4 ms·

I used to be of the same opinion, but I gotta say that Fukushima really did have an impact on me (on the long-run, it didn't have an immediate impact). But I ha

I used to be of the same opinion, but I gotta say that Fukushima really did have an impact on me (on the long-run, it didn't have an immediate impact). But I have been wondering, if an incredibly advanced nation such as Japan faces very serious issues with their nuclear power-plants, is it really the right choice? Can we really guarantee that nothing goes seriously wrong, ever? Cause that's the standard those plants have to operate under, what if there's an earthquake in Indonesia right next to one of those nuclear power plants, is Indonesia in a better position to deal with such a disaster than Japan? Nuclear power plants have zero tolerance for serious accidents. And zero-tolerance is never a good margin to operate on.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
It's worth noting that, even taking second-order effects into account, the total number of deaths from nuclear accidents is actually quite low compared to other methods of generating electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM Nuclear seems more dangerous for the same reason planes seem more dangerous than cars—when something goes wrong, it's a big news event.
- drran 6y ago
  Data is cherry-picked. For example, if 60 000 people die because of Chornobyl radiation to 2005 (estimation from video) doesn't mean that they will stop dying after 2005. How many people will die after 2005? Video gives no answer. Also, the video indirectly suggests that we can replace flood protection with nuclear energy. :-/ Dams are built mainly to protect population from floods, so they SAVE millions of lives every year, while also generating electrical energy, which is used to upkeep dams. Banqiao incident is pictured like Chornobyl`, but, in reality, a bunch of people lives was SAVED by lower dam. The flood broke 62 dams. Just imagine what may happen when 10 nuclear reactors and/or nuclear waste sites will be flooded instead.
- subaquamille 6y ago
  The main problem with nuclear is that when something goes wrong, it last for way longuer than any other form of catastrof.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  One of the other comments was talking about the land-use impact of renewables. Nuclear exclusion zones are pretty bad from this perspective.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    Aside from Chernobyl (which happened some 35 years ago), nuclear exclusion zones are pretty small & don't have a significant impact (Deepwater Horizon well was arguably larger in terms of the area impacted).
BurningFrog 6y ago
Fukushima happened after the biggest Earthquake in over 1000 years of recorded Japanese history hit at the right spot to produce an enormous flood wave at the reactor. I'd be careful to draw conclusion from such an outlier.
- subaquamille 6y ago
  And radiations in Fukushima will last for the next 1000 years. Do we have the same understanding of "zero error tolerance" ?
  - pyrale 6y ago
    At the pace we're going, we're tolerating to make the whole planet a burning hell for the comming millions of years. So I would say we have a pretty high tolerance to disaster, as long as it's happening to our children rather than us.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Considering the magnitude of the damage as well as how rare it is, is a very valid point. And it's sometimes forgotten that 10s of thousands of people had to leave their homes. Though some googling reveals that the main contaminant is Cesium-137, which has a 30 year half life. That will fade into background radiation long before that, even ignoring cleanup operations. They've already reopened parts of the closed area.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    > outside the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated.[13] In comparison, after the Chernobyl accident, only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed have so far developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.[14][15][16] However, 167 Fukushima plant workers received radiation doses that slightly elevate their risk of developing cancer. The hysteria of your statement doesn’t appear to be substantiated by a dispassionate look at the facts.
- 6y ago
acdha 6y ago
This is especially worth considering in light of what recently happened in Texas. Say we get a really good setup: teams of nuclear and process engineers doing the best work of their careers, money is no object when it comes to safety, etc. and build infrastructure safe against once-in-10ky events and everything is executed perfectly. All of that costs money, and sooner or later some MBA / politician is going to ask why we’re spending so much on something which hasn’t come anywhere near a major event – surely we’d be just as safe spending 10% less and using the money for something else like rewarding shareholders? Setting up governance structures which can resist that kind of pressure for millennia isn’t something we have much experience with.
- EricE 6y ago
  Actually Texas makes a great argument for more, smaller and distributed reactors. Micro molten salt reactors make a lot of sense if looked at rationally. Can burn what we currently call "waste" too.
  - acdha 6y ago
    That’s a different question. The real underlying issue in Texas was that every producer had an incentive to be cheaper but not to winterize, because they’d immediately see wins from being cheaper on the marketplace and could gamble on going years without a winter failure — by which time the person who made that call might not even be working there any more. When talking on this kind of scale about a system level failures, the social issues are going to dominate unless it’s something like a fire-and-forget space probe. If you want to see nuclear succeed, the first thing I’d be thinking about is how to ensure that someone doesn’t cut safety to boost their profit margin, accounting for possible future regulatory capture and austerity budgets. Since nuclear is never even going to be within one order of magnitude as distributed as wind/solar, I’d especially think about what would prevent some unscrupulous CEO from pocketing the difference comfortable in the knowledge that their family doesn’t live anywhere nearby.
belorn 6y ago
Given the risk of natural disasters, which place seem safest? Downstream of a dam for a hydro plant, or near a nuclear plant? 188,000 people were evacuated in California following some unexpected rainy weather.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

It's worth noting that, even taking second-order effects into account, the total number of deaths from nuclear accidents is actually quite low compared to other methods of generating electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM Nuclear seems more dangerous for the same reason planes seem more dangerous than cars—when something goes wrong, it's a big news event.

drran 6y ago
Data is cherry-picked. For example, if 60 000 people die because of Chornobyl radiation to 2005 (estimation from video) doesn't mean that they will stop dying after 2005. How many people will die after 2005? Video gives no answer. Also, the video indirectly suggests that we can replace flood protection with nuclear energy. :-/ Dams are built mainly to protect population from floods, so they SAVE millions of lives every year, while also generating electrical energy, which is used to upkeep dams. Banqiao incident is pictured like Chornobyl`, but, in reality, a bunch of people lives was SAVED by lower dam. The flood broke 62 dams. Just imagine what may happen when 10 nuclear reactors and/or nuclear waste sites will be flooded instead.
subaquamille 6y ago
The main problem with nuclear is that when something goes wrong, it last for way longuer than any other form of catastrof.
nicoburns 6y ago
One of the other comments was talking about the land-use impact of renewables. Nuclear exclusion zones are pretty bad from this perspective.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  Aside from Chernobyl (which happened some 35 years ago), nuclear exclusion zones are pretty small & don't have a significant impact (Deepwater Horizon well was arguably larger in terms of the area impacted).

BurningFrog 6y ago

Fukushima happened after the biggest Earthquake in over 1000 years of recorded Japanese history hit at the right spot to produce an enormous flood wave at the reactor. I'd be careful to draw conclusion from such an outlier.

subaquamille 6y ago
And radiations in Fukushima will last for the next 1000 years. Do we have the same understanding of "zero error tolerance" ?
- pyrale 6y ago
  At the pace we're going, we're tolerating to make the whole planet a burning hell for the comming millions of years. So I would say we have a pretty high tolerance to disaster, as long as it's happening to our children rather than us.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Considering the magnitude of the damage as well as how rare it is, is a very valid point. And it's sometimes forgotten that 10s of thousands of people had to leave their homes. Though some googling reveals that the main contaminant is Cesium-137, which has a 30 year half life. That will fade into background radiation long before that, even ignoring cleanup operations. They've already reopened parts of the closed area.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  > outside the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated.[13] In comparison, after the Chernobyl accident, only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed have so far developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.[14][15][16] However, 167 Fukushima plant workers received radiation doses that slightly elevate their risk of developing cancer. The hysteria of your statement doesn’t appear to be substantiated by a dispassionate look at the facts.
6y ago

acdha 6y ago

This is especially worth considering in light of what recently happened in Texas. Say we get a really good setup: teams of nuclear and process engineers doing the best work of their careers, money is no object when it comes to safety, etc. and build infrastructure safe against once-in-10ky events and everything is executed perfectly. All of that costs money, and sooner or later some MBA / politician is going to ask why we’re spending so much on something which hasn’t come anywhere near a major event – surely we’d be just as safe spending 10% less and using the money for something else like rewarding shareholders? Setting up governance structures which can resist that kind of pressure for millennia isn’t something we have much experience with.

EricE 6y ago
Actually Texas makes a great argument for more, smaller and distributed reactors. Micro molten salt reactors make a lot of sense if looked at rationally. Can burn what we currently call "waste" too.
- acdha 6y ago
  That’s a different question. The real underlying issue in Texas was that every producer had an incentive to be cheaper but not to winterize, because they’d immediately see wins from being cheaper on the marketplace and could gamble on going years without a winter failure — by which time the person who made that call might not even be working there any more. When talking on this kind of scale about a system level failures, the social issues are going to dominate unless it’s something like a fire-and-forget space probe. If you want to see nuclear succeed, the first thing I’d be thinking about is how to ensure that someone doesn’t cut safety to boost their profit margin, accounting for possible future regulatory capture and austerity budgets. Since nuclear is never even going to be within one order of magnitude as distributed as wind/solar, I’d especially think about what would prevent some unscrupulous CEO from pocketing the difference comfortable in the knowledge that their family doesn’t live anywhere nearby.

belorn 6y ago

Given the risk of natural disasters, which place seem safest? Downstream of a dam for a hydro plant, or near a nuclear plant? 188,000 people were evacuated in California following some unexpected rainy weather.