4 ms·

The idea of a power source that, when failed, can wipe out a significant amount of live-able land, large swaths of population, irradiate rivers, etc, seems insa

by voz_ 5y ago

The idea of a power source that, when failed, can wipe out a significant amount of live-able land, large swaths of population, irradiate rivers, etc, seems insane. The risk reward factor just does not seem to be there. Sure there are redundancies. Sure there are threat models. However, everything fails. Mistakes happen, black swan events occur. What is the calculus here? How can it ever be made in good faith?

kuang_eleven 5y ago
I find the truth to be quite the opposite; nuclear opponents vastly overstate risks and don't consider externalities from other power sources. For example, coal power plants largely don't have a scary, infrequent failure mode, but they cause far more deaths per kW generated than nuclear from ongoing emissions and more frequent lower scale events.
p1mrx 5y ago
Fossil fuels are already wiping out a significant amount of livable land, through normal operation. We need to invest in carbon-free energy sources that won't cause blackouts at the whim of the weather. Reaching 100% decarbonization via wind/solar will be very difficult because it requires overbuilding, days to weeks of storage, and transmission upgrades.
jszymborski 5y ago
Currently, we're mostly consuming oil and coal. The equation there isn't _whether_ it'll wipe out a significant amount of live-able land, but rather a guarantee that it will. Nuclear Reactors destroy the environment when they fail, oil and coal destroys it when it works. Nothing is w/o a footprint. Solar and wind requires batteries which require rare earth metals which cause environmental and social inequalities. Right now, however, the focus needs to be on decommissioning coal and oil as fast as we can, and nuclear has an important role to play in that.
gnulinux 5y ago
Risk: happened literally once, we have all kinds of engineering knowledge how to prevent it. Reward: energy that doesn't destroy the planet.

by voz_ 5y ago

kuang_eleven 5y ago

I find the truth to be quite the opposite; nuclear opponents vastly overstate risks and don't consider externalities from other power sources. For example, coal power plants largely don't have a scary, infrequent failure mode, but they cause far more deaths per kW generated than nuclear from ongoing emissions and more frequent lower scale events.

p1mrx 5y ago

Fossil fuels are already wiping out a significant amount of livable land, through normal operation. We need to invest in carbon-free energy sources that won't cause blackouts at the whim of the weather. Reaching 100% decarbonization via wind/solar will be very difficult because it requires overbuilding, days to weeks of storage, and transmission upgrades.

jszymborski 5y ago

Currently, we're mostly consuming oil and coal. The equation there isn't _whether_ it'll wipe out a significant amount of live-able land, but rather a guarantee that it will. Nuclear Reactors destroy the environment when they fail, oil and coal destroys it when it works. Nothing is w/o a footprint. Solar and wind requires batteries which require rare earth metals which cause environmental and social inequalities. Right now, however, the focus needs to be on decommissioning coal and oil as fast as we can, and nuclear has an important role to play in that.

gnulinux 5y ago

Risk: happened literally once, we have all kinds of engineering knowledge how to prevent it. Reward: energy that doesn't destroy the planet.