4 ms·

I can try to answer your questions. (Disclaimer, I'm a masters student studying systems with a focus on energy systems. Obviously not an expert, and am somewhat

I can try to answer your questions. (Disclaimer, I'm a masters student studying systems with a focus on energy systems. Obviously not an expert, and am somewhat biased pro-nuclear.) 1. Net online time for nuclear isn't particularly bad, especially when you consider that other alternatives too go down. [1] Of course you'll need some extra capacity/more plants, but that was anyway the case. 2. I feel this is probably the strongest point that can be held against nuclear. Short-term fuel management is not an issue/already figured out, and climate change is a much quicker risk in the next 50 years, so I'd argue it's still better to go 0-carbon instead of finding a perfect solution right now. 3. I'm not sure if you're referring to proliferation of the fuel or technologies, but both are reasonably well-developed fields that France should not have major problems. 4. Similar to point one - nuclear accidents vs risks/deaths from coal is like comparing flight safety with cars. Sure, airplanes feel unsafe but are statistically MUCH safer than cars. Chernobyl and Fukushima were both avoidable (though that can admitably be said for a lot of accidents). Deaths from pollution itself are in the millions instead. [2] 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab... 2. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

majou 5y ago
Proliferation in the context of nuclear is the risk of terrorists or states intercepting fuel that can be refined to weapon-grade. Some reactors don't have this risk, but I'm not read on it.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Decades with hundred of nuclear power plants in the world have not seen them be a significant source of fissionable material for terrorists or new nations developing nuclear weapons. See Iran, a nation that has devoted significant resources to such an endeavor, as a case in point. Spent fuel from nuclear power plants-- probably the more vulnerable point in the supply chain-- is nonetheless difficult to the point of extreme expense & impractical to refine to weapons grade. You would need such large quantities that it would be extremely difficult to steal enough without notice: Someone is going to notice the 200,000 lb cask leaving a storage facility. Then the refinement process is difficult, requiring immense sums of money to built the significant infrastructure required for refinement. North Korea, the newest nuclear power, got there with significant help from the Soviets extending back in the 60's and it still took them decades to get there. This is all on top of the fact that any modern plant designs use feedstock fuel that is even harder to refine into anything weapons grade, and is much more efficient to the point that spend fuel refinement difficulties dwarfs the above roadblocks for fuel from older designs. Dirty bombs are more problematic, but also significantly less destructive, and suffer from many of the same logistical hurdles, notably that the material most useful for a dirty bomb is also material that requires massively robust precautions to ensure the thieves don't kill themselves with radiation exposure long before any chance of making use of it. Less useful material that requires fewer precautions is not practical for dirty bombs without significant refinement capacity. All of this at a time when real measurable deaths from fossil fuel powerplants, their pollution, and their industrial accidents, are themselves more dangerous, right now, than theoretical & difficult to achieve usages of fuel from new nuclear power plants.
- vkou 5y ago
  Generally speaking, any operator of any reactor can make nuclear weapons if they want to. Some reactors don't generate weapons-grade isotopes when operated as intended, but if you control the reactor, my understanding is that it is easy to modify it so that it does. There is no technical safeguard against nuclear proliferation - all of them are political.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
adrianmonk 5y ago
> both avoidable (though that can admitably be said for a lot of accidents) I'm pro-nuclear, but the need to be circumspect about safety is real. I always think of a Bruce Cockburn song, "Radium Rain", written in 1986 when visiting Germany right after Chernobyl: Every day in the paper You can watch the numbers rise No such event can overtake us here We're much too wise In the meantime, don't eat anything that grows And don't breathe when the cars go by
croes 5y ago
>airplanes feel unsafe but are statistically MUCH safer than cars. It depends. Are you comparing deaths per kilometer, journey or hour? Deaths per billion Type...Journey...km.....Hours Bus........4.3........0.4.......1.1 Rail.......20.0.......0.6.....30.0 Car........40.0.......3.1....130.0 Plane...170.0......0.05....30.8 Do you want to know the likelihood of dying on your next trip, the next kilometer or in the next hour?

majou 5y ago

Proliferation in the context of nuclear is the risk of terrorists or states intercepting fuel that can be refined to weapon-grade. Some reactors don't have this risk, but I'm not read on it.

ineedasername 5y ago
Decades with hundred of nuclear power plants in the world have not seen them be a significant source of fissionable material for terrorists or new nations developing nuclear weapons. See Iran, a nation that has devoted significant resources to such an endeavor, as a case in point. Spent fuel from nuclear power plants-- probably the more vulnerable point in the supply chain-- is nonetheless difficult to the point of extreme expense & impractical to refine to weapons grade. You would need such large quantities that it would be extremely difficult to steal enough without notice: Someone is going to notice the 200,000 lb cask leaving a storage facility. Then the refinement process is difficult, requiring immense sums of money to built the significant infrastructure required for refinement. North Korea, the newest nuclear power, got there with significant help from the Soviets extending back in the 60's and it still took them decades to get there. This is all on top of the fact that any modern plant designs use feedstock fuel that is even harder to refine into anything weapons grade, and is much more efficient to the point that spend fuel refinement difficulties dwarfs the above roadblocks for fuel from older designs. Dirty bombs are more problematic, but also significantly less destructive, and suffer from many of the same logistical hurdles, notably that the material most useful for a dirty bomb is also material that requires massively robust precautions to ensure the thieves don't kill themselves with radiation exposure long before any chance of making use of it. Less useful material that requires fewer precautions is not practical for dirty bombs without significant refinement capacity. All of this at a time when real measurable deaths from fossil fuel powerplants, their pollution, and their industrial accidents, are themselves more dangerous, right now, than theoretical & difficult to achieve usages of fuel from new nuclear power plants.
vkou 5y ago
Generally speaking, any operator of any reactor can make nuclear weapons if they want to. Some reactors don't generate weapons-grade isotopes when operated as intended, but if you control the reactor, my understanding is that it is easy to modify it so that it does. There is no technical safeguard against nuclear proliferation - all of them are political.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

adrianmonk 5y ago

> both avoidable (though that can admitably be said for a lot of accidents) I'm pro-nuclear, but the need to be circumspect about safety is real. I always think of a Bruce Cockburn song, "Radium Rain", written in 1986 when visiting Germany right after Chernobyl: Every day in the paper You can watch the numbers rise No such event can overtake us here We're much too wise In the meantime, don't eat anything that grows And don't breathe when the cars go by

croes 5y ago

>airplanes feel unsafe but are statistically MUCH safer than cars. It depends. Are you comparing deaths per kilometer, journey or hour? Deaths per billion Type...Journey...km.....Hours Bus........4.3........0.4.......1.1 Rail.......20.0.......0.6.....30.0 Car........40.0.......3.1....130.0 Plane...170.0......0.05....30.8 Do you want to know the likelihood of dying on your next trip, the next kilometer or in the next hour?