3 ms·

Are those "huge" nuclear accidents worse than the effects of coal mining and burning? If you are not willing to host nuclear power in your community, are you a

Are those "huge" nuclear accidents worse than the effects of coal mining and burning? If you are not willing to host nuclear power in your community, are you at least willing to commit your community to using less energy?

dredmorbius 5y ago
Nuclear energy presently accounts for 4.3% of global energy mix.[1] Expanding that proportionately, rather than 3 major accidents, we'd be looking at something more on the order or 70 such accidents. Using coal as a baseline is unjustified where coal is being actively phased out for cleaner alternatives. Much of this has been natural gas (a nonrenewable greenhouse gas contributor, though one with a good safety record), but wind and solar are cheaper than coal, competitive with gas, and growing rapidly (increasing over 2020, in a year energy consumption overall declined). The biggest risk with nuclear power time and again has proved to be organisational, not technical. (This is a major focus of the late Charles Perrow's work, which I strongly recommend.) Unfortunatley, organisational failures tend not to have technical fixes. In the case of nuclear energy, they have very long-term consequences, on the order of centuries. Well-running nuclear power plants are some of the safest forms of energy production we have. They are not the safest, with solar trending far better, as well as most hydro (there is one notable exception, as with nuclear, it's a case of organisational failure, unlike the notable nuclear accidents, the incident site is now home to 17 millions of people living without any residual risk). Wind power carries some risks, but those are all but entirely limited to workers, not the general public. IPCC have studies of risks on a per-GWh generation basis, which largely corroborate this.[2] If we were to compare nuclear with coal only, based on 2020 generation mix, the multiplier for accidents would be closer to 6-fold rather than 70-fold, though that is still 18 major nuclear accidents rather than the three commercial operation incidents observed. Note too that there are several further nuclear incidents where non-generating plants and military operations are concerned, as well as numerous near-catasterophes such as the Tokaimura criticality incident (again: an organisational failure). ________________________________ Notes: 1. This and other energy statistics are from the BP Annual Statistical Review for 2020, released two days ago. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/stat... 2. http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report esp. p. 845.
- junon 5y ago
  > we'd be looking at something more on the order or 70 such accidents. Assuming absolutely zero progress has been made in nuclear R&D, regulation, and application.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I've already noted that the accident rate is far more dependent on organisational rather than technological factors. As such it's less subject to progress, and that progress likely has flatter curves and lower intrinsic limits than technological processes, especially those similar to Moore's Law. Automobile safety is a domain in which we've extensive experience, and what is shown is a decreasing trend in absolute numbers, as well as in percentage safety. In the first decade of widespread adoption in the US (1910--1920), the accident rate per passenger mile roughly halved. It's halved every two decades since, as contributions from a number of factors are combined. Some risks, notably toward pedestrians, have remained largely unchanged or increased over the same period. In the power sector, the record from hyroelectric facilities across countries shows a similar trend, with early immature sectors exhibiting major disasters, which fall greatly by time. But the pattern itself repeats across countries, and there's some uptick in risk as aging and poorly-managed infrastructure either fails or experiences near-failure. See for example the Edenville and Sanford dam failures in Michigan in 2020, and the near-failure of the Oroville dam in California in 2017. With more nuclear power plants, there'd also be more plants in more places, including in less well-governed or more unstable countries. Note that in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, much of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, South and Central America, and Africa, there've been numerous transitions of government, as well as coups and outright wars, often with major terrorist / partisan freedom-fighter components. We'd have to presume that these would have occurred with a much more substantial nuclear power component. Under such conditions skilled engineering and management talent often prefers seeking better conditions (higher paying, more stable, safer) elsewher (brain drain), coption of programmes for non-generation purposes (explosive weapons, dirty bombs, other forms of coercion) is far more likely (see Iran and North Korea as two examples), nuclear proliferation, already widespread, would likely be much greater, a even simple errors such as siting on poorly-suited or improperly mitigated locations (as was the case at Fukushima-Diaichi) would be more likely. Then there are the fuel preparation, delivery, and waste management issues, as well as site decomissioning needs.
whatever1 5y ago
Since you have no concerns about nuclear energy I would in fact propose to ramp up construction of such production and waste storage facilities - in your area. The rest of us can pay you for the additional energy you will generate far away from us, for us.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Nuclear energy presently accounts for 4.3% of global energy mix.[1] Expanding that proportionately, rather than 3 major accidents, we'd be looking at something more on the order or 70 such accidents. Using coal as a baseline is unjustified where coal is being actively phased out for cleaner alternatives. Much of this has been natural gas (a nonrenewable greenhouse gas contributor, though one with a good safety record), but wind and solar are cheaper than coal, competitive with gas, and growing rapidly (increasing over 2020, in a year energy consumption overall declined). The biggest risk with nuclear power time and again has proved to be organisational, not technical. (This is a major focus of the late Charles Perrow's work, which I strongly recommend.) Unfortunatley, organisational failures tend not to have technical fixes. In the case of nuclear energy, they have very long-term consequences, on the order of centuries. Well-running nuclear power plants are some of the safest forms of energy production we have. They are not the safest, with solar trending far better, as well as most hydro (there is one notable exception, as with nuclear, it's a case of organisational failure, unlike the notable nuclear accidents, the incident site is now home to 17 millions of people living without any residual risk). Wind power carries some risks, but those are all but entirely limited to workers, not the general public. IPCC have studies of risks on a per-GWh generation basis, which largely corroborate this.[2] If we were to compare nuclear with coal only, based on 2020 generation mix, the multiplier for accidents would be closer to 6-fold rather than 70-fold, though that is still 18 major nuclear accidents rather than the three commercial operation incidents observed. Note too that there are several further nuclear incidents where non-generating plants and military operations are concerned, as well as numerous near-catasterophes such as the Tokaimura criticality incident (again: an organisational failure). ________________________________ Notes: 1. This and other energy statistics are from the BP Annual Statistical Review for 2020, released two days ago. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/stat... 2. http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report esp. p. 845.

junon 5y ago
> we'd be looking at something more on the order or 70 such accidents. Assuming absolutely zero progress has been made in nuclear R&D, regulation, and application.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I've already noted that the accident rate is far more dependent on organisational rather than technological factors. As such it's less subject to progress, and that progress likely has flatter curves and lower intrinsic limits than technological processes, especially those similar to Moore's Law. Automobile safety is a domain in which we've extensive experience, and what is shown is a decreasing trend in absolute numbers, as well as in percentage safety. In the first decade of widespread adoption in the US (1910--1920), the accident rate per passenger mile roughly halved. It's halved every two decades since, as contributions from a number of factors are combined. Some risks, notably toward pedestrians, have remained largely unchanged or increased over the same period. In the power sector, the record from hyroelectric facilities across countries shows a similar trend, with early immature sectors exhibiting major disasters, which fall greatly by time. But the pattern itself repeats across countries, and there's some uptick in risk as aging and poorly-managed infrastructure either fails or experiences near-failure. See for example the Edenville and Sanford dam failures in Michigan in 2020, and the near-failure of the Oroville dam in California in 2017. With more nuclear power plants, there'd also be more plants in more places, including in less well-governed or more unstable countries. Note that in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, much of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, South and Central America, and Africa, there've been numerous transitions of government, as well as coups and outright wars, often with major terrorist / partisan freedom-fighter components. We'd have to presume that these would have occurred with a much more substantial nuclear power component. Under such conditions skilled engineering and management talent often prefers seeking better conditions (higher paying, more stable, safer) elsewher (brain drain), coption of programmes for non-generation purposes (explosive weapons, dirty bombs, other forms of coercion) is far more likely (see Iran and North Korea as two examples), nuclear proliferation, already widespread, would likely be much greater, a even simple errors such as siting on poorly-suited or improperly mitigated locations (as was the case at Fukushima-Diaichi) would be more likely. Then there are the fuel preparation, delivery, and waste management issues, as well as site decomissioning needs.

whatever1 5y ago

Since you have no concerns about nuclear energy I would in fact propose to ramp up construction of such production and waste storage facilities - in your area. The rest of us can pay you for the additional energy you will generate far away from us, for us.