5 ms·

But the bar will always be set higher and higher. Oh, it's safer than all other reactors ever designed? Yeah, but it isn't PERFECT, is it? What if I <impossibl

by mabbo 5y ago

But the bar will always be set higher and higher. Oh, it's safer than all other reactors ever designed? Yeah, but it isn't PERFECT, is it? What if I <impossible scenario>? Then it might be dangerous! Oh, it has 1/10th the nuclear waste of all other reactors ever? But it STILL MAKES NUCLEAR WASTE. Oh, it can be built at half the cost of previous reactors for twice the energy? THAT'S STILL WAY TOO MUCH. And to be clear, I think renewables are major important part of the solution. But waiting for them to meet the demand that nuclear can hit immediately means decades of dirty energy generation. We need to do both renewables and nuclear right now.

LatteLazy 5y ago
The bar hasn't really moved: * be cheaper than other reliable sources (never met) * no waste that takes >100y to decay (never met) * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably)
- harles 5y ago
  > * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably) This is a false dichotomy that’s always bugged me. I’d sure find living near a nuclear plant a lot less disturbing than living near a coal plant. And with nuclear plants, far fewer people would have to live near any power plant.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Having lived near a coal plant and coterie of oil refineries in the past, I will 100% agree that I'd take nuclear over coal in my backyard.
- repsilat 5y ago
  One claim of moving the goalposts comes from https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop: >> Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. What defines “reasonable”? It is an ever-tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of other modes of power, then they are reasonable. >> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job. Basically the safety regulations (some of which are nonsensical -- the whole article is worth a read) preclude cost-effective nuclear. I won't address your point on waste, I think it's covered elsewhere on this page well enough.
- mabbo 5y ago
  > be cheaper than other reliable sources I don't see this as a requirement. The cheaper options that provide the large base load needed are all fossil fuel based. They are "cheap", but only if you don't charge for the CO2 cost to the environment. Ontario has a 60% base energy load provided by nuclear. Smog is rare, except when it blows up from the south. The CO2 production is very low. > no waste that takes >100y to decay The waste from alternatives are huge amounts of CO2, which is causing far more harm to the world than the small amount of nuclear waste that would be produced. > don't disturb the neighbours NIMBYism is not a valid argument.

by mabbo 5y ago

LatteLazy 5y ago

The bar hasn't really moved: * be cheaper than other reliable sources (never met) * no waste that takes >100y to decay (never met) * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably)

harles 5y ago
> * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably) This is a false dichotomy that’s always bugged me. I’d sure find living near a nuclear plant a lot less disturbing than living near a coal plant. And with nuclear plants, far fewer people would have to live near any power plant.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Having lived near a coal plant and coterie of oil refineries in the past, I will 100% agree that I'd take nuclear over coal in my backyard.
repsilat 5y ago
One claim of moving the goalposts comes from https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop: >> Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. What defines “reasonable”? It is an ever-tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of other modes of power, then they are reasonable. >> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job. Basically the safety regulations (some of which are nonsensical -- the whole article is worth a read) preclude cost-effective nuclear. I won't address your point on waste, I think it's covered elsewhere on this page well enough.
mabbo 5y ago
> be cheaper than other reliable sources I don't see this as a requirement. The cheaper options that provide the large base load needed are all fossil fuel based. They are "cheap", but only if you don't charge for the CO2 cost to the environment. Ontario has a 60% base energy load provided by nuclear. Smog is rare, except when it blows up from the south. The CO2 production is very low. > no waste that takes >100y to decay The waste from alternatives are huge amounts of CO2, which is causing far more harm to the world than the small amount of nuclear waste that would be produced. > don't disturb the neighbours NIMBYism is not a valid argument.