4 ms·

> there have been accidents, but they were all preventable if people You can always spot the nuclear apologist because they gloss over the intractable people i

> there have been accidents, but they were all preventable if people You can always spot the nuclear apologist because they gloss over the intractable people issues with managing reactors for literally decades without a single lapse. I think nuclear history has amply shown that people cannot be trusted to manage reactors. The horrible reality we're now facing is that once you build a reactor, political forces force re-certification decades beyond their original design - regardless of the interior condition of the reactor. At the moment of reckoning when a reactor must finally be shutdown, you can bet a swift bankruptcy followed by skyrocketing local electricity rates.

exmadscientist 7y ago
You've hit the nail on the head here. I think the main mistake advocates of nuclear energy make is to talk about the safety and reliability of the technology. But the technology isn't the problem: we know how to safely build and operate nuclear reactors. The issue is the human factor. It only takes one person in a position of authority to cause one mistake that leads to a nuclear disaster. No one competent would ever have let that mistake happen... but how often do idiots rise to positions of power? Or, put another way, do you trust Congress to make the right rules for operating a nuclear power station?
- lm28469 7y ago
  Fossil fuel is slowly killing all of us and the planet, every second of every single day. Even Chernobyl and Fukushima combined are a mild inconvenience compared to that. Rejecting nuclear is like taking the car instead of a plane because "planes aren't safe". Yes the fuck ups are more impressive, but if you factor everything nuclear is the lesser evil.
  - todd8 7y ago
    The plane vs car analogy is one I'm going to remember!
- throwaway92384 7y ago
  Unworthy people get into positions of authority all the time in a soft world. Peace-time generals, etc. People unworthy of power tend to run away from danger, and the worthy are willing to endure it. Force anyone responsible for the running of a plant to live with their family right next to it. Every plant should be headed by such people, or no plant. A bit like Walter Aigner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veresk_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veresk_Bridge .
iforgotpassword 7y ago
Exactly. The hn crowd is probably especially biased here since it's a lot of geeks with a very idealistic view of the world, where every single individual on this planet is driven by the highest of moral values exclusively. Let me just copy and paste part of a comment I made on the recycling post yesterday: Look at nuclear power. Might be the greatest and cleanest solution in theory. In practice, look at the revelations after Fukushima. Mismanagement, dramatically negligent maintenance, corruption. Would proper management have prevented the incident? Probably not, but it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. Without the tsunami, this might have continued for years to come and who knows how and when shit would've hit the fan in this alternate reality. Then the shitshow that is storing nuclear waste here in Germany. Again instead of listening to scientists and engineers in the end they dumped the metal containers inside an old salt mine. Big surprise, salt water lead to rapid corrosion and now they have to get them out again, but thankfully the tax payer cover that bullshit.
- mrpopo 7y ago
  I don't have an idealistic view of the world. Rather the opposite. Nuclear power can provide for part of the growing energy needs of the ever-growing human population, while petrol supplies will start declining at some point in this century for geological reasons. It might be hard to swallow, but a few nuclear accidents are worth mitigating the worst consequences of climate change and energy peak. Without adequate access to energy, humans in multi-million cities will not be able to survive. EROI on Solar and Wind power is good, but obviously almost 100% of the energy invested is from fossil fuels. We still spend more energy building solar panels than we receive from it. Which, in a way, is a good sign (it means the solar industry is growing). But no storage technology has been deployed at scale yet (which would reduce the EROI even more). Will it scale enough before a potential energy peak? Will nuclear?
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    Nuclear power plants can be used as weapons. The explosion of Chernobyl could have taken out half of Europe with radioactivity had it not been dealt with. If we elect another Kim jong/Stalin, or a neighbouring country does, they could blow up their own reactors to achieve destructive means. Solar and wind don't have that problem. The nuclear accidents are bad enough. Imagine the fallout from a plant in mexico takes out half of Texas, is that an acceptable risk in the pursuit of cheap electricity? Do you want to place the future of international political stability on the ability to regulate and police an industry? Both america and japan, two trustworthy and competent nations have had problems with nukes. Trading one bad scenario for another is not going to help. Space based solar is a safer bet than nukes.
lm28469 7y ago
> think nuclear history has amply shown that people cannot be trusted to manage reactors. Compared to ? Trusting people to manage coal power plants, mines, off shore platforms, oil tankers, &c. ? > At the moment of reckoning when a reactor must finally be shutdown, you can bet a swift bankruptcy followed by skyrocketing local electricity rates. France - lot of nuclear reactors : 13ct per KWh Germany - shutting down nuclear reactors, still heavily relying on coal : 30ct per KWh
mc32 7y ago
Lapses happen. That’s human nature. It’s having failsafes and enough of them to mitigate and minimize any negative outcomes.
nickik 7y ago
> I think nuclear history has amply shown that people cannot be trusted to manage reactors. Except that its the safest form of energy production in the Western world and the waste majorities of countries have not had a single death from nuclear power. Your statement flat out contradicts all evidence.
manfredo 7y ago
This isn't an issue with nuclear power, but rather a symptom of a political system focused on short-term goals when the nuclear industry fundamentally operates on the scale of decades at least. Furthermore the problems with nuclear power you've listed are self-fulfilling. Nuclear plants have to have extended life cycles, because people don't want to build new plants, because nuclear plants are having their life cycles extended. Electricity prices skyrocket after the closure of a nuclear plant because a replacement was no built, because people don't want to build nuclear plants, because they point out that electricity prices skyrocket when plants eventually close.

exmadscientist 7y ago

You've hit the nail on the head here. I think the main mistake advocates of nuclear energy make is to talk about the safety and reliability of the technology. But the technology isn't the problem: we know how to safely build and operate nuclear reactors. The issue is the human factor. It only takes one person in a position of authority to cause one mistake that leads to a nuclear disaster. No one competent would ever have let that mistake happen... but how often do idiots rise to positions of power? Or, put another way, do you trust Congress to make the right rules for operating a nuclear power station?

lm28469 7y ago
Fossil fuel is slowly killing all of us and the planet, every second of every single day. Even Chernobyl and Fukushima combined are a mild inconvenience compared to that. Rejecting nuclear is like taking the car instead of a plane because "planes aren't safe". Yes the fuck ups are more impressive, but if you factor everything nuclear is the lesser evil.
- todd8 7y ago
  The plane vs car analogy is one I'm going to remember!
throwaway92384 7y ago
Unworthy people get into positions of authority all the time in a soft world. Peace-time generals, etc. People unworthy of power tend to run away from danger, and the worthy are willing to endure it. Force anyone responsible for the running of a plant to live with their family right next to it. Every plant should be headed by such people, or no plant. A bit like Walter Aigner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veresk_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veresk_Bridge .

iforgotpassword 7y ago

Exactly. The hn crowd is probably especially biased here since it's a lot of geeks with a very idealistic view of the world, where every single individual on this planet is driven by the highest of moral values exclusively. Let me just copy and paste part of a comment I made on the recycling post yesterday: Look at nuclear power. Might be the greatest and cleanest solution in theory. In practice, look at the revelations after Fukushima. Mismanagement, dramatically negligent maintenance, corruption. Would proper management have prevented the incident? Probably not, but it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. Without the tsunami, this might have continued for years to come and who knows how and when shit would've hit the fan in this alternate reality. Then the shitshow that is storing nuclear waste here in Germany. Again instead of listening to scientists and engineers in the end they dumped the metal containers inside an old salt mine. Big surprise, salt water lead to rapid corrosion and now they have to get them out again, but thankfully the tax payer cover that bullshit.

mrpopo 7y ago
I don't have an idealistic view of the world. Rather the opposite. Nuclear power can provide for part of the growing energy needs of the ever-growing human population, while petrol supplies will start declining at some point in this century for geological reasons. It might be hard to swallow, but a few nuclear accidents are worth mitigating the worst consequences of climate change and energy peak. Without adequate access to energy, humans in multi-million cities will not be able to survive. EROI on Solar and Wind power is good, but obviously almost 100% of the energy invested is from fossil fuels. We still spend more energy building solar panels than we receive from it. Which, in a way, is a good sign (it means the solar industry is growing). But no storage technology has been deployed at scale yet (which would reduce the EROI even more). Will it scale enough before a potential energy peak? Will nuclear?
- friendlybus 7y ago
  Nuclear power plants can be used as weapons. The explosion of Chernobyl could have taken out half of Europe with radioactivity had it not been dealt with. If we elect another Kim jong/Stalin, or a neighbouring country does, they could blow up their own reactors to achieve destructive means. Solar and wind don't have that problem. The nuclear accidents are bad enough. Imagine the fallout from a plant in mexico takes out half of Texas, is that an acceptable risk in the pursuit of cheap electricity? Do you want to place the future of international political stability on the ability to regulate and police an industry? Both america and japan, two trustworthy and competent nations have had problems with nukes. Trading one bad scenario for another is not going to help. Space based solar is a safer bet than nukes.

lm28469 7y ago

> think nuclear history has amply shown that people cannot be trusted to manage reactors. Compared to ? Trusting people to manage coal power plants, mines, off shore platforms, oil tankers, &c. ? > At the moment of reckoning when a reactor must finally be shutdown, you can bet a swift bankruptcy followed by skyrocketing local electricity rates. France - lot of nuclear reactors : 13ct per KWh Germany - shutting down nuclear reactors, still heavily relying on coal : 30ct per KWh

mc32 7y ago

Lapses happen. That’s human nature. It’s having failsafes and enough of them to mitigate and minimize any negative outcomes.

nickik 7y ago

> I think nuclear history has amply shown that people cannot be trusted to manage reactors. Except that its the safest form of energy production in the Western world and the waste majorities of countries have not had a single death from nuclear power. Your statement flat out contradicts all evidence.

manfredo 7y ago

This isn't an issue with nuclear power, but rather a symptom of a political system focused on short-term goals when the nuclear industry fundamentally operates on the scale of decades at least. Furthermore the problems with nuclear power you've listed are self-fulfilling. Nuclear plants have to have extended life cycles, because people don't want to build new plants, because nuclear plants are having their life cycles extended. Electricity prices skyrocket after the closure of a nuclear plant because a replacement was no built, because people don't want to build nuclear plants, because they point out that electricity prices skyrocket when plants eventually close.