5 ms·

The nuclear issue is fascinating to watch unfold, over the years. I didn't expect the rational pro-nuclear to be almost as religious as their opponents. Which

The nuclear issue is fascinating to watch unfold, over the years. I didn't expect the rational pro-nuclear to be almost as religious as their opponents. Which makes them also refuse to engage in debate. So, here is one of the thoughts that crossed my mind (and I am well aware there are counter arguments to it ). With its high density of energy and perceived higher potential to harm its surrounding environment, nuclear power requires a level of State Capacity and stability that is not found over half of the planet. It is not obvious that it can be a widespread, long term alternative for most of the world economies. With that in mind, isn't it better if some of the wealthier countries basically front the cost and explore completely alternative (nuclear-free) systems for all the others ? Even if we globally end up with an energy mix ? Curious to hear opinions with that point of view in mind.

RaitoBezarius 5y ago
> It is not obvious that nuclear energy can be a widespread, long term alternative for most of the world economies. This problem is also known as nuclear proliferation and, as far as I know, is known to people building nuclear reactors. Small nuclear reactors takes them in account: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#Nuclear_Proliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#Nuclear_...> ; nuclear smuggling is also monitored: <https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-database-shows-continued-incidents-of-trafficking-and-loss-of-control-of-nuclear-and-other-radioactive-material https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-database-...> Unpopular opinion: I do not think it is possible to get rid of the inherent risk of nuclear proliferation, even without building nuclear reactors in non-wealthy countries. Multiple reasons : * Non-wealthy countries wants to be first-class countries, at some point, they will desire to move on to "energy upgrades", beyond international community (read: wealthy countries), who has the right to refuse them to build such infrastructure? * Villains will move on to harder targets, but will move on, even if it requires using countries already using nuclear and are actually "non-wealthy" (for some reasonable definition) It might not be feasible to guarantee the right levels of security for these scenarios, but we can take them in account and work out nuclear reactor models which limits as much as possible the inherent risks. Consider this bad metaphor: as we are writing more and more software, some of them are increasingly critical to users, therefore, we invest in different levels of guaranteeing software is working as intended (e.g. formal methods, etc.). I see no absolute reason to not pursue the same avenue here, indeed, I even learned about nuclear reactor startups which are applying modern technology to a safer nuclear ecosystem.
- dekervin 5y ago
  Thanks for the answer ! I'll continue the debate because I think it's worth exploring. The problem is effectively nuclear proliferation. And in my opinion the two links you provided are embryos of solution. In the future, it will be legitimate for any medium size city in a developping country to have its own nuclear reactor. At that point the whole procurement process becomes a matter of national security for every neighboring country. Like who is deciding which design is better ? Who gets to pick the winning offer ? For exemple let's say Germany propose a safer design to a small country with the one time refuel feature, but Turkey propose another design and the buying country has better relationship with Turkey. What standing do you have to make them pick what you deem the better design ? The only recourse is to extend the legal framework and coercition power we use for arm sales. Same regarding nuclear material smuggling. Except those framework work at the moment because, few country have any use for nuclear material and even fewer want to make a go at it. Once it becomes business as usual to trade nuclear material, it will simply exhaust the monitoring capacity of any international framework. ( At least that's my opinion ) As for the second part of the argument: >> Consider this bad metaphor: as we are writing more and more software, some of them are increasingly critical to users, therefore, we invest in different levels of guaranteeing software is working as intended (e.g. formal methods, etc.). The question is who the we is ? Energy plant maintenance is closer to server farm maintenance than software building. To twist your metaphor, if many countries were to handle the data infrastructure their economy depend on, they would collapse. That's the crux of the issue, and one of the subliminal teaching the public got from Fukushima. If Japan, the country of the famed six sigma, made a serie of decisions that led to an accident, chances are it's bound to happen to most other (developping ) countries, given long enough time. And I am intentionally not delving into the specifics of those decisions. With these two sides of the issue in mind, it feels unreasonnable that so many commenters on the web at large are rooting for Germany to fail in the nuclear free direction. Edit: >> Unpopular opinion: I do not think it is possible to get rid of the inherent risk of nuclear proliferation, even without building nuclear reactors in non-wealthy countries. I just wanted to add that I commend you for that (blunt) sentence and it really should be part of the standard issues discussed when talking about nuclear.
  - RaitoBezarius 5y ago
machiaweliczny 5y ago
I think simple, safe and small reactor should be possible to build. It just matter of proper engineering. In richer countries solar power works well but requires elastic grid and storage investment. In Poland many people get it and new homes get heat pumps as well plus good insulation to reduce demand. But in rich countires all that matters in production needs in the end. I think China will lead in this as they are most pressured. I was on Kos/Greece recently and was surprised that they have 0 PV panels but everyone has solar water heating. Maybe they have some other good elecricity source and that makes it uncompetitive. Most poor countries can rely on solar as it's aboundant there. They will also want nuclear though to desalt water -> see in 20 years.

RaitoBezarius 5y ago

> It is not obvious that nuclear energy can be a widespread, long term alternative for most of the world economies. This problem is also known as nuclear proliferation and, as far as I know, is known to people building nuclear reactors. Small nuclear reactors takes them in account: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#Nuclear_Proliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#Nuclear_...> ; nuclear smuggling is also monitored: <https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-database-shows-continued-incidents-of-trafficking-and-loss-of-control-of-nuclear-and-other-radioactive-material https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-database-...> Unpopular opinion: I do not think it is possible to get rid of the inherent risk of nuclear proliferation, even without building nuclear reactors in non-wealthy countries. Multiple reasons : * Non-wealthy countries wants to be first-class countries, at some point, they will desire to move on to "energy upgrades", beyond international community (read: wealthy countries), who has the right to refuse them to build such infrastructure? * Villains will move on to harder targets, but will move on, even if it requires using countries already using nuclear and are actually "non-wealthy" (for some reasonable definition) It might not be feasible to guarantee the right levels of security for these scenarios, but we can take them in account and work out nuclear reactor models which limits as much as possible the inherent risks. Consider this bad metaphor: as we are writing more and more software, some of them are increasingly critical to users, therefore, we invest in different levels of guaranteeing software is working as intended (e.g. formal methods, etc.). I see no absolute reason to not pursue the same avenue here, indeed, I even learned about nuclear reactor startups which are applying modern technology to a safer nuclear ecosystem.

dekervin 5y ago
Thanks for the answer ! I'll continue the debate because I think it's worth exploring. The problem is effectively nuclear proliferation. And in my opinion the two links you provided are embryos of solution. In the future, it will be legitimate for any medium size city in a developping country to have its own nuclear reactor. At that point the whole procurement process becomes a matter of national security for every neighboring country. Like who is deciding which design is better ? Who gets to pick the winning offer ? For exemple let's say Germany propose a safer design to a small country with the one time refuel feature, but Turkey propose another design and the buying country has better relationship with Turkey. What standing do you have to make them pick what you deem the better design ? The only recourse is to extend the legal framework and coercition power we use for arm sales. Same regarding nuclear material smuggling. Except those framework work at the moment because, few country have any use for nuclear material and even fewer want to make a go at it. Once it becomes business as usual to trade nuclear material, it will simply exhaust the monitoring capacity of any international framework. ( At least that's my opinion ) As for the second part of the argument: >> Consider this bad metaphor: as we are writing more and more software, some of them are increasingly critical to users, therefore, we invest in different levels of guaranteeing software is working as intended (e.g. formal methods, etc.). The question is who the we is ? Energy plant maintenance is closer to server farm maintenance than software building. To twist your metaphor, if many countries were to handle the data infrastructure their economy depend on, they would collapse. That's the crux of the issue, and one of the subliminal teaching the public got from Fukushima. If Japan, the country of the famed six sigma, made a serie of decisions that led to an accident, chances are it's bound to happen to most other (developping ) countries, given long enough time. And I am intentionally not delving into the specifics of those decisions. With these two sides of the issue in mind, it feels unreasonnable that so many commenters on the web at large are rooting for Germany to fail in the nuclear free direction. Edit: >> Unpopular opinion: I do not think it is possible to get rid of the inherent risk of nuclear proliferation, even without building nuclear reactors in non-wealthy countries. I just wanted to add that I commend you for that (blunt) sentence and it really should be part of the standard issues discussed when talking about nuclear.
- RaitoBezarius 5y ago

machiaweliczny 5y ago

I think simple, safe and small reactor should be possible to build. It just matter of proper engineering. In richer countries solar power works well but requires elastic grid and storage investment. In Poland many people get it and new homes get heat pumps as well plus good insulation to reduce demand. But in rich countires all that matters in production needs in the end. I think China will lead in this as they are most pressured. I was on Kos/Greece recently and was surprised that they have 0 PV panels but everyone has solar water heating. Maybe they have some other good elecricity source and that makes it uncompetitive. Most poor countries can rely on solar as it's aboundant there. They will also want nuclear though to desalt water -> see in 20 years.