4 ms·

The title of this article is that nuclear power is the safest, relative to other sources of power currently capable of scaling to needs. That's a very importan

The title of this article is that nuclear power is the safest, relative to other sources of power currently capable of scaling to needs. That's a very important distinction, so I would ask you to please consider that.

nextparadigms 16y ago
Safer than wind and solar? I don't think so. Those stats that we saw a while ago that people die from solar too because they fall off the roof are pretty ridiculous. 10 years from now all new homes will come with solar panels pre-installed, so people won't have to set them up themselves. Plus, you could always hire someone else to do it for you. In my country we're building giant wind turbines that will generate twice as much energy as our nuclear plant. I'm not saying we should ban nuclear power forever, but it shouldn't become the main source of energy either, at least not until we're researched it enough to be 100x safer than it is today, and when it will deliver 100x more energy than solar and wind can, through actual fusion or whatever. Until then, I don't see why we should blindly keep building them when there are perfectly viable clean energy alternatives out there already, or just slightly behind, and just need a little push capital wise to become more advanced.
- jbri 16y ago
  Clean energy alternatives are not viable. And they won't be for a long time. Wind and solar power are inherently unsuitable for providing base-load coverage - you need to have sufficient generating capacity spooled-up and available to cover any lulls in output. They can reduce the environmental impact of conventional generation, but they're useless on their own. Nuclear power already produces 100x more than even the largest wind farm, because when you're working out how much base-load coverage you've got, you need to think about that wind farm at it's worst-case 0 MW output.
  - lispm 16y ago
    Renewable already generate similar amounts compared to nuclear. A single wind farm may have 0 MW output. But for a European grid of wind farms this is highly unlikely. Like 1% of the year. For that 1% we will have other energy sources pick up nicely.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  I think you're seriously overestimating the current potential for solar photovoltaics and wind.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- asharp 16y ago
  Remember that you need to produce massive amounts of toxic waste to produce solar panels. (Semiconductor fabrication is many things, green it is not).
jorangreef 16y ago
Your definition of "safest" is not entirely true. They are "safe" in the sense that the probability of a catastrophe is 1 in 10,000 years (that is the statistic). But they are exponential orders of magnitude more deadly, with the consequences thereof lasting for tens of thousands of years, when that 1/10,000th year comes around. With 500 nuclear power plants operating, we can expect a serious nuclear catastrophe every 20 years. These numbers are based just on nuclear power plants and exclude nuclear submarines, warheads etc.
- asharp 16y ago
  I do not believe that is his definition of safe. I believe he is using the standard definition of safe, for a power source, which is expected deaths/Twh.
  - jorangreef 16y ago
    Deaths per TWH is no real measure of safety at all when it comes to nuclear. Accidents affect not only human beings but the environment and indeed entire continents and the ecosystems thereof. Even today when they hunt wild boar in Germany many of the boar are found to have been irradiated as a result of Chernobyl, and hazardous for consumption. These events cross borders. It would be foolish to attempt to comprehend their relative significance in terms of death counts. Applying deaths per TWH to nuclear is naive. It's an abstraction that in no way reflects the underlying reality, and which leads the general populace into mad ambivalence. It's the kind of rhetoric you hear on Animal Farm. This idea that some deaths are better than others. In fact, it's a question of asymmetric risk with outsized consequences. If you learn anything from Ben Graham or Warren Buffett, it's that that's not the kind of game you want to be playing, unless you're really smart like LTCM. You don't want to have anything to do with it, especially not if there is human mental apparatus, governments, and contractors involved. There are too many variables you cannot control, and they are not captured by deaths per TWH. The second thing to learn from Graham and Doddsville, when dealing with asymmetric odds is that history is no reliable guide to the future. What happened last year or the year before, is no indication of what may happen next year or the manner in which we can expect it to happen. That nuclear catastrophes have historically not been catastrophic (according to the author), is no reason for the author to believe that they may continue to remain so. Yet the Washington Post article has based its argument on the premise that you can even measure deaths per TWH. You cannot count deaths directly and indirectly related to a nuclear accident. We have learned that much from the history of these accidents, and it would be ignorant and insensitive to claim otherwise. Take for instance Chernobyl, does the author truly believe that only 50 people have already died as a direct and indirect result? Even the most conservative numbers reported (deaths actually incurred) are higher, and show significant variance between sources: "Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously; the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000 while a Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A UNSCEAR report places the total deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster From those to whom much as been given, much will be expected.

nextparadigms 16y ago

Safer than wind and solar? I don't think so. Those stats that we saw a while ago that people die from solar too because they fall off the roof are pretty ridiculous. 10 years from now all new homes will come with solar panels pre-installed, so people won't have to set them up themselves. Plus, you could always hire someone else to do it for you. In my country we're building giant wind turbines that will generate twice as much energy as our nuclear plant. I'm not saying we should ban nuclear power forever, but it shouldn't become the main source of energy either, at least not until we're researched it enough to be 100x safer than it is today, and when it will deliver 100x more energy than solar and wind can, through actual fusion or whatever. Until then, I don't see why we should blindly keep building them when there are perfectly viable clean energy alternatives out there already, or just slightly behind, and just need a little push capital wise to become more advanced.

jbri 16y ago
Clean energy alternatives are not viable. And they won't be for a long time. Wind and solar power are inherently unsuitable for providing base-load coverage - you need to have sufficient generating capacity spooled-up and available to cover any lulls in output. They can reduce the environmental impact of conventional generation, but they're useless on their own. Nuclear power already produces 100x more than even the largest wind farm, because when you're working out how much base-load coverage you've got, you need to think about that wind farm at it's worst-case 0 MW output.
- lispm 16y ago
  Renewable already generate similar amounts compared to nuclear. A single wind farm may have 0 MW output. But for a European grid of wind farms this is highly unlikely. Like 1% of the year. For that 1% we will have other energy sources pick up nicely.
michaelchisari 16y ago
I think you're seriously overestimating the current potential for solar photovoltaics and wind.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
asharp 16y ago
Remember that you need to produce massive amounts of toxic waste to produce solar panels. (Semiconductor fabrication is many things, green it is not).

jorangreef 16y ago

Your definition of "safest" is not entirely true. They are "safe" in the sense that the probability of a catastrophe is 1 in 10,000 years (that is the statistic). But they are exponential orders of magnitude more deadly, with the consequences thereof lasting for tens of thousands of years, when that 1/10,000th year comes around. With 500 nuclear power plants operating, we can expect a serious nuclear catastrophe every 20 years. These numbers are based just on nuclear power plants and exclude nuclear submarines, warheads etc.

asharp 16y ago
I do not believe that is his definition of safe. I believe he is using the standard definition of safe, for a power source, which is expected deaths/Twh.
- jorangreef 16y ago
  Deaths per TWH is no real measure of safety at all when it comes to nuclear. Accidents affect not only human beings but the environment and indeed entire continents and the ecosystems thereof. Even today when they hunt wild boar in Germany many of the boar are found to have been irradiated as a result of Chernobyl, and hazardous for consumption. These events cross borders. It would be foolish to attempt to comprehend their relative significance in terms of death counts. Applying deaths per TWH to nuclear is naive. It's an abstraction that in no way reflects the underlying reality, and which leads the general populace into mad ambivalence. It's the kind of rhetoric you hear on Animal Farm. This idea that some deaths are better than others. In fact, it's a question of asymmetric risk with outsized consequences. If you learn anything from Ben Graham or Warren Buffett, it's that that's not the kind of game you want to be playing, unless you're really smart like LTCM. You don't want to have anything to do with it, especially not if there is human mental apparatus, governments, and contractors involved. There are too many variables you cannot control, and they are not captured by deaths per TWH. The second thing to learn from Graham and Doddsville, when dealing with asymmetric odds is that history is no reliable guide to the future. What happened last year or the year before, is no indication of what may happen next year or the manner in which we can expect it to happen. That nuclear catastrophes have historically not been catastrophic (according to the author), is no reason for the author to believe that they may continue to remain so. Yet the Washington Post article has based its argument on the premise that you can even measure deaths per TWH. You cannot count deaths directly and indirectly related to a nuclear accident. We have learned that much from the history of these accidents, and it would be ignorant and insensitive to claim otherwise. Take for instance Chernobyl, does the author truly believe that only 50 people have already died as a direct and indirect result? Even the most conservative numbers reported (deaths actually incurred) are higher, and show significant variance between sources: "Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously; the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000 while a Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A UNSCEAR report places the total deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster From those to whom much as been given, much will be expected.