5 ms·

I think the touchability of nuclear energy was quite negatively impacted by Fukushima, and it's just going to take a while to get reasonable people on board wit

by munk-a 7y ago

I think the touchability of nuclear energy was quite negatively impacted by Fukushima, and it's just going to take a while to get reasonable people on board with the idea that that model of reactor was far out of date. There are the folks that just shout "No nukes ever" and they can't be won over, but we're got flat earthers and anti-vaxers, so not everybody can be reasonable.

thephyber 7y ago
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. They are rare but high impact ("black swan") events. Just like terrorism, it causes a strong imprint on the minds of some people which seemingly overpowers their ability to rationally weigh observed statistics and make balanced choices. I want to know why we can't even seem to build the few (2-3) which have started construction, but the projects are so massive that they constantly run over budget and behind timelines[1]. Until we fix that issue, I don't want the precious resources of PG&E's corpse to make risky bets on massive nuclear infra projects. It just seems like throwing lots of money at contractors who no longer know how to make massive projects on time or built to architectural spec. I would, however, like to see a lot more R&D on small, lower-temperature reactors, possibly ones that reuse spent fuel rods from larger traditional nuclear power reactors. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-pro...
- robocat 7y ago
  "black swan" events - avoid this term as it is super confusing. Black swans were thought to be rare, then they discovered that they were common in the Southern hemisphere. Black swans are definitely not rare (there are many hundreds within a few kilometres of my home).
  - nl 7y ago
    The term "Black Swan" comes from the Taleb book and it refers to something previously thought to be impossible. Black swans were thought to be impossible (they had never been seen in the northern hemisphere), then they were discovered. The fail-safes for nuclear reactors were all thought to be invulnerable until they weren't.
robryan 7y ago
If nuclear could be bought online with the same kind of investment profile as solar and wind I doubt the political aspect would be anywhere near as big a factor. Even without the politics someone building nuclear is being forced to make a very big and long term bet with a lot of uncertainty on how it will perform across its lifetime compared with future innovation in renewables.
nicoburns 7y ago
People always bring up that it was out of date reactors that had issues. But a large number of the operating reactors in the world are these out of date models, and newer safer models are prohibitively expensive to build, are still unlikely to be 100% safe (what have humans ever built that never fails), and leaves the problem of nuclear waste. It might be that nuclear power is a sensible choice (at least short term) in the face of climate change, but there are real risks and the claim that opposing nuclear power is akin to being a flat-earther is massive stretch. I'd be interested in whether your position is that there will be no further nuclear accidents, or that the occurrence of future nuclear accidents is worth it.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Oh my position is that continuing to use tech that was pioneered in the 1960s and has notable safety shortcomings has the possibility to poison the well on a safe and green energy source forever. I think the solution to this is the deployment of small scale reactors in areas like the midwest where power loss due to distance traveled is a serious matter - close down the gigantic old chimney reactors since people look at those and instantly think Chernobyl. And, before another Fukushima happens, let's get a big ol' pile of new regulations on these aging reactors or possibly just nationalize them and shut them down. It's really just a matter of time until another nationally noticeable accident happens, and more local ones aren't infrequent, especially runoff and watersource pollution. Vermont Yankee[1] got into big trouble for this a while back (specifically tritium leaks) and the decommissioning trust had, of course, been underfunded. Our old gen nukes and operators cutting corners on safety are the biggest obstacles to having new gen nukes. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_P...

by munk-a 7y ago

thephyber 7y ago

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. They are rare but high impact ("black swan") events. Just like terrorism, it causes a strong imprint on the minds of some people which seemingly overpowers their ability to rationally weigh observed statistics and make balanced choices. I want to know why we can't even seem to build the few (2-3) which have started construction, but the projects are so massive that they constantly run over budget and behind timelines[1]. Until we fix that issue, I don't want the precious resources of PG&E's corpse to make risky bets on massive nuclear infra projects. It just seems like throwing lots of money at contractors who no longer know how to make massive projects on time or built to architectural spec. I would, however, like to see a lot more R&D on small, lower-temperature reactors, possibly ones that reuse spent fuel rods from larger traditional nuclear power reactors. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-pro...

robocat 7y ago
"black swan" events - avoid this term as it is super confusing. Black swans were thought to be rare, then they discovered that they were common in the Southern hemisphere. Black swans are definitely not rare (there are many hundreds within a few kilometres of my home).
- nl 7y ago
  The term "Black Swan" comes from the Taleb book and it refers to something previously thought to be impossible. Black swans were thought to be impossible (they had never been seen in the northern hemisphere), then they were discovered. The fail-safes for nuclear reactors were all thought to be invulnerable until they weren't.

robryan 7y ago

If nuclear could be bought online with the same kind of investment profile as solar and wind I doubt the political aspect would be anywhere near as big a factor. Even without the politics someone building nuclear is being forced to make a very big and long term bet with a lot of uncertainty on how it will perform across its lifetime compared with future innovation in renewables.

nicoburns 7y ago

People always bring up that it was out of date reactors that had issues. But a large number of the operating reactors in the world are these out of date models, and newer safer models are prohibitively expensive to build, are still unlikely to be 100% safe (what have humans ever built that never fails), and leaves the problem of nuclear waste. It might be that nuclear power is a sensible choice (at least short term) in the face of climate change, but there are real risks and the claim that opposing nuclear power is akin to being a flat-earther is massive stretch. I'd be interested in whether your position is that there will be no further nuclear accidents, or that the occurrence of future nuclear accidents is worth it.

munk-a 7y ago
Oh my position is that continuing to use tech that was pioneered in the 1960s and has notable safety shortcomings has the possibility to poison the well on a safe and green energy source forever. I think the solution to this is the deployment of small scale reactors in areas like the midwest where power loss due to distance traveled is a serious matter - close down the gigantic old chimney reactors since people look at those and instantly think Chernobyl. And, before another Fukushima happens, let's get a big ol' pile of new regulations on these aging reactors or possibly just nationalize them and shut them down. It's really just a matter of time until another nationally noticeable accident happens, and more local ones aren't infrequent, especially runoff and watersource pollution. Vermont Yankee[1] got into big trouble for this a while back (specifically tritium leaks) and the decommissioning trust had, of course, been underfunded. Our old gen nukes and operators cutting corners on safety are the biggest obstacles to having new gen nukes. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_P...