6 ms·

We can all point fingers and accuse people of being too conservative in their fear or not, but I think we can all agree that this is an unfortunate setback in t

We can all point fingers and accuse people of being too conservative in their fear or not, but I think we can all agree that this is an unfortunate setback in terms of public perception of nuclear energy. I hate seeing coal ads that more or less state that it's safer than nuclear energy.

nl 16y ago
we can all agree that this is an unfortunate setback in terms of public perception of nuclear energy I - for one - disagree quite strongly with that. I think that it's very unfortunate that somehow Nuclear power has picked up a lot of support from people who think opposition to it is unscientific. I think that if you look even moderately closely at it you'll find that the risk modelling associated with nuclear power closely resembles the risk modelling that Feynman tore to shreds when done on the space shuttle after the Challenger disaster. For example, people will tell you that this disaster was so bad because of the combination of earthquake and tsunami knocked out the support infrastructure. They'll even give you odds on each individual problem occurring. But they don't look at the system as a whole: If an earthquake and tsunami did occur, it was almost certain that support infrastructure would be knocked out. In actual fact they were very, very lucky that no aftershock produced another significant tsunami in the area. The stupidity of those assumptions is obvious in retrospect, but nuclear fans are papering over it by saying it is a one-off problem, and associating anti-nuclear people with smelly, uneducated hippies from the 1970s. Well.. it's NOT a one off problem, and the risks aren't as low as they make out. Take seismic risks in the US. Quoting the report of Safety/Risk Assessment Panel for Generic Issue 19 (ie "IMPLICATIONS OF UPDATED PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ESTIMATES IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES ON EXISTING PLANTS"): Updates to seismic data and models indicate that estimates of the seismic hazard, at some operating nuclear power plant sites in the Central and Eastern United States, have increased Using available seismic hazard and plant seismic fragility information, the Safety/Risk Assessment found that the increase in coredamage frequency for about one-fourth of the currently operating plants is large enough to warrant continued evaluation under the Generic Issues Program http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%20risk%20estimates.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%... So.. those risk assessments done when the plants were approved? They were wrong, and in 1/4 of plants in the Central and Eastern US core damage would occur during a seismic event within their design tolerances. Still calling this an unfortunate setback? I hate seeing coal ads that more or less state that it's safer than nuclear energy I hate seeing coal ads, but nuclear isn't the answer. (Oh, and don't believe the whole "no renewables can produce baseload" lie, either. Do some reading on solar-powered pump-hydro, geothermal and tidal power)
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  Um, I'm not making any excuses for this accident, and yet nuclear power is still measurably safer than coal...
  - stewbrew 16y ago
    But it comes with a risk you cannot insure against. See e.g. Ulrich Beck's discussion of this technology from the 1980s/1990s. On the other hand, you can more easily deal (calculate) with the downsides of coal (uhm ... well, use no coal), hydropower etc.
  - nl 16y ago
    Oh yeah, that argument. Yeah, its true that if you are involved in the coal industry you are much more likely to die than if you are involved in the nuclear industry. Yes, day-to-day pollution from a coal plant (especially old ones) is much worse than day-to-day operation of a nuclear plant (which is why they need to be replaced). But there is zero chance that an accident in a coal plant will affect more than (say) 1000 people, and yet there is at least a 1/12,000 chance [1] that it will affect 100,000+ with a nuclear station. [1] The first commercial nuclear power station was commissioned in 1954. There are ~25,000 days since then, and there have been 2 INES Level 7 accidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_7:_Major_accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sca...
    - Peaker 16y ago
      Why are you specifically measuring accidents? Why not look at the whole picture -- and factor in the day-to-day damage as well? It seem coal's day-to-day damage surpasses even the nuclear disaster scenario.
      - nl 16y ago
        To combat global warming we are trying to move away from coal. I take the day-to-day disaster of coal as a given. Nuclear is often put forward as a solution - I'm pointing out the huge risks that has.

nl 16y ago

we can all agree that this is an unfortunate setback in terms of public perception of nuclear energy I - for one - disagree quite strongly with that. I think that it's very unfortunate that somehow Nuclear power has picked up a lot of support from people who think opposition to it is unscientific. I think that if you look even moderately closely at it you'll find that the risk modelling associated with nuclear power closely resembles the risk modelling that Feynman tore to shreds when done on the space shuttle after the Challenger disaster. For example, people will tell you that this disaster was so bad because of the combination of earthquake and tsunami knocked out the support infrastructure. They'll even give you odds on each individual problem occurring. But they don't look at the system as a whole: If an earthquake and tsunami did occur, it was almost certain that support infrastructure would be knocked out. In actual fact they were very, very lucky that no aftershock produced another significant tsunami in the area. The stupidity of those assumptions is obvious in retrospect, but nuclear fans are papering over it by saying it is a one-off problem, and associating anti-nuclear people with smelly, uneducated hippies from the 1970s. Well.. it's NOT a one off problem, and the risks aren't as low as they make out. Take seismic risks in the US. Quoting the report of Safety/Risk Assessment Panel for Generic Issue 19 (ie "IMPLICATIONS OF UPDATED PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ESTIMATES IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES ON EXISTING PLANTS"): Updates to seismic data and models indicate that estimates of the seismic hazard, at some operating nuclear power plant sites in the Central and Eastern United States, have increased Using available seismic hazard and plant seismic fragility information, the Safety/Risk Assessment found that the increase in coredamage frequency for about one-fourth of the currently operating plants is large enough to warrant continued evaluation under the Generic Issues Program http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%20risk%20estimates.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%... So.. those risk assessments done when the plants were approved? They were wrong, and in 1/4 of plants in the Central and Eastern US core damage would occur during a seismic event within their design tolerances. Still calling this an unfortunate setback? I hate seeing coal ads that more or less state that it's safer than nuclear energy I hate seeing coal ads, but nuclear isn't the answer. (Oh, and don't believe the whole "no renewables can produce baseload" lie, either. Do some reading on solar-powered pump-hydro, geothermal and tidal power)

drivebyacct2 16y ago
Um, I'm not making any excuses for this accident, and yet nuclear power is still measurably safer than coal...
- stewbrew 16y ago
  But it comes with a risk you cannot insure against. See e.g. Ulrich Beck's discussion of this technology from the 1980s/1990s. On the other hand, you can more easily deal (calculate) with the downsides of coal (uhm ... well, use no coal), hydropower etc.
- nl 16y ago
  Oh yeah, that argument. Yeah, its true that if you are involved in the coal industry you are much more likely to die than if you are involved in the nuclear industry. Yes, day-to-day pollution from a coal plant (especially old ones) is much worse than day-to-day operation of a nuclear plant (which is why they need to be replaced). But there is zero chance that an accident in a coal plant will affect more than (say) 1000 people, and yet there is at least a 1/12,000 chance [1] that it will affect 100,000+ with a nuclear station. [1] The first commercial nuclear power station was commissioned in 1954. There are ~25,000 days since then, and there have been 2 INES Level 7 accidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_7:_Major_accident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sca...
  - Peaker 16y ago
    Why are you specifically measuring accidents? Why not look at the whole picture -- and factor in the day-to-day damage as well? It seem coal's day-to-day damage surpasses even the nuclear disaster scenario.
    - nl 16y ago
      To combat global warming we are trying to move away from coal. I take the day-to-day disaster of coal as a given. Nuclear is often put forward as a solution - I'm pointing out the huge risks that has.