4 ms·

The problem with nuclear is that people are afraid of it. If we had spent the last 40 years trying to make it cheaper instead of trying to prevent accidents, it

by cwp 6y ago

The problem with nuclear is that people are afraid of it. If we had spent the last 40 years trying to make it cheaper instead of trying to prevent accidents, it wouldn't be so expensive.

nicoburns 6y ago
True, but this isn't exactly irrational. Nuclear only has such a good safety record because we have been so careful with it. Nobody seriously thinks "move fast and break things" nuclear reactors are a good idea.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  They used to, and every major accident raised the demanded safety measures.
- pojzon 6y ago
  Its about time a lot of nuclear power plans will reach their life-expancy. I wanna see how countries like France, Japan, Germany, Russia, China are going to deal with that. Fukushima was not a good example of “how to treat reports of damaged facility”. Goverment knew and did nothing. Newer nuclear reactors are safe, but older designs are a ticking time bombs.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    Not a single person has died directly of radiation from the Fukushima accident. That's in the context of a tsunami wave that has directly killed large number of people by impact. So in general, Fukushima should be a very good example for promotion of nuclear power.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      However the Fukushima cleanup has been very expensive (hundreds of billions of US dollars). If you factor in the cost of accidents like Fukushima then nuclear becomes pretty uncompetitive cost wise.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      > Not a single person has died directly of radiation from the Fukushima accident. This claim has been extensively debunked in Hacker News yet.
      - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
        Is Wikipedia currently wrong on this with the sources listed there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... Deaths 0 from radiation,[3] 2,202 from evacuation,[4] Non-fatal injuries 37 with physical injuries,[5] 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns[6][7] "For evacuation, the estimated number of deaths during and immediately after transit range from 34 to "greater than 50".[12][17][18] The victims include hospital inpatients and elderly people at nursing facilities who died from causes such as hypothermia, deterioration of underlying medical problems, and dehydration. For long-term displacement, many people (mostly sick and elderly) died at an increased rate[17] while in temporary housing and shelters. Degraded living conditions and separation from support networks[19] are likely contributing factors. As of 27 February 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government counted 2,129 "disaster-related deaths" in the prefecture." While looking at the tsunami itself: Casualties 15,899 deaths,[2] +2 (Overseas), 6,157 injured,[3] 2,529 people missing
        pvaldes 6y ago
        > Is wikipedia currently wrong on this...? Aye
        Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
        Well, do you have any data or sources?
BurningFrog 6y ago
Sometimes I wonder if this ingrained fear is the biggest long term cost of Hiroshima.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
But then we'd have more accidents and people would be more inclined to ban it. This isn't a rational numbers game; if a nuclear plant goes, the effects last for decades. I mean compare it with transport; airplanes are safer than cars because there's just so much more training and oversight involved. But if there's a car crash, it gets (at best) a byline in a local newspaper. If there's an airplane crash, it's world news. In the US alone, 35-40 thousand people die in vehicle fatalities per year; internationally, according to https://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/en/ https://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/en/, it's 1.35 MILLION. Death toll from planes is less than 1000 per year, worldwide (https://www.statista.com/statistics/263443/worldwide-air-traffic-fatalities/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263443/worldwide-air-tra...). Don't take this as fact because I just googled for a few seconds, but car accidents cause more than 1000 times as many deaths as planes. But planes get all the media attention and all the legislation, training, safety requirements, development, etc. I'm not sure if I'm making an actual point here, but the tl;dr is that people will not be rational about their opinion on nuclear safety vs other forms of energy.

by cwp 6y ago

The problem with nuclear is that people are afraid of it. If we had spent the last 40 years trying to make it cheaper instead of trying to prevent accidents, it wouldn't be so expensive.

nicoburns 6y ago

True, but this isn't exactly irrational. Nuclear only has such a good safety record because we have been so careful with it. Nobody seriously thinks "move fast and break things" nuclear reactors are a good idea.

formerly_proven 6y ago
They used to, and every major accident raised the demanded safety measures.
pojzon 6y ago
Its about time a lot of nuclear power plans will reach their life-expancy. I wanna see how countries like France, Japan, Germany, Russia, China are going to deal with that. Fukushima was not a good example of “how to treat reports of damaged facility”. Goverment knew and did nothing. Newer nuclear reactors are safe, but older designs are a ticking time bombs.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  Not a single person has died directly of radiation from the Fukushima accident. That's in the context of a tsunami wave that has directly killed large number of people by impact. So in general, Fukushima should be a very good example for promotion of nuclear power.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    However the Fukushima cleanup has been very expensive (hundreds of billions of US dollars). If you factor in the cost of accidents like Fukushima then nuclear becomes pretty uncompetitive cost wise.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > Not a single person has died directly of radiation from the Fukushima accident. This claim has been extensively debunked in Hacker News yet.
    - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
      Is Wikipedia currently wrong on this with the sources listed there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... Deaths 0 from radiation,[3] 2,202 from evacuation,[4] Non-fatal injuries 37 with physical injuries,[5] 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns[6][7] "For evacuation, the estimated number of deaths during and immediately after transit range from 34 to "greater than 50".[12][17][18] The victims include hospital inpatients and elderly people at nursing facilities who died from causes such as hypothermia, deterioration of underlying medical problems, and dehydration. For long-term displacement, many people (mostly sick and elderly) died at an increased rate[17] while in temporary housing and shelters. Degraded living conditions and separation from support networks[19] are likely contributing factors. As of 27 February 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government counted 2,129 "disaster-related deaths" in the prefecture." While looking at the tsunami itself: Casualties 15,899 deaths,[2] +2 (Overseas), 6,157 injured,[3] 2,529 people missing
      - pvaldes 6y ago
        > Is wikipedia currently wrong on this...? Aye
        Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
        Well, do you have any data or sources?

BurningFrog 6y ago

Sometimes I wonder if this ingrained fear is the biggest long term cost of Hiroshima.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

But then we'd have more accidents and people would be more inclined to ban it. This isn't a rational numbers game; if a nuclear plant goes, the effects last for decades. I mean compare it with transport; airplanes are safer than cars because there's just so much more training and oversight involved. But if there's a car crash, it gets (at best) a byline in a local newspaper. If there's an airplane crash, it's world news. In the US alone, 35-40 thousand people die in vehicle fatalities per year; internationally, according to https://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/en/ https://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/en/, it's 1.35 MILLION. Death toll from planes is less than 1000 per year, worldwide (https://www.statista.com/statistics/263443/worldwide-air-traffic-fatalities/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263443/worldwide-air-tra...). Don't take this as fact because I just googled for a few seconds, but car accidents cause more than 1000 times as many deaths as planes. But planes get all the media attention and all the legislation, training, safety requirements, development, etc. I'm not sure if I'm making an actual point here, but the tl;dr is that people will not be rational about their opinion on nuclear safety vs other forms of energy.