5 ms·

This argument causes some of the problems this argument tries to avoid. > I'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants The technology involved in nuc

This argument causes some of the problems this argument tries to avoid. > I'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants The technology involved in nuclear plants has evolved tremendously, both in terms of efficiency and in terms of safety, but the technology of the new generation is fundamentally different. > The biggest drawbacks of nuclear power (expensive and slow plant construction) are off the table with existing plants! Old plants use outdated designs. Nobody would tolerate the 1972 Internet infrastructure nowadays, and yet Chernobyl was created that year, and is still in use. The main reason old plants stick around instead of being replaced is that Greenpeace and Green parties influence each other into lobbying against building correct reactors. Take Superphénix: a French Gen IV reactor started construction twelve years before the Chernobyl accident. Its design is still considered next-gen and highly favorable today. Activists literally fired rocket-propelled grenades at it while it was being built. It got so bad that they had to shut it down. They tried building a similar Gen IV reactor recently, ASTRID, that improved tremendously even compared to the advanced Superphénix, and it got cancelled six months ago because of lobbies. So all that remains are old plants… designs that were essentially initial drafts meant to be replaced by better technology, but that never gets shut down because every replacement gets lobbied against. Those old designs have awful properties, so yeah, we get Chernobyl and Fukushima. We would have had neither if people had let replace the oldest generation. But because of Greenpeace, people died, and fear rose, when all this was unnecessary.

FooHentai 7y ago
I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor The primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant? Also regarding Superphénix, your telling of this seems a bit biased - The rocket attack occurred in 1982 and it was shut down in 1997 by the prime minister due to excessive cost. As for whether fast breeder reactors are 'still considered next-gen and highly favorable' see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix "a group of 80 physicists from the Lyon Physics Institute wrote an open letter about the risks of breeder technology, and in February 1975, about 400 scientists signed their name to an expanded letter."
- Spooky23 7y ago
  The argument boils down to nuclear is safe and cheap, except that we only have unsafe designs because of ignorant people, it’s expensive because regulation (of the old, unacceptable designs), and waste totally isn’t a problem because someday we’ll figure it out.
- elihu 7y ago
  I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the Fukushima reactors require active cooling at all times, and they become dangerous if there is no available electricity, whereas modern reactors can be stable without active cooling.
- espadrine 7y ago
  > I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030 As I mention, Superphénix is a Gen IV, and was finished building in 1981. > the primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant? Fukushima melt down because the water destroyed the backup generators. The generators are used to power the pumps. The pumps force coolants to flow, removing heat and therefore avoiding an increase in temperature beyond what is structurally sound. A typical Gen IV reactor would naturally cool down without need to keep coolant running. For instance, Superphénix immerses the breeder in a liquid sodium coolant that has an effectively unreachable boiling point, tremendous heat capacity, and no corrosion.
  - lispm 7y ago
    Superphénix: During 11 years, the plant had 53 months of normal operations (mostly at low power), 25 months of outages due to fixing technical problems of the prototype, and 66 months spent on halt due to political and administrative issues. It was then closed early.
  - FooHentai 7y ago
    >As I mention, Superphénix is a Gen IV, and was finished building in 1981. No, it isn't and wasn't. The Gen IV FBR types are only GFR, SFR, LMFBR and SCWR. From the link I provided earlier 'In January 2018, it was reported that "the first installation of the pressure vessel cover of the world's first Gen IV reactor" had been completed on the HTR-PM.'
khuey 7y ago
The technology is better but the costs are too high. Also (the surviving units at) Chernobyl have been shut down for several years.
- intopieces 7y ago
  The cost is too high? The monetary cost will be quite besides the point once climate change wipes out the coast cities on four continents.
  - khuey 7y ago
    All in cost on solar and wind is cheaper on a per-megawatt basis.
  - FooHentai 7y ago
    It's a false dichotomy. The options are not 'nuclear or climate change'. You also have numerous renewables and (almost always entirely ignored in these discussions) reduction of energy demand.
    - crispinb 7y ago
      reduction of energy demand Personally I'd go further and say there's no substantial mitigation of climate change without degrowth amongst wealthy nations. Not popular around here of course, being against the religious beliefs prevalent in tech circles.

FooHentai 7y ago

I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor The primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant? Also regarding Superphénix, your telling of this seems a bit biased - The rocket attack occurred in 1982 and it was shut down in 1997 by the prime minister due to excessive cost. As for whether fast breeder reactors are 'still considered next-gen and highly favorable' see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix "a group of 80 physicists from the Lyon Physics Institute wrote an open letter about the risks of breeder technology, and in February 1975, about 400 scientists signed their name to an expanded letter."

Spooky23 7y ago
The argument boils down to nuclear is safe and cheap, except that we only have unsafe designs because of ignorant people, it’s expensive because regulation (of the old, unacceptable designs), and waste totally isn’t a problem because someday we’ll figure it out.
elihu 7y ago
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the Fukushima reactors require active cooling at all times, and they become dangerous if there is no available electricity, whereas modern reactors can be stable without active cooling.
espadrine 7y ago
> I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030 As I mention, Superphénix is a Gen IV, and was finished building in 1981. > the primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant? Fukushima melt down because the water destroyed the backup generators. The generators are used to power the pumps. The pumps force coolants to flow, removing heat and therefore avoiding an increase in temperature beyond what is structurally sound. A typical Gen IV reactor would naturally cool down without need to keep coolant running. For instance, Superphénix immerses the breeder in a liquid sodium coolant that has an effectively unreachable boiling point, tremendous heat capacity, and no corrosion.
- lispm 7y ago
  Superphénix: During 11 years, the plant had 53 months of normal operations (mostly at low power), 25 months of outages due to fixing technical problems of the prototype, and 66 months spent on halt due to political and administrative issues. It was then closed early.
- FooHentai 7y ago
  >As I mention, Superphénix is a Gen IV, and was finished building in 1981. No, it isn't and wasn't. The Gen IV FBR types are only GFR, SFR, LMFBR and SCWR. From the link I provided earlier 'In January 2018, it was reported that "the first installation of the pressure vessel cover of the world's first Gen IV reactor" had been completed on the HTR-PM.'

khuey 7y ago

The technology is better but the costs are too high. Also (the surviving units at) Chernobyl have been shut down for several years.

intopieces 7y ago
The cost is too high? The monetary cost will be quite besides the point once climate change wipes out the coast cities on four continents.
- khuey 7y ago
  All in cost on solar and wind is cheaper on a per-megawatt basis.
- FooHentai 7y ago
  It's a false dichotomy. The options are not 'nuclear or climate change'. You also have numerous renewables and (almost always entirely ignored in these discussions) reduction of energy demand.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    reduction of energy demand Personally I'd go further and say there's no substantial mitigation of climate change without degrowth amongst wealthy nations. Not popular around here of course, being against the religious beliefs prevalent in tech circles.