7 ms·

> I just don't trust governments or corporations to maintain, inspect, manage and operate nuclear power plants at scale. This is my biggest concern as well. H

by zepto 5y ago

> I just don't trust governments or corporations to maintain, inspect, manage and operate nuclear power plants at scale. This is my biggest concern as well. However it needs to be balanced against the alternative, which is trusting governments and corporations to deal with climate change in other ways. A reality check tells us: 1. Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately so far and there is no evidence that this is about to change. 2. Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal. It’s far from ideal, but it is here and it works.

ravenstine 5y ago
Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some other non-government entities to handle nuclear reactors? We're all to die then, if we're to believe that letting climate change take its course is better than the occasional nuclear meltdown. > Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately so far and there is no evidence that this is about to change. How else are they to fill their pockets with wealth taxed via inflation if there are no crises? There must always be a crisis looming to get people to part with their wealth. > Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal. Leadership knows full well that this is a fact. Think about that.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some other non-government entities to handle nuclear reactors? The point is that the drawbacks of Nuclear far out weight it's benefits, and it's simply better all around to invest into energy sources which aren't as reliant on flawless management or execution to avoid catastrophic failure modes.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > The point is that the drawbacks of Nuclear far out weight it's benefits The evidence so far points to the opposite.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > The evidence so far points to the opposite. No, not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident... And keep in mind that the whole world, which is migrating away from nuclear, also disagrees with that personal assertion.
      - ravenstine 5y ago
        Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious. Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion. > [...] although nobody has died or is expected to die from radiation effects [of Fukishima]. The number of deaths related to Nuclear accidents doesn't even exceed the single-digit thousands, and after Chernobyl the number of deaths related to other accidents doesn't even exceed 20. On the other hand, virtually every globalist governmental entity (if we're gonna go by appeals to authority and majority here) believes that climate change will soon be related to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha... > Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. So no, the migration away from nuclear doesn't close the case on why places like California moved away from nuclear. There could be a Chernobyl every year and, if we are to believe the likes of the WHO and the UN, it still wouldn't approach the number of deaths resulting from climate change.
        nuerow 5y ago
        > Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious. It's one thing to state that you personally believe in something. It's an entirely different thing to try to pass off a personal opinion and baseless assertions as some kind of established consensus, particluarly as they fly in the face of reality. > Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion. It presents solid enough cases to motivate the current global phase-out of Nuclear power. And, unlike the GP's personal assertion, it does provide a rationale based on facts and real-world experience assessed and considered by decision-makers. If you have a genuine curiosity about the subject and you're interested in getting up to speed on the topic, you may start by reading up on this as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
nuerow 5y ago
> This is my biggest concern as well. However it needs to be balanced against the alternative, which is trusting governments and corporations to deal with climate change in other ways. Isn't the alternative actually looking into renewable energy sources? Portraying things as either Nuclear or nothing is a false dillema, specially as we're seeing highly developed and industrialized countries such as Germany where renewables already cover close to half it's energy demands.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Isn't the alternative actually looking into renewable energy sources? That is trusting governments and corporations to deal with climate change in other ways.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > That is trusting governments and corporations to deal with climate change in other ways. Again, that's a false dillema. At best, Nuclear is being pushed as one of many possible alternative to fossil fuels, and one which has been discarded entailing both high costs (direct and externalities) and high risk.
    - zepto 5y ago
      You can keep saying it’s a false dilemma, but that doesn’t make it so. We are considering nuclear vs not doing nuclear. That isn’t a false dilemma. > discarded entailing both high costs (direct and externalities) and high risk. If you are satisfied with the alternatives and think they are on track without nuclear, that is a happy belief to hold.
      - nuerow 5y ago
        > You can keep saying it’s a false dilemma, but that doesn’t make it so. How exactly is the attempt to frame the problem as either adopting Nuclear or else climate change happens not a false dilemma? Are there no other energy sources? Should we intentionally turn a blind eye to real-world example of countries which are both phasing out Nuclear and lowering emissions towards zero? > If you are satisfied with the alternatives and think they are on track without nuclear, that is a happy belief to hold. Again with the false dilemma angle? You might have strong opinions regarding how fast the current phase-out is going, but you can't ignore the fact that some nations, like Germany, are managing to meet their targets while phasing out Nuclear. Even so, Nuclear is obviously not the only option to ramp up energy production to phase out fossil fuels.
cletus 5y ago
> Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately This is something that's both true and untrue. On the face of it, it's absolutely true. But what are governments, really? They're a reflection of the people they govern. So governments haven't responded because it simply isn't a priority for most people. I've long held the view that we'll only have a solution to climate change when it becomes economic to do so. The pandemic has only strengthened that view. We have millions of people who won't even mildly inconvenience themselves to help stop others (and themselves) from getting seriously ill or dying. And you want those same people to do something about climate change? By "economic" I mean we simply need cheaper sources of energy than fossil fuels. That could be because something else gets cheaper, fossil fuels due to scarcity simply get more expensive or some combination of the two. The biggest hope for that currently seems to be solar, which has seen its price plummet in the last 20 years. We already have the technology to make fuel from the air but there's no point burning fossil fuels to do that. If however your energy came from a cheaper source there is a price point where that would make sense. At that point, gas-guzzling vehicles become carbon-neutral.
- panick21 5y ago
  Solar is already cheaper. But from the theoretical energy to actual stuff you can put into your tank to drive your car is a long distance. And you need both solar and storage to approximate the reliability, and that is not even remotely solved. And even if you had 1-2 storage, it would still not be reliable in a few important situations.
  - Factorium 5y ago
    Solar can't provide district heating. When temperatures reach -10, -20 celcius, a heat pump's COP is near 1.0, at which point its basically just a space heater. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are the perfect solution for Europe: there's plenty of water, typically cold temperatures, intelligent and stable populations, and high densities. Already nuclear plants around the continent provide heat for district heating systems. Every major town and city in Europe should have a small modular nuclear power plant. We need to begin manufacturing these units in the dozens each year, ideally the hundreds for installation around the OECD. In places like Australia the plant can also be used to directly power desalinisation and the water will also provide cooling. Otherwise, the major unsolvable issue for Nuclear is the need to provide a direct water source.
LaGrange 5y ago
> 2. Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal. ...can "we", do it, though? AFAIR (this is based on an internal study for a policy proposal done in 2015 by a minor Polish party, so take it with a grain of salt) one major issue is the lack of expertise. To build a nuclear power plant safely you need specialized and experienced engineers, and after a long lull in construction, most states don't have that many of those. And we would need _a lot_. And Chernobyl is an interesting example here, because one of the reasons for its (and many other Soviet and Russian projects) low quality is that Soviet Union/Russia have been stuck in emergency mode since the Tsars. You just needed that many flats and that much power like two decades ago - so you winged it. Thus I am wary of industrial facilities handling hazardous materials that are built in emergency mode, and the only way I see EU building enough reactors in 10 years to handle our energy needs without _major_ cuts is by winging it quite a bit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't - if we don't build reactors, nobody will go into engineering those, and the issue will persist. But I don't think we can stake our near-term future on them. That fight was lost a while ago.
- panick21 5y ago
  France didn't have these engineers either, and 10-20 years later they were finishing 5 plants a year. The US didn't have these people and build reactors incredibly fast as well. With modern reactors, and not gigantic PWR. You actually build most of the nuclear components in factories. The actual CAPX part is mostly the same as a gas plant. What you need is not technical engineers but many experiments people who have done it before. So you start to build one reactors before its half finished move some people start a second and a third and so on. Its basic scaling. France was able to it with terrible PWR designs from 60s, we have the opportunity to do it with amazingly small and save GenIV designs. > And Chernobyl is an interesting example here, because one of the reasons for its (and many other Soviet and Russian projects) low quality is that Soviet Union/Russia have been stuck in emergency mode since the Tsars. No sorry, that is nonsense. The reason for low quality was their political system. > You just needed that many flats and that much power like two decades ago - so you winged it. Äh no. Chernobyl was actually partly a design that allowed them to make materials for weapons. That is what their political system cared far more about then providing power to civilians. > and the only way I see EU building enough reactors in 10 years to handle our energy needs without _major_ cuts is by winging it quite a bit. No that wouldn't be how you do it. There are perfectly reasonable ways to do this without just having no standard. > near-term future on them. If near term future is 10-20 years we absolutely could.
chernobogdan 5y ago
Is that really worse then the current geopolitical situation where you are indirectly trusting 3rd party governments (e.g north korea) not to start a nuclear war?

by zepto 5y ago

ravenstine 5y ago

Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some other non-government entities to handle nuclear reactors? We're all to die then, if we're to believe that letting climate change take its course is better than the occasional nuclear meltdown. > Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately so far and there is no evidence that this is about to change. How else are they to fill their pockets with wealth taxed via inflation if there are no crises? There must always be a crisis looming to get people to part with their wealth. > Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal. Leadership knows full well that this is a fact. Think about that.

nuerow 5y ago
> Then I guess we're effed then. After all, if we can't trust non-government entities like Equifax with private records, why even go as far as trusting some other non-government entities to handle nuclear reactors? The point is that the drawbacks of Nuclear far out weight it's benefits, and it's simply better all around to invest into energy sources which aren't as reliant on flawless management or execution to avoid catastrophic failure modes.
- zepto 5y ago
  > The point is that the drawbacks of Nuclear far out weight it's benefits The evidence so far points to the opposite.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > The evidence so far points to the opposite. No, not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident... And keep in mind that the whole world, which is migrating away from nuclear, also disagrees with that personal assertion.
    - ravenstine 5y ago
      Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious. Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion. > [...] although nobody has died or is expected to die from radiation effects [of Fukishima]. The number of deaths related to Nuclear accidents doesn't even exceed the single-digit thousands, and after Chernobyl the number of deaths related to other accidents doesn't even exceed 20. On the other hand, virtually every globalist governmental entity (if we're gonna go by appeals to authority and majority here) believes that climate change will soon be related to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha... > Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. So no, the migration away from nuclear doesn't close the case on why places like California moved away from nuclear. There could be a Chernobyl every year and, if we are to believe the likes of the WHO and the UN, it still wouldn't approach the number of deaths resulting from climate change.
      - nuerow 5y ago
        > Thereby no one should rightfully speculate or disagree? That's pretty fallacious. It's one thing to state that you personally believe in something. It's an entirely different thing to try to pass off a personal opinion and baseless assertions as some kind of established consensus, particluarly as they fly in the face of reality. > Also, that Wikipedia page you just looked up doesn't really make a good case for your assertion. It presents solid enough cases to motivate the current global phase-out of Nuclear power. And, unlike the GP's personal assertion, it does provide a rationale based on facts and real-world experience assessed and considered by decision-makers. If you have a genuine curiosity about the subject and you're interested in getting up to speed on the topic, you may start by reading up on this as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

nuerow 5y ago

> This is my biggest concern as well. However it needs to be balanced against the alternative, which is trusting governments and corporations to deal with climate change in other ways. Isn't the alternative actually looking into renewable energy sources? Portraying things as either Nuclear or nothing is a false dillema, specially as we're seeing highly developed and industrialized countries such as Germany where renewables already cover close to half it's energy demands.

zepto 5y ago
> Isn't the alternative actually looking into renewable energy sources? That is trusting governments and corporations to deal with climate change in other ways.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > That is trusting governments and corporations to deal with climate change in other ways. Again, that's a false dillema. At best, Nuclear is being pushed as one of many possible alternative to fossil fuels, and one which has been discarded entailing both high costs (direct and externalities) and high risk.
  - zepto 5y ago
    You can keep saying it’s a false dilemma, but that doesn’t make it so. We are considering nuclear vs not doing nuclear. That isn’t a false dilemma. > discarded entailing both high costs (direct and externalities) and high risk. If you are satisfied with the alternatives and think they are on track without nuclear, that is a happy belief to hold.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > You can keep saying it’s a false dilemma, but that doesn’t make it so. How exactly is the attempt to frame the problem as either adopting Nuclear or else climate change happens not a false dilemma? Are there no other energy sources? Should we intentionally turn a blind eye to real-world example of countries which are both phasing out Nuclear and lowering emissions towards zero? > If you are satisfied with the alternatives and think they are on track without nuclear, that is a happy belief to hold. Again with the false dilemma angle? You might have strong opinions regarding how fast the current phase-out is going, but you can't ignore the fact that some nations, like Germany, are managing to meet their targets while phasing out Nuclear. Even so, Nuclear is obviously not the only option to ramp up energy production to phase out fossil fuels.

cletus 5y ago

> Governments and corporations have not responded to climate change adequately This is something that's both true and untrue. On the face of it, it's absolutely true. But what are governments, really? They're a reflection of the people they govern. So governments haven't responded because it simply isn't a priority for most people. I've long held the view that we'll only have a solution to climate change when it becomes economic to do so. The pandemic has only strengthened that view. We have millions of people who won't even mildly inconvenience themselves to help stop others (and themselves) from getting seriously ill or dying. And you want those same people to do something about climate change? By "economic" I mean we simply need cheaper sources of energy than fossil fuels. That could be because something else gets cheaper, fossil fuels due to scarcity simply get more expensive or some combination of the two. The biggest hope for that currently seems to be solar, which has seen its price plummet in the last 20 years. We already have the technology to make fuel from the air but there's no point burning fossil fuels to do that. If however your energy came from a cheaper source there is a price point where that would make sense. At that point, gas-guzzling vehicles become carbon-neutral.

panick21 5y ago
Solar is already cheaper. But from the theoretical energy to actual stuff you can put into your tank to drive your car is a long distance. And you need both solar and storage to approximate the reliability, and that is not even remotely solved. And even if you had 1-2 storage, it would still not be reliable in a few important situations.
- Factorium 5y ago
  Solar can't provide district heating. When temperatures reach -10, -20 celcius, a heat pump's COP is near 1.0, at which point its basically just a space heater. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are the perfect solution for Europe: there's plenty of water, typically cold temperatures, intelligent and stable populations, and high densities. Already nuclear plants around the continent provide heat for district heating systems. Every major town and city in Europe should have a small modular nuclear power plant. We need to begin manufacturing these units in the dozens each year, ideally the hundreds for installation around the OECD. In places like Australia the plant can also be used to directly power desalinisation and the water will also provide cooling. Otherwise, the major unsolvable issue for Nuclear is the need to provide a direct water source.

LaGrange 5y ago

> 2. Even with the high profile accidents, nuclear power is something we know we can actually do, and has produced fewer excess deaths than coal. ...can "we", do it, though? AFAIR (this is based on an internal study for a policy proposal done in 2015 by a minor Polish party, so take it with a grain of salt) one major issue is the lack of expertise. To build a nuclear power plant safely you need specialized and experienced engineers, and after a long lull in construction, most states don't have that many of those. And we would need _a lot_. And Chernobyl is an interesting example here, because one of the reasons for its (and many other Soviet and Russian projects) low quality is that Soviet Union/Russia have been stuck in emergency mode since the Tsars. You just needed that many flats and that much power like two decades ago - so you winged it. Thus I am wary of industrial facilities handling hazardous materials that are built in emergency mode, and the only way I see EU building enough reactors in 10 years to handle our energy needs without _major_ cuts is by winging it quite a bit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't - if we don't build reactors, nobody will go into engineering those, and the issue will persist. But I don't think we can stake our near-term future on them. That fight was lost a while ago.

panick21 5y ago
France didn't have these engineers either, and 10-20 years later they were finishing 5 plants a year. The US didn't have these people and build reactors incredibly fast as well. With modern reactors, and not gigantic PWR. You actually build most of the nuclear components in factories. The actual CAPX part is mostly the same as a gas plant. What you need is not technical engineers but many experiments people who have done it before. So you start to build one reactors before its half finished move some people start a second and a third and so on. Its basic scaling. France was able to it with terrible PWR designs from 60s, we have the opportunity to do it with amazingly small and save GenIV designs. > And Chernobyl is an interesting example here, because one of the reasons for its (and many other Soviet and Russian projects) low quality is that Soviet Union/Russia have been stuck in emergency mode since the Tsars. No sorry, that is nonsense. The reason for low quality was their political system. > You just needed that many flats and that much power like two decades ago - so you winged it. Äh no. Chernobyl was actually partly a design that allowed them to make materials for weapons. That is what their political system cared far more about then providing power to civilians. > and the only way I see EU building enough reactors in 10 years to handle our energy needs without _major_ cuts is by winging it quite a bit. No that wouldn't be how you do it. There are perfectly reasonable ways to do this without just having no standard. > near-term future on them. If near term future is 10-20 years we absolutely could.

chernobogdan 5y ago

Is that really worse then the current geopolitical situation where you are indirectly trusting 3rd party governments (e.g north korea) not to start a nuclear war?