6 ms·
Why is it that one disaster every other decade for nuclear is enough to terminate progress and innovation altogether? It's unreasonable. When rockets explode or
by chrisco255 6y ago
Why is it that one disaster every other decade for nuclear is enough to terminate progress and innovation altogether? It's unreasonable. When rockets explode or planes crash, even when people die during launches or takeoff, we don't stop trying to improve on them. We don't give up on the tech. Something about nuclear strikes irrational fear in the general public.
- wp381640 6y agoBecause when there’s a disaster they’re huge in cost to the point that you can’t even insure against them
- chrisco255 6y agoHow much did 9/11 cost? Did we ban airplane travel as a result? This is completely comparable. The proper reaction to disaster is to reform, not to retreat.
- wp381640 6y ago911 was about $30B. Fukushima was about $1T and counting. We have alternatives to nuclear that don't make the state-backed insurance worthwhile, not so much to air travel - where state-backed last resort insurance is available.
- chrisco255 6y agoI don't know where you're getting your estimates: Reuters claimed in 2016 that Japan claimed a cost of $188B for Fukushima: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs-idUSKBN13Y047 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs-idU... This NY Times article claims 9/11 total costs were $3.3 trillion, including $55B in physical damage, $123B in economic impact, $589B in Homeland security spending, $1.6T in war funding, $867B in veterans care and future costs associated: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/cost-graphic.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011... At any rate, Fukushima was caused by a tsunami. It's clearly not the same risk factor to place nuclear reactors in say, the deserts of Australia, Nevada, or New Mexico versus the shoreline of Japan. We don't launch rockets from heavily populated downtown areas either for the same reason. As an engineer, you gotta think in trade-offs and reality. Nuclear is a truly unlimited energy source. As a species, we have to master this technology in a safe way if we ever want to advance to the next level. We're never going to be a space-faring species on wind and solar alone. Solar and wind are fair-weather friends.
- Daho0n 6y agoWho decides it is irrational? Also "Something about nuclear strikes....". Poor choice of words :)
- arkitaip 6y agoUsually when a plane crashes there isn't a risk for a ecological disaster that could lasts centuries if not more.
- hinkley 6y agoMillennia. Epochs. Modern humans have been around for less time than some of this waste will still be hot.
- kvakkefly 6y agoIf the half life is that long, it's not very dangerous as energy / time is very low.
- hinkley 6y agoOnly if the decay product is not itself radioactive. I could alternate between alpha decay and something nastier. And if it’s radium then even alpha decay is a problem because it can be aspirated.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- orthecreedence 6y agoLike oil spills?