4 ms·

So how does that risk compare to the risks of burning fossil fuels?

shadowfaxRodeo 5y ago
This is a false choice. As the world gets more unstable due to climate change — an increased risk on pandemics, civil unrest, extreme weather events — do we really want abandoned nuclear power stations added to the mix? So, don’t do either. use way less energy, rely on renewables and batteries for the rest.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Also a nice perspective: We'd have to allow developing countries and those with terribly corrupt/inefficient governments and regulatory regimes to use nuclear power. I don't even like China engaging in large scale nuclear engineering, particularly because of how they screw up other sectors of industry.
  - squiggleblaz 5y ago
    I don't understand this "we'd have to allow developing countries" argument. How do people in developed countries allow or stop developing countries with corrupt/inefficient governments from doing whatever they want? If they can afford it, accept the risks and have the knowledge and physical requirements, how does anyone stop them?
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      By diplomatic pressure for example, or by withholding the development aid and technology necessary. Or by assassinating the nuclear scientists and later bombing the shit out of the facilities. All of which has happened. In my opinion, the risk of nuclear power in its current form can't be computed, even within a robust regulatory environment. Without a robust regulatory environment, or even instable regimes and regions, I don't think there is even a question to the answer of: No, please don't.
      - squiggleblaz 5y ago
        Well I suppose you can assassinate nuclear scientists, bomb the shit out of the facilities, and withhold development aid and necessary technology regardless of whether you have nuclear technology. Once bombs are on the table, boundaries are out the window. I can't tell to what extent you're being sarcastic. Your final sentence seems to have suffered during editing, but I gather you hold it as absolute that no unstable regime should have access to nuclear power, and that it is impossible to determine the difference between the risk of an unstable regime and a stable regime holding nuclear power, from which I infer that you hold it absolute that stable regimes should also not have access to nuclear power. Are you seriously saying that someone wanting nuclear power is legitimate grounds for war? If you were the leader of some country that would have about a 50% chance of success, would you declare war on Australia, now that they've announced they intend to pursue (limited, though surely particularly risky) nuclear power?
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        I don't know if you know the relevant history, but I am specifically referring to the precedent of Israel bombing the Iraqi reactor. Gaddafi also had a nuclear program that would have gotten him in trouble if he hadn't stopped it in time. I don't want to categorically endorse nuclear weapon programs (or even civilian programs) as a reason to go to war, but I can understand why some countries believe so. Particularly in the case of Israel, when countries like Iraq and Iran have specifically and repeatedly said they want to destroy Israel. The nuclear programs in the hands of Iran, Pakistan and China are already troublesome. Their current governments might seem relatively "rational" about the whole thing, but they are authoritarian and who knows what will happen with their next crop of unelected leadership. In less egregious cases, highly radioactive material is sufficient to build dirty bombs. A simple regime change, civil war or whatever in an unstable region with nuclear power could lead to a nightmare. Even less sinister, simple incompetence can lead to a mismanaged reactor or waste disposal, which in turn can have wideranging and catastrophic consequences.
bayesian_horse 5y ago
You can stop burning the fossil fuel as soon as you have an alternative or need fewer energy. You can't just get rid of a nuclear reactor and its (spent) fuel that easily. And that doesn't take into account that occasionally you have to write off large inhabited parts of a country due to an accident, which really doesn't happen with fossil fuels. The goal is to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, and maybe eventually some saner version of nuclear power and fusion. No easy solutions there.
- agent327 5y ago
  You can't just get rid of the CO2 that was already emitted either. It's going to be in the atmosphere forever. Also, oil spills make huge tracts of land unlivable, and unfortunately it's almost always fragile marine areas. Whereas the 'nuclear disaster zone' around Chernobyl is now teeming with life. Turns out humans are worse for wildlife than radioactivity...
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    "Teeming with life" doesn't mean you really want to live there. Animals with shorter lifespans have less of a problems with the cancer risk, I'll grant you that. There may even be some animals occasionally dying from radiation poisoning (having wandered through the wrong parts too often) and nobody would notice. I'm simple that way. Stuff that can kill me right now is a lot scarier to me than stuff that will raise the average temperature over the next few decades. I'd also prefer most of the governments in the world not to have ready access to fissile or even large amounts of radioactive material, just as a general precaution.
- jaggirs 5y ago
  Land is valuable, but it's value is overshadowed by the massive amounts of energy production of a nuclear plant.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    Not really. I don't mean the area directly occupied by the reactor facility, but rather the exclusion zone of an incident like in Chernobyl or Fukushima. Not that many people died in these incidents - because those zones were evacuated at great cost.
blablabla123 5y ago
To my knowledge risk in insurance speak is probability x cost and insurances don't insure Nuclear reactors.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Risk in insurance is more complicated than probability x cost. It is more something like probability x cost x liquid_captial / (liquid_capital - cost) Essentially if the cost is so high the insurer would take a massive hit. This is the same reason why normal people by health-insurance. Essentially the 'value' of money is not linear. The less money you have the more value a single dollar has.
elaus 5y ago
That was pretty much the argument that convinced me to switch my stance away from "anti nuclear". Living with the risk of another "Chernobyl" is bad – but a global climate catastrophe would probably be much worse.

This is a false choice. As the world gets more unstable due to climate change — an increased risk on pandemics, civil unrest, extreme weather events — do we really want abandoned nuclear power stations added to the mix? So, don’t do either. use way less energy, rely on renewables and batteries for the rest.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
Also a nice perspective: We'd have to allow developing countries and those with terribly corrupt/inefficient governments and regulatory regimes to use nuclear power. I don't even like China engaging in large scale nuclear engineering, particularly because of how they screw up other sectors of industry.
- squiggleblaz 5y ago
  I don't understand this "we'd have to allow developing countries" argument. How do people in developed countries allow or stop developing countries with corrupt/inefficient governments from doing whatever they want? If they can afford it, accept the risks and have the knowledge and physical requirements, how does anyone stop them?
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    By diplomatic pressure for example, or by withholding the development aid and technology necessary. Or by assassinating the nuclear scientists and later bombing the shit out of the facilities. All of which has happened. In my opinion, the risk of nuclear power in its current form can't be computed, even within a robust regulatory environment. Without a robust regulatory environment, or even instable regimes and regions, I don't think there is even a question to the answer of: No, please don't.
    - squiggleblaz 5y ago
      Well I suppose you can assassinate nuclear scientists, bomb the shit out of the facilities, and withhold development aid and necessary technology regardless of whether you have nuclear technology. Once bombs are on the table, boundaries are out the window. I can't tell to what extent you're being sarcastic. Your final sentence seems to have suffered during editing, but I gather you hold it as absolute that no unstable regime should have access to nuclear power, and that it is impossible to determine the difference between the risk of an unstable regime and a stable regime holding nuclear power, from which I infer that you hold it absolute that stable regimes should also not have access to nuclear power. Are you seriously saying that someone wanting nuclear power is legitimate grounds for war? If you were the leader of some country that would have about a 50% chance of success, would you declare war on Australia, now that they've announced they intend to pursue (limited, though surely particularly risky) nuclear power?
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        I don't know if you know the relevant history, but I am specifically referring to the precedent of Israel bombing the Iraqi reactor. Gaddafi also had a nuclear program that would have gotten him in trouble if he hadn't stopped it in time. I don't want to categorically endorse nuclear weapon programs (or even civilian programs) as a reason to go to war, but I can understand why some countries believe so. Particularly in the case of Israel, when countries like Iraq and Iran have specifically and repeatedly said they want to destroy Israel. The nuclear programs in the hands of Iran, Pakistan and China are already troublesome. Their current governments might seem relatively "rational" about the whole thing, but they are authoritarian and who knows what will happen with their next crop of unelected leadership. In less egregious cases, highly radioactive material is sufficient to build dirty bombs. A simple regime change, civil war or whatever in an unstable region with nuclear power could lead to a nightmare. Even less sinister, simple incompetence can lead to a mismanaged reactor or waste disposal, which in turn can have wideranging and catastrophic consequences.

bayesian_horse 5y ago

You can stop burning the fossil fuel as soon as you have an alternative or need fewer energy. You can't just get rid of a nuclear reactor and its (spent) fuel that easily. And that doesn't take into account that occasionally you have to write off large inhabited parts of a country due to an accident, which really doesn't happen with fossil fuels. The goal is to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, and maybe eventually some saner version of nuclear power and fusion. No easy solutions there.

agent327 5y ago
You can't just get rid of the CO2 that was already emitted either. It's going to be in the atmosphere forever. Also, oil spills make huge tracts of land unlivable, and unfortunately it's almost always fragile marine areas. Whereas the 'nuclear disaster zone' around Chernobyl is now teeming with life. Turns out humans are worse for wildlife than radioactivity...
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  "Teeming with life" doesn't mean you really want to live there. Animals with shorter lifespans have less of a problems with the cancer risk, I'll grant you that. There may even be some animals occasionally dying from radiation poisoning (having wandered through the wrong parts too often) and nobody would notice. I'm simple that way. Stuff that can kill me right now is a lot scarier to me than stuff that will raise the average temperature over the next few decades. I'd also prefer most of the governments in the world not to have ready access to fissile or even large amounts of radioactive material, just as a general precaution.
jaggirs 5y ago
Land is valuable, but it's value is overshadowed by the massive amounts of energy production of a nuclear plant.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Not really. I don't mean the area directly occupied by the reactor facility, but rather the exclusion zone of an incident like in Chernobyl or Fukushima. Not that many people died in these incidents - because those zones were evacuated at great cost.

blablabla123 5y ago

To my knowledge risk in insurance speak is probability x cost and insurances don't insure Nuclear reactors.

rocqua 5y ago
Risk in insurance is more complicated than probability x cost. It is more something like probability x cost x liquid_captial / (liquid_capital - cost) Essentially if the cost is so high the insurer would take a massive hit. This is the same reason why normal people by health-insurance. Essentially the 'value' of money is not linear. The less money you have the more value a single dollar has.

elaus 5y ago

That was pretty much the argument that convinced me to switch my stance away from "anti nuclear". Living with the risk of another "Chernobyl" is bad – but a global climate catastrophe would probably be much worse.