navigator) said more than a few took off from Newfoundland and were never heard from again. After the war they came back on a ship. Lindbergh came back on a ship, too.)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

erentz 7y ago

But isn’t this “nuclear’s weakness is humans” argument disproven by history? We humans have been running nuclear plants for a very long time and yet deaths from nuclear power are still lower than all other power sources, and much much much lower of course than fossil sources. So it seems more correct to say, actually we humans are better at running nuclear power safely than any other power source.