3 ms·

> "way over there away from anything" doesn't really matter in the case of a serious accident? The current level of burning coal equates to roughly 50 nuclear

> "way over there away from anything" doesn't really matter in the case of a serious accident? The current level of burning coal equates to roughly 50 nuclear meltdowns a year because coal contains thorium. So in terms of "putting it anywhere," an in-place switch from coal to fission in a populated area is actually safer. In addition, the article identifies outdated designs as the primary reason for the cost of nuclear plant rollout. Guess what? Modern plant designs are passively safe, particle physics (not electronics, nor mechanics, nor humans) prevents criticality events.

cratermoon 6y ago
I'm afraid that the "coal is more radioactive" argument isn't going to get the traction that it did in 20 years ago. There are too many caveats and assumptions made in what the level of radioactivity in coal ash means to meaningfully compare it to fissionable radionuclides. As measured by GHG emissions, nuclear power is certainly better for the climate. Whether or not that equates to "safer for human activity"? The devil is in the details.
- zamalek 6y ago
  > There are too many caveats and assumptions made in what the level of radioactivity in coal ash means to meaningfully compare it to fissionable radionuclides. If the reactor is passively safe, the amortized level of radioactivity is zero, especially if the waste is "burned" in secondary reactors (such as TWR).
  - cratermoon 6y ago
    "if" and "amortized" are just different forms for caveats and assumptions. The level of radioactivity amortized over how long? Long enough time scales and the level of radioactivity is 0 for everything in the entire universe.
    - zamalek 6y ago
      Way to needlessly misrepresent the argument. Amortized over the duration where we are typically seeing meltdowns in gen1 reactors. 10-50 years? > "if" The article talks about modern designs. It is an aspiration, not an assumption. The central argument is that adopting modern reactor designs eliminates meltdown concerns (in addition to reducing costs as the article suggests). That isn't an assumption, that is a suggestion.

cratermoon 6y ago

I'm afraid that the "coal is more radioactive" argument isn't going to get the traction that it did in 20 years ago. There are too many caveats and assumptions made in what the level of radioactivity in coal ash means to meaningfully compare it to fissionable radionuclides. As measured by GHG emissions, nuclear power is certainly better for the climate. Whether or not that equates to "safer for human activity"? The devil is in the details.

zamalek 6y ago
> There are too many caveats and assumptions made in what the level of radioactivity in coal ash means to meaningfully compare it to fissionable radionuclides. If the reactor is passively safe, the amortized level of radioactivity is zero, especially if the waste is "burned" in secondary reactors (such as TWR).
- cratermoon 6y ago
  "if" and "amortized" are just different forms for caveats and assumptions. The level of radioactivity amortized over how long? Long enough time scales and the level of radioactivity is 0 for everything in the entire universe.
  - zamalek 6y ago
    Way to needlessly misrepresent the argument. Amortized over the duration where we are typically seeing meltdowns in gen1 reactors. 10-50 years? > "if" The article talks about modern designs. It is an aspiration, not an assumption. The central argument is that adopting modern reactor designs eliminates meltdown concerns (in addition to reducing costs as the article suggests). That isn't an assumption, that is a suggestion.