5 ms·
The possibility seems remote right now and I dislike the inflammatory framing, but I think this touches on one of fundamental drawbacks of nuclear power: it is
by rectang 5y ago
The possibility seems remote right now and I dislike the inflammatory framing, but I think this touches on one of fundamental drawbacks of nuclear power: it is hard to engineer plants to guard against catastrophe because there's a lot of energy stored in an inherently dangerous form.
Hydroelectric power is often similarly vulnerable: you can engineer the dam to hold, but when something outside of tolerances appears, the downstream consequences are severe. Compare with solar or wind, where the energy source is not concentrated and so plant machinery is comparatively inert.
We are continually reassured by proponents that today's designs are invulnerable, but both history and the fundamentals of energy storage bespeak the limitations of such assurances.
- orangecat 5y agoWe are continually reassured by proponents that today's designs are invulnerable Not invulnerable, but the expected harm is far less than fossil fuels under any reasonable assumptions.
- CRConrad 5y ago> there's a lot of energy stored in an inherently dangerous form. [Citation needed]
- rectang 5y agoOh, come on. Give me a break with the lazy "citation needed" comment. I'm not going to go hunt up a reference to a paper which reasons that compared with wind and solar rays constantly around us, nuclear fuel rods are inherently dangerous, nor that a dammed river is inherently dangerous because the dam may burst. I expect people to be able to reason about such things themselves.
- CRConrad 5y agoIt's not as if windmills and solar panels are risk-free: If nothing else, they can fall over and crush people. Sure, they're smaller and lighter, so fewer people at a time; but that are a lot more of them, so many more chances for one to fall over.