8 ms·

US assessing reported leak at Chinese nuclear power facility

31 points by daegloe 5y ago

blibble 5y ago
oh great, it's an EPR if there's a significant incident then that really is the end of the nuclear industry
- Goety 5y ago
  That would be a direct hit to the Paris Accord. It is interesting how much France is invested in nuclear power. I wonder how prepared they are to ramp up nuclear tech globally.
imperio59 5y ago
I hope there's no accident of course. That said, Tchernobyl and the cost of managing that disaster is seen by many historians as the event that bankrupted the USSR and ended its communist regime for good. If a disaster does happen one can only hope for a similar silver lining ...
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  Chernobyl had multiple effects on the Communist Party, but one that was important but intangible - the loss of credibility of the Party (the meltdown proved they couldn't manage a utility, and there was a huge coverup.) After the USSR breakup, the CCP studied how to avoid the same fate. Partly that's the reason for the corona coverup. What's interesting is that a failure of the Three Gorges Dam would cause both a Chernobyl situation from loss of cooling of multiple nuclear reactors, as well as flooding the Wuhan area, where the PLA/etc. joint command is located. The PLA maintains a military force around the dam to protect it. Note that the Three Gorges Dam is not used for flood control , just electricity generation, which is controlled by one of the Dragon Families. The dam was deliberately made half-height (of what Russian engineers recommended) so that if it filled, it wouldn't flood a major city upstream.
- cmurf 5y ago
  They exchanged communism for an oligarchy that openly steals from the people, syphoning wealth abroad. It's not an improvement.
lwhi 5y ago
I cannot see how nuclear power is worth the risk. There are usually a large number of pro nuclear comments on articles related to nuclear power on HN. Events like this help to confirm my point of view. -- Edit: Here we go, downvoting begins.
- erentz 5y ago
  It’s not clear what the event is yet. But it’s already somehow confirmed something for you, which maybe means you should question how you’re assessing the risks. And what evidence would ever change your mind on them. Lots of HN commenters are pro nuclear because once you put aside your preconceptions and biases and learn about it you learn it’s one of the safest, cleanest, and most reliable forms of power we’ve ever created, in spite of the big headline accidents.
  - lwhi 5y ago
    My view is accidents will always happen. With nuclear, the potential for harm _when_ these accidents occur, is too great.
    - chadcmulligan 5y ago
      Is it though? The risk for continuing using coal, oil and gas is a lot higher through global warming, and no accident is necessary, it's a certainty. Renewables are of course the holy grail, but storage solutions for renewables are a problem, as are supply. Renewables won't supply 100% of energy for the foreseeable future. No one is unaware that the risk exists for nuclear, its a comparison of risks though. I think one of the problems with nuclear is the accidents are localised and make headlines, the deaths from fossil fuels are spread out and harder to attribute.
      - lwhi 5y ago
        You're making a false dichotomy. It's obviously not a question of either coal or nuclear. Renewables will provide a better solution. Solving the problems you've identified, would lead to far better line of attack.
DebtDeflation 5y ago
3.6 Roentgen, max.

31 points by daegloe 5y ago

blibble 5y ago

oh great, it's an EPR if there's a significant incident then that really is the end of the nuclear industry

Goety 5y ago
That would be a direct hit to the Paris Accord. It is interesting how much France is invested in nuclear power. I wonder how prepared they are to ramp up nuclear tech globally.

imperio59 5y ago

I hope there's no accident of course. That said, Tchernobyl and the cost of managing that disaster is seen by many historians as the event that bankrupted the USSR and ended its communist regime for good. If a disaster does happen one can only hope for a similar silver lining ...

redis_mlc 5y ago
Chernobyl had multiple effects on the Communist Party, but one that was important but intangible - the loss of credibility of the Party (the meltdown proved they couldn't manage a utility, and there was a huge coverup.) After the USSR breakup, the CCP studied how to avoid the same fate. Partly that's the reason for the corona coverup. What's interesting is that a failure of the Three Gorges Dam would cause both a Chernobyl situation from loss of cooling of multiple nuclear reactors, as well as flooding the Wuhan area, where the PLA/etc. joint command is located. The PLA maintains a military force around the dam to protect it. Note that the Three Gorges Dam is not used for flood control , just electricity generation, which is controlled by one of the Dragon Families. The dam was deliberately made half-height (of what Russian engineers recommended) so that if it filled, it wouldn't flood a major city upstream.
cmurf 5y ago
They exchanged communism for an oligarchy that openly steals from the people, syphoning wealth abroad. It's not an improvement.

lwhi 5y ago

I cannot see how nuclear power is worth the risk. There are usually a large number of pro nuclear comments on articles related to nuclear power on HN. Events like this help to confirm my point of view. -- Edit: Here we go, downvoting begins.

erentz 5y ago
It’s not clear what the event is yet. But it’s already somehow confirmed something for you, which maybe means you should question how you’re assessing the risks. And what evidence would ever change your mind on them. Lots of HN commenters are pro nuclear because once you put aside your preconceptions and biases and learn about it you learn it’s one of the safest, cleanest, and most reliable forms of power we’ve ever created, in spite of the big headline accidents.
- lwhi 5y ago
  My view is accidents will always happen. With nuclear, the potential for harm _when_ these accidents occur, is too great.
  - chadcmulligan 5y ago
    Is it though? The risk for continuing using coal, oil and gas is a lot higher through global warming, and no accident is necessary, it's a certainty. Renewables are of course the holy grail, but storage solutions for renewables are a problem, as are supply. Renewables won't supply 100% of energy for the foreseeable future. No one is unaware that the risk exists for nuclear, its a comparison of risks though. I think one of the problems with nuclear is the accidents are localised and make headlines, the deaths from fossil fuels are spread out and harder to attribute.
    - lwhi 5y ago
      You're making a false dichotomy. It's obviously not a question of either coal or nuclear. Renewables will provide a better solution. Solving the problems you've identified, would lead to far better line of attack.

DebtDeflation 5y ago

3.6 Roentgen, max.