4 ms·

> reactors that are (by design) unable to melt down. I believe part of the problem is that nuclear power proponents were claiming that nuclear power is safe be

> reactors that are (by design) unable to melt down. I believe part of the problem is that nuclear power proponents were claiming that nuclear power is safe before Chernobyl. Then Chernobyl happened. Then proponents were claiming that that happened due to the way Chernobyl was designed, that the Western designs were entirely different, and that it couldn't happen. Then it did happen in Fukushima. People don't care about "but the Tsunami" when what they heard before was "it cannot happen under any circumstance". (And even though that may not have been what was said I'm pretty sure that's how the claims were perceived). After feeling that they have been lied to twice, it doesn't matter whther the new reactors are actually unable to melt down or not - people are not willing to take the chance that they're being lied to again.

aaronmdjones 5y ago
It's worth pointing out (again) that Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station is older than Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station. It's not at all surprising that they would both fail in much the same manner, even in the face of promises that newer reactors can't.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  It did not, in fact, fail the same manner, except insofar as it melted down as every failed reactor did.
  - aaronmdjones 5y ago
    They failed in much the same manner being the incompetence of their management. In Chernobyl's case, it was inadequate training of their staff for a test procedure (including various side effects that this test procedure might cause) and some overrides of safety systems (in gross violation of existing regulations). In Fukushima Daiichi's case, it was management ignoring the very real risk of tsunamis, even in the face of plenty of evidence that the station was vulnerable to such (a handful of other stations around the world had been damaged by tsunamis in the preceding dozen or so years, and only fared much better because of more redundancies in their emergency systems).
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      OK, I'll buy that. Disaster as a consequence of incompetent operation is a failure mode common to all nukes that other systems don't have.
SEJeff 5y ago
They literally ignored all of the guidance on safely operating a nuclear reactor and many who told them so. Fukushima was a tragedy, but it also would not have passed inspection in the US or Europe due to blatant disregard for safeguards. https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361 https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p... here is an unbiased source on this and how it was utterly preventable.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  The problem is that people no longer believe that there is no risk of a similar document being written in the future, similarly saying that it would have been preventable, only bearing the name of their home town.
  - didericis 5y ago
    That’s fair and understandable. If you look at the safety claims of the past as equivalent to the claims of today it makes sense to be mistrustful. I think it’s fairly tragic and misguided to conclude that, though. The new plants are actually quite different (at least that’s what it appears; I’m not a nuclear engineer, so I’m trusting what seem like qualified nuclear engineers to describe the new systems). The big difference is the need for active cooling in both Fukushima and Chernobyl. The new ones don’t need that. I know that sounds like the same thing as “an rbmk reactor cannot explode”, but that’s very dismissive of decades of work since then by people completely unrelated to those responsible for past disasters. All major nuclear disasters or near disasters like three mile island were from old systems which used active cooling. The energy output of nuclear is unmatched, its safer than it used to be, and I’m pretty sure most of the expense comes from red tape. I think its good to have learned some hubris from past mistakes, but abandoning that technology would be like abandoning spaceflight. The star trek motto is not “to responsibly stay where we already are.” When it comes down to the raw physics, I don’t see how most renewables can compete. It seems like the cost effectiveness is being distorted by subsidies for renewables and red tape for nuclear. If renewables actually are cost competitive now or close too it and can legitimately be used without requiring energy rationing and causing grid problems, thats great, but I don’t really see how that’s possible. At the end of the day I don’t really care whats generating power, I just think it’s foolish to not try to have as much as possible, and I don’t see how something as energy dense as nuclear wouldn’t be massively beneficial.
Mawr 5y ago
> I believe part of the problem is that nuclear power proponents were claiming that nuclear power is safe before Chernobyl. Then Chernobyl happened. Because it was and still is safe. Planes crash too, does that mean they're not safe? Nothing is 100% safe, that'd be ridiculous. The point is that nuclear energy is the safest, by a huge margin. > people are not willing to take the chance that they're being lied to again. Well yes, the general public is irrational. We need politicians with balls that will do the right thing regardless of the ignorant public perceptions.

aaronmdjones 5y ago

It's worth pointing out (again) that Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station is older than Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station. It's not at all surprising that they would both fail in much the same manner, even in the face of promises that newer reactors can't.

ncmncm 5y ago
It did not, in fact, fail the same manner, except insofar as it melted down as every failed reactor did.
- aaronmdjones 5y ago
  They failed in much the same manner being the incompetence of their management. In Chernobyl's case, it was inadequate training of their staff for a test procedure (including various side effects that this test procedure might cause) and some overrides of safety systems (in gross violation of existing regulations). In Fukushima Daiichi's case, it was management ignoring the very real risk of tsunamis, even in the face of plenty of evidence that the station was vulnerable to such (a handful of other stations around the world had been damaged by tsunamis in the preceding dozen or so years, and only fared much better because of more redundancies in their emergency systems).
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    OK, I'll buy that. Disaster as a consequence of incompetent operation is a failure mode common to all nukes that other systems don't have.

SEJeff 5y ago

They literally ignored all of the guidance on safely operating a nuclear reactor and many who told them so. Fukushima was a tragedy, but it also would not have passed inspection in the US or Europe due to blatant disregard for safeguards. https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361 https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p... here is an unbiased source on this and how it was utterly preventable.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
The problem is that people no longer believe that there is no risk of a similar document being written in the future, similarly saying that it would have been preventable, only bearing the name of their home town.
- didericis 5y ago
  That’s fair and understandable. If you look at the safety claims of the past as equivalent to the claims of today it makes sense to be mistrustful. I think it’s fairly tragic and misguided to conclude that, though. The new plants are actually quite different (at least that’s what it appears; I’m not a nuclear engineer, so I’m trusting what seem like qualified nuclear engineers to describe the new systems). The big difference is the need for active cooling in both Fukushima and Chernobyl. The new ones don’t need that. I know that sounds like the same thing as “an rbmk reactor cannot explode”, but that’s very dismissive of decades of work since then by people completely unrelated to those responsible for past disasters. All major nuclear disasters or near disasters like three mile island were from old systems which used active cooling. The energy output of nuclear is unmatched, its safer than it used to be, and I’m pretty sure most of the expense comes from red tape. I think its good to have learned some hubris from past mistakes, but abandoning that technology would be like abandoning spaceflight. The star trek motto is not “to responsibly stay where we already are.” When it comes down to the raw physics, I don’t see how most renewables can compete. It seems like the cost effectiveness is being distorted by subsidies for renewables and red tape for nuclear. If renewables actually are cost competitive now or close too it and can legitimately be used without requiring energy rationing and causing grid problems, thats great, but I don’t really see how that’s possible. At the end of the day I don’t really care whats generating power, I just think it’s foolish to not try to have as much as possible, and I don’t see how something as energy dense as nuclear wouldn’t be massively beneficial.

Mawr 5y ago

> I believe part of the problem is that nuclear power proponents were claiming that nuclear power is safe before Chernobyl. Then Chernobyl happened. Because it was and still is safe. Planes crash too, does that mean they're not safe? Nothing is 100% safe, that'd be ridiculous. The point is that nuclear energy is the safest, by a huge margin. > people are not willing to take the chance that they're being lied to again. Well yes, the general public is irrational. We need politicians with balls that will do the right thing regardless of the ignorant public perceptions.