5 ms·

100%. We should be promoting energy sources that don't have catastrophic outcomes when somebody inevitably makes a serious operational error.

by tharne 5y ago

axoltl 5y ago
We have come a long way since the RBMK reactors in use at Chernobyl. Generation III reactors are significantly safer than the older nuclear reactors. They are now passively safe, in that they shut themselves down without operator intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
- rangoon626 5y ago
  You are correct. And there’s other good research going on too, but people like this won’t hear it.
- r00fus 5y ago
  My major beef with nuclear is the water impact [1], not waste fuel - latter of which we have good solutions to. Not to mention exclusion zones. If all Nuclear had desalination, it still wouldn't offset it's waste heat capture problem which ruins downstream ecologies. [1] https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consumption/ https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consump...
rangoon626 5y ago
Which ones are those? As far as I can see, ALL “clean energy” has some trade offs. Mining lithium is a horrible, polluting process that wastes tons of fresh water. One thing to put small quantities into phones and computers. Another to suggest that they should be used for all cars (unless the end goal is to have only the super rich driving cars). Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) and quartz, and will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so. Wind turbines can’t be repurposed after their useful and short (comparatively) life and will pile up as junk. It’s not even a question of “don’t have catastrophic outcomes”, it’s a question of a slow-moving guaranteed catastrophic outcome, or the possibility of a fast catastrophic outcome.
- volkl48 5y ago
  > Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel, so is your argument here that manufacturing anything uses electricity and therefore coal? That doesn't seem like a good argument. Especially given that a nuclear plant tends to involve a huge quantity of concrete (which gives off major amounts of greenhouse gases and requires mining as well). > will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so. The lifespan of a commercial panel is 25-30+ years (most look to be warrantied to 25) Failure rates appear to be very low, per NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-degradation.html https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-de... And in reality, many will continue producing power longer than that, just at a lower rate than their original nameplate capacity. I expect most of those solar farms will wind up in service for many decades. Claiming that their lifespan is 10 years is something I feel needs some sort of supporting evidence.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    > I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel Silicon is produced by carbothermic reduction of silica in arc furnaces. Charcoal can be used, though (and is use by some producers; I think the porosity helps silicon monoxide gas react with the carbon.)
3pt14159 5y ago
The issue with solar is that there are a lot more deaths for a given amount of energy than for nuclear. Yes, they're spread out so it's less dramatic, but overall nuclear is safer and also produces very useful medical isotopes. What's really missing for nuclear is economics of scale. If we could just organize a repeatable build model so many operational challenges would be solved. That said, I'll take anything. Wind, solar, batteries, tidal, nuclear. They're all far, far better than coal or oil from a public health and climate change standpoint. It's such a shame so much was wasted on the Iraq War, since the entire USA could have been powered by green energy with half what was spent.
- kazinator 5y ago
  This is some cockamamie figure that is based on rooftop solar panel installers having accidents and falling down. A fall from a rooftop while installing a solar panel is preventable; it is not a necessary consequence of solar energy. That worker didn't have to die for the sake of two terawatts; he or she could have used safety equipment and common sense. If we are counting deaths that way per amount of energy, we must count electrocutions among the energy user base too, not only installation and production side deaths. If there are health risks and accidents working in a solar panel factory, that ought to be counted. Installations and deaths across the entire grid should be counted: deaths of all electricians installing any sort of residential and commercial wiring, transformers on poles down the street, and everything else. Possibly deaths arising form unreliable electricity should also be counted as risks of energy use. If a few people die in a heatwave because their AC cuts out due to a blackout, maybe those are energy-related deaths. Health problems and accidents in solar panel factories should be counted, as well those in mines for nuclear ore, and industries that produce all grid components: wiring, switch boxes, transformers, you name it. Deaths in every vehicular accident involving an electrician en route to a repair job should also be counted (whether the electrician was at fault or not).
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    I mean, yes? We should seek to contrast fatalities across every major energy source if we can? But given that we don't have perfect numbers we have to go off of the ones we have, and solar installations are over 4x the death rate than nuclear. The only reason I bring it up is this constant barrage of anti-nuclear sentiment even though nuclear works great in countries where it is approached correctly. Canada and France, for example, have professional, reasonable cost nuclear that create the medical isotopes we need. It's all besides the point though, because coal is 1000x more fatal than nuclear, and like I said in my original comment, I'll take anything but coal and oil. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

100%. We should be promoting energy sources that don't have catastrophic outcomes when somebody inevitably makes a serious operational error.

by tharne 5y ago

100%. We should be promoting energy sources that don't have catastrophic outcomes when somebody inevitably makes a serious operational error.

axoltl 5y ago

We have come a long way since the RBMK reactors in use at Chernobyl. Generation III reactors are significantly safer than the older nuclear reactors. They are now passively safe, in that they shut themselves down without operator intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety

rangoon626 5y ago
You are correct. And there’s other good research going on too, but people like this won’t hear it.
r00fus 5y ago
My major beef with nuclear is the water impact [1], not waste fuel - latter of which we have good solutions to. Not to mention exclusion zones. If all Nuclear had desalination, it still wouldn't offset it's waste heat capture problem which ruins downstream ecologies. [1] https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consumption/ https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consump...

rangoon626 5y ago

Which ones are those? As far as I can see, ALL “clean energy” has some trade offs. Mining lithium is a horrible, polluting process that wastes tons of fresh water. One thing to put small quantities into phones and computers. Another to suggest that they should be used for all cars (unless the end goal is to have only the super rich driving cars). Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) and quartz, and will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so. Wind turbines can’t be repurposed after their useful and short (comparatively) life and will pile up as junk. It’s not even a question of “don’t have catastrophic outcomes”, it’s a question of a slow-moving guaranteed catastrophic outcome, or the possibility of a fast catastrophic outcome.

volkl48 5y ago
> Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel, so is your argument here that manufacturing anything uses electricity and therefore coal? That doesn't seem like a good argument. Especially given that a nuclear plant tends to involve a huge quantity of concrete (which gives off major amounts of greenhouse gases and requires mining as well). > will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so. The lifespan of a commercial panel is 25-30+ years (most look to be warrantied to 25) Failure rates appear to be very low, per NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-degradation.html https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-de... And in reality, many will continue producing power longer than that, just at a lower rate than their original nameplate capacity. I expect most of those solar farms will wind up in service for many decades. Claiming that their lifespan is 10 years is something I feel needs some sort of supporting evidence.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  > I can't think of any use for coal in production of a solar panel Silicon is produced by carbothermic reduction of silica in arc furnaces. Charcoal can be used, though (and is use by some producers; I think the porosity helps silicon monoxide gas react with the carbon.)

3pt14159 5y ago

The issue with solar is that there are a lot more deaths for a given amount of energy than for nuclear. Yes, they're spread out so it's less dramatic, but overall nuclear is safer and also produces very useful medical isotopes. What's really missing for nuclear is economics of scale. If we could just organize a repeatable build model so many operational challenges would be solved. That said, I'll take anything. Wind, solar, batteries, tidal, nuclear. They're all far, far better than coal or oil from a public health and climate change standpoint. It's such a shame so much was wasted on the Iraq War, since the entire USA could have been powered by green energy with half what was spent.

kazinator 5y ago
This is some cockamamie figure that is based on rooftop solar panel installers having accidents and falling down. A fall from a rooftop while installing a solar panel is preventable; it is not a necessary consequence of solar energy. That worker didn't have to die for the sake of two terawatts; he or she could have used safety equipment and common sense. If we are counting deaths that way per amount of energy, we must count electrocutions among the energy user base too, not only installation and production side deaths. If there are health risks and accidents working in a solar panel factory, that ought to be counted. Installations and deaths across the entire grid should be counted: deaths of all electricians installing any sort of residential and commercial wiring, transformers on poles down the street, and everything else. Possibly deaths arising form unreliable electricity should also be counted as risks of energy use. If a few people die in a heatwave because their AC cuts out due to a blackout, maybe those are energy-related deaths. Health problems and accidents in solar panel factories should be counted, as well those in mines for nuclear ore, and industries that produce all grid components: wiring, switch boxes, transformers, you name it. Deaths in every vehicular accident involving an electrician en route to a repair job should also be counted (whether the electrician was at fault or not).
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  I mean, yes? We should seek to contrast fatalities across every major energy source if we can? But given that we don't have perfect numbers we have to go off of the ones we have, and solar installations are over 4x the death rate than nuclear. The only reason I bring it up is this constant barrage of anti-nuclear sentiment even though nuclear works great in countries where it is approached correctly. Canada and France, for example, have professional, reasonable cost nuclear that create the medical isotopes we need. It's all besides the point though, because coal is 1000x more fatal than nuclear, and like I said in my original comment, I'll take anything but coal and oil. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...