6 ms·

This would be great if CO2 was the only waste product of a nuclear plant, but it's not. You not only needed to keep building plants, but also designate proper w

by Klinky 6y ago

This would be great if CO2 was the only waste product of a nuclear plant, but it's not. You not only needed to keep building plants, but also designate proper waste storage sites, which are still up in the air to this day, and some sites like Hanford are utter ecological disasters. It also did not help that the 70s ended with the Three-Mile Island disaster and serious construction flaws being found at Trojan. Then in the 80s Chernobyl blasted nuclear fallout into the atmosphere which certainly didn't help nuclear's image. I wouldn't say the "Anti-nuclear team" won, nuclear industry shot itself in the foot with a very cavalier and lax safety attitude, and leaving behind many scary ecological disasters in its wake.

msla 6y ago
Why do people always forget that coal plants spew radiation into the environment? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  There's a significant difference between diffuse radioactivity and the sort of waste nuclear plants put out, though. In both impact on humans, and mitigation.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    Right - diffuse radioactivity is harder to contain or clean up.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Less necessary to do so, though.
      - DuskStar 6y ago
        Well, no - not if the linear no threshold theory of radiation dosages is correct. If it is, then that diffuse radiation leads to cancer just as surely as acute radiation exposure.
- Klinky 6y ago
  I was already aware. How does pointing this out solve nuclear waste storage issues?
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    Coal was the alternative we chose, so it set the standard to beat.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      How does this solve nuclear waste storage? It has nothing to do with the challenges of storing nuclear waste.
    - funcDropShadow 6y ago
      Coal wasn't chosen after nuclear was abandoned. Coal was used for centuries before. And the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not only from the last 30-40 years. It started to rise significantly with the spreading of the industrial revolution.
jjoonathan 6y ago
Nuclear safety and waste are among the most serious of issues, but it is disturbingly common and dishonest to present them without comparison to the safety and waste problems of the alternatives and without optimizing for safety per kilowatt. Coal particulates, acidic gasses, and CO2 are awful. Natural gas CO2 is awful. I hardly need to elaborate, yet this is the alternative we chose. It's not just coal that has problems, though: hydroelectric power has an appalling history of accidents leading to enormous death and destruction, yet it maintains a sterling reputation in environmental groups, at least compared to nuclear. Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure (sort by fatalities, look for Banqiao Dam at 170000) Wind and solar installations illustrate why it's important to count per unit of energy produced. They commit the "sin" of low density. With wind, you construct a gigantic edifice of concrete, steel, and fiberglass, likely in a remote location or even out at sea, and at the end of the day you can power a couple neighborhoods, some of the time. In a nuclear power plant, you construct a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel and you can power a couple of cities, all of the time. You have a handful of experts in a concrete bunker, compared to, say, residential solar with an army of contractors running around every roof in a city every few years. Slips and falls won't get a HBO miniseries, but they ruin lives just the same. At scale, it all must be accounted for. It has been, but the results don't line up with public perception and as a consequence we collectively made a terrible mistake. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- Klinky 6y ago
  No it's not dishonest. Where are the storage facilities? Is Hanford a disaster or not? Were there fundamental quality and safety issues in the 70s(and before) around nuclear facilities? Pointing out that other stuff is "just as bad as nuclear" is not helping the argument for nuclear.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    > Where are the storage facilities? Yucca Mountain was bulldozed by the anti-nuclear faction. Hooray? > Is Hanford a disaster or not? Unquestionably. > Pointing out that other stuff is "just as bad as nuclear" is not helping the argument for nuclear. That's generally how decision-making works: you weigh the tradeoffs and make the best choice. Well, that's how it's supposed to work, I suppose. If you refuse, well, nature just punishes you accordingly. In this case, we get an atmosphere full of CO2. Hooray?
beached_whale 6y ago
How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Less than any other power source. To call it waste is even debatable as it is still usable for energy production, it just costs too much right now. In the future, this may change. Low level and high level nuclear waste are not the same and the high level waste, as done in some countries at cost, could be reprocessed for fuel. In addition, what is the result of 3 mile island? The word disaster comes with a lot of baggage that I would debate doesn't apply, it was an accident without any fatalities. But... it was a set of lessons and they have been applied throughout the industry. That is forgotten. It did have a huge impact to the industry and was a disaster as far as perception goes. Chernobyl was a case of lets turn this reactor to 11 and disable the safeties. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Fukushima should be remembered. It was when we knew better and ignored expert advice. This seems to be the theme of the 21st century though. But even with Fukushima, it took one of the largest earth quakes ever, causing a very very large tsunami, and then it was still working.... but because the experts where ignored and the wall was shorter than it should have been and, most importantly, the generators were not on higher ground it lost power and was able to melt down. Even with that though, only one person has died, and two had radiation burns, plus there is several km by several km of land that cannot be used right now. The sad part is that this was the focus and not the thousands displaced by the tsunami. Solar and Window are doing great, they should be used as much as they can be. Hydro is largely tapped out and small systems are not as effective compared to their impact; even with the fact that rivers form lakes and move on their own. So that leaves sources like nuclear, tidal, and a few others related to the earths energy(whether kinetic or heat) Nuclear has the benefit of having the smallest footprint too.
- Klinky 6y ago
  >How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Just because someone doesn't kill someone driving recklessly does not excuse their behavior, nor does it mean they won't kill someone next time. The rest of your post seems to be hand waving away serious safety concerns. Chernobyl and Fukishima involved the people who were in charge of the plant making poor decisions. They both played stupid games, and they were not the sole recipient of the stupid prize. Neither of these events were cakewalks for the people affected by them, or the people fighting to prevent an even greater disaster. Dumping ocean water on damaged reactor cores is not standard operating procedure. Lots of uncharted territory in both. It was not sad that a major nuclear meltdown was one of the main focuses of the disaster. Your downplaying of these events is not reassuring. This is why nuclear has a bad image. Very shitty things have happened due to human negligence and they're just hand waved away, as if they won't happen again, but they do happen again, and both of these examples could have been much much worse. >To call it waste is even debatable. Are you volunteering your basement to store it in? Even if it can be reprocessed at some point, ya gotta store it somewhere until then, and that day may never actually come.
barney54 6y ago
The trouble at Hanford is not because of nuclear power, but from making nuclear weapons. There is a big difference. For one, you don’t need plutonium for nuclear power.
- Klinky 6y ago
  It is a site where nuclear waste has been heavily mishandled. It is an example of how not to handle nuclear waste, and why handling it effectively is difficult and can be very costly. The source of the waste does not matter all that much. If you do not deal with nuclear waste properly, you'll end up with more Hanfords.

by Klinky 6y ago

msla 6y ago

Why do people always forget that coal plants spew radiation into the environment? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

ceejayoz 6y ago
There's a significant difference between diffuse radioactivity and the sort of waste nuclear plants put out, though. In both impact on humans, and mitigation.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  Right - diffuse radioactivity is harder to contain or clean up.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Less necessary to do so, though.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      Well, no - not if the linear no threshold theory of radiation dosages is correct. If it is, then that diffuse radiation leads to cancer just as surely as acute radiation exposure.
Klinky 6y ago
I was already aware. How does pointing this out solve nuclear waste storage issues?
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  Coal was the alternative we chose, so it set the standard to beat.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    How does this solve nuclear waste storage? It has nothing to do with the challenges of storing nuclear waste.
  - funcDropShadow 6y ago
    Coal wasn't chosen after nuclear was abandoned. Coal was used for centuries before. And the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not only from the last 30-40 years. It started to rise significantly with the spreading of the industrial revolution.

jjoonathan 6y ago

Nuclear safety and waste are among the most serious of issues, but it is disturbingly common and dishonest to present them without comparison to the safety and waste problems of the alternatives and without optimizing for safety per kilowatt. Coal particulates, acidic gasses, and CO2 are awful. Natural gas CO2 is awful. I hardly need to elaborate, yet this is the alternative we chose. It's not just coal that has problems, though: hydroelectric power has an appalling history of accidents leading to enormous death and destruction, yet it maintains a sterling reputation in environmental groups, at least compared to nuclear. Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure (sort by fatalities, look for Banqiao Dam at 170000) Wind and solar installations illustrate why it's important to count per unit of energy produced. They commit the "sin" of low density. With wind, you construct a gigantic edifice of concrete, steel, and fiberglass, likely in a remote location or even out at sea, and at the end of the day you can power a couple neighborhoods, some of the time. In a nuclear power plant, you construct a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel and you can power a couple of cities, all of the time. You have a handful of experts in a concrete bunker, compared to, say, residential solar with an army of contractors running around every roof in a city every few years. Slips and falls won't get a HBO miniseries, but they ruin lives just the same. At scale, it all must be accounted for. It has been, but the results don't line up with public perception and as a consequence we collectively made a terrible mistake. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Klinky 6y ago
No it's not dishonest. Where are the storage facilities? Is Hanford a disaster or not? Were there fundamental quality and safety issues in the 70s(and before) around nuclear facilities? Pointing out that other stuff is "just as bad as nuclear" is not helping the argument for nuclear.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  > Where are the storage facilities? Yucca Mountain was bulldozed by the anti-nuclear faction. Hooray? > Is Hanford a disaster or not? Unquestionably. > Pointing out that other stuff is "just as bad as nuclear" is not helping the argument for nuclear. That's generally how decision-making works: you weigh the tradeoffs and make the best choice. Well, that's how it's supposed to work, I suppose. If you refuse, well, nature just punishes you accordingly. In this case, we get an atmosphere full of CO2. Hooray?

beached_whale 6y ago

How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Less than any other power source. To call it waste is even debatable as it is still usable for energy production, it just costs too much right now. In the future, this may change. Low level and high level nuclear waste are not the same and the high level waste, as done in some countries at cost, could be reprocessed for fuel. In addition, what is the result of 3 mile island? The word disaster comes with a lot of baggage that I would debate doesn't apply, it was an accident without any fatalities. But... it was a set of lessons and they have been applied throughout the industry. That is forgotten. It did have a huge impact to the industry and was a disaster as far as perception goes. Chernobyl was a case of lets turn this reactor to 11 and disable the safeties. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Fukushima should be remembered. It was when we knew better and ignored expert advice. This seems to be the theme of the 21st century though. But even with Fukushima, it took one of the largest earth quakes ever, causing a very very large tsunami, and then it was still working.... but because the experts where ignored and the wall was shorter than it should have been and, most importantly, the generators were not on higher ground it lost power and was able to melt down. Even with that though, only one person has died, and two had radiation burns, plus there is several km by several km of land that cannot be used right now. The sad part is that this was the focus and not the thousands displaced by the tsunami. Solar and Window are doing great, they should be used as much as they can be. Hydro is largely tapped out and small systems are not as effective compared to their impact; even with the fact that rivers form lakes and move on their own. So that leaves sources like nuclear, tidal, and a few others related to the earths energy(whether kinetic or heat) Nuclear has the benefit of having the smallest footprint too.

Klinky 6y ago
>How many people have died because of that lax safety attitude? Just because someone doesn't kill someone driving recklessly does not excuse their behavior, nor does it mean they won't kill someone next time. The rest of your post seems to be hand waving away serious safety concerns. Chernobyl and Fukishima involved the people who were in charge of the plant making poor decisions. They both played stupid games, and they were not the sole recipient of the stupid prize. Neither of these events were cakewalks for the people affected by them, or the people fighting to prevent an even greater disaster. Dumping ocean water on damaged reactor cores is not standard operating procedure. Lots of uncharted territory in both. It was not sad that a major nuclear meltdown was one of the main focuses of the disaster. Your downplaying of these events is not reassuring. This is why nuclear has a bad image. Very shitty things have happened due to human negligence and they're just hand waved away, as if they won't happen again, but they do happen again, and both of these examples could have been much much worse. >To call it waste is even debatable. Are you volunteering your basement to store it in? Even if it can be reprocessed at some point, ya gotta store it somewhere until then, and that day may never actually come.

barney54 6y ago

The trouble at Hanford is not because of nuclear power, but from making nuclear weapons. There is a big difference. For one, you don’t need plutonium for nuclear power.

Klinky 6y ago
It is a site where nuclear waste has been heavily mishandled. It is an example of how not to handle nuclear waste, and why handling it effectively is difficult and can be very costly. The source of the waste does not matter all that much. If you do not deal with nuclear waste properly, you'll end up with more Hanfords.